36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 32
CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 1, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1405
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| DR. ROBERT BIRGENEAU
|
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1410
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| SCOTLAND
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1415
| CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2000
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| GOVERNMENT REVENUES
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| LABOUR STANDARDS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| HEALTH
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1435
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN HIV/AIDS LEGAL NETWORK
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1440
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1445
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| POLLUTION
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY IN QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Auditor General's Report
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Decorum
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADIAN LAND MINE FUND
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-17. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1515
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES FOR
|
| Bill C-388. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1520
| Nisga'a Agreement
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Gasoline
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Taiwan
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| The Senate
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Louis Riel
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1525
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hepatitis
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill C-389. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1530
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. John Cannis |
1550
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1555
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1620
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1625
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1645
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1650
1655
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1715
1720
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Second reading
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1750
1755
1800
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1805
1810
| Mr. André Bachand |
1815
1820
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 32
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 1, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past July it was my pleasure to host a one day forum on the
homeless in London, Ontario.
The Minister of Labour, as part of her special assignment on
homelessness, spent a very informative day with us in our city.
A wide cross-section of agencies which deal with the homeless
described the nature of the problem in London and district.
Several homeless people also had an opportunity to speak directly
to the minister.
I wish to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Minister of
Labour, for her tremendous dedication and hard work in preparing
for the government a plan of action to deal with the problem of
homelessness. Of course, to effect such a plan significant
additional funding will be required in the next budget.
I am confident that our current Minister of Finance will make
this serious problem a priority for more funding so that we can
eradicate homelessness and provide for every Canadian a proper
home in which to live.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week representatives of 135 sovereign nations are
gathered in Seattle to launch the next set of global trade
negotiations.
Canada, which exports more than 40% of its gross domestic
product, has a vital interest in these talks, especially with
regard to unfair subsidization of European and American
agricultural products.
Habitual Canadian and American protesters, most of them warmly
dressed, well fed, middle class and comfortable, have adopted
opposition to global commerce as their cause of the week and they
are trying to shut down the talks.
I wonder how many of those sanctimonious obstructionists in
cutesy costumes have ever shown the courage of their conviction
by refusing to buy products from countries where labour is
routinely exploited. Do they buy $50 North American shirts, or
do they go for the made in China product at $12?
* * *
WORLD AIDS DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, a day to pause and reflect upon
this devastating disease and renew our resolve to overcome it.
The theme for this year's public awareness campaign is “Listen,
Learn, Live!”, which aims to raise awareness about the need to
strengthen AIDS programs for children and young people.
According to the 1999 UN AIDS update, an estimated 570,000
children aged 14 or younger became infected with HIV/AIDS
worldwide. Over 90% were babies born to HIV positive women.
There are too many children being affected by HIV/AIDS. We must
redouble our efforts to eradicate AIDS and to educate our young
people about this deadly disease.
In the spirit of the “Listen, Learn, Live!” campaign the
Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and
Development, in collaboration with the Canadian Public Health
Association and the Canadian Society of International Health,
provide parliamentarians with information on HIV/AIDS.
I encourage all members of the House to visit the information
kiosk.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at its
convention last weekend, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of
Canada passed a resolution in favour of volunteerism in Canada.
1405
Volunteers play a vital role in our society, working with the
disabled, with newcomers, with the disadvantaged and the poor,
and with people in crisis.
The Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has therefore
called upon the Government of Canada to offer concrete
encouragement to volunteer action. This concern confirms the
great importance we attach to the two fundamental values
underlying the Liberal program: equity and justice.
I salute the communities of my riding, and Cowansville in
particular, represented here today by its mayor, for their
involvement with volunteerism.
* * *
WORLD AIDS DAY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we are
marking World AIDS Day in Laval, with sadness yet with some hope
as well.
Sida-Vie Laval and Maison Dominique are hosting a special event
this evening at which the paintings of Lise de Maisonneuve will
be offered for sale, with part of the proceeds going to these
two organizations.
The evening will also mark the official opening of Maison
Dominique. The victims of this terrible infection, and their
loved ones, will now have two resources available to them in
Laval.
More than 35 million people in the world are living with HIV or
AIDS, including 54,000 Canadians, and another 6 million join
their ranks every year, among them over 4,000 Canadians. There
are already close to 120 known cases in Laval.
Until this scourge is eradicated, organizations such as Sida-Vie
Laval and Maison Dominique make it possible for victims to lead
more normal lives and for them and their loved ones to better
cope with what is happening to them.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday I had the pleasure of participating in a grassroots
democratic meeting on the Nisga'a agreement in Vancouver
sponsored by the official opposition.
Contrary to the Liberal government's version of democracy, with
stacked witness lists and no public forum, this meeting was open
to all who wished to appear. Yes, there were experts who put
forward their opinion on various aspects of the agreement. More
importantly, the microphone was open for anyone who wished to
voice their opinion on this controversial agreement.
Democracy is not just about an opportunity to vote every four or
five years. Democracy is intended to be a verb, where there is
participation and action and free debate by the common people
represented here in the House of Commons. At the conclusion of
the debate, a result is reached that is absent of class
distinction or arbitrary decisions by a select few, most notably
in the Prime Minister's office. All too often the Liberals seem
to be afraid to listen and consult with the very people who
employ them, the citizens of Canada.
Last Friday was democracy in action. I only wish that the
members across the way could have been there to see it.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1988,
World AIDS Day has held a special place in the fight against
AIDS.
It gives each of us the opportunity to express our
messages of compassion, hope, respect and solidarity to all AIDS
victims.
While we are now more familiar with AIDS, it still elicits
strong prejudice. We must therefore work together to fight the
unjustifiable discrimination that all too often confronts the
victims of HIV and AIDS.
Triple therapy represents a real hope now, but its prohibitive
cost makes it available for the moment in developed countries
only. AIDS therefore continues its ravages throughout the
world, especially in Africa.
While the number of AIDS cases in Quebec has dropped in recent
years, the number of HIV infections has not. We still do not
have a vaccine or successful treatment for AIDS. Prevention
remains the only way to fight this ill.
On December 1, let us join together in the fight against AIDS.
* * *
[English]
DR. ROBERT BIRGENEAU
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, St. Michael's College School has done it again. The
Basilian fathers can be proud.
Dr. Robert Birgeneau has just been chosen to be the 14th
president of the University of Toronto. His appointment has been
acclaimed as brilliant by the Ontario Council of Universities.
Dr. Birgeneau is a Toronto native and a citizen of Canada. He
received his B.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Toronto
and his Ph.D. in physics from Yale. He was on the faculty of
Yale for one year and then at Oxford University for a year
through the National Research Council.
Dr. Birgeneau has been the dean of science at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology since 1991, and while there he brought
MIT's physics department to the top. He said yesterday “One of
my deepest commitments is to ensure that every qualified student
who wants an education from the University of Toronto gets one,
regardless of their financial situation”.
We welcome him back to Toronto, to the University of Toronto,
and we wish him and his wife Mary the very best.
* * *
1410
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, yet from Bangkok to Bombay,
Capetown to Vancouver, the deadly disease wrecks havoc.
In Canada the rate of infection, particularly amongst our youth,
is appallingly high. In fact, a recent survey shows that 27% of
youth did not know anything about AIDS whatsoever, many believing
that it affected only intravenous drug abusers.
Internationally the virus is wrecking havoc. In the next five
years it has been estimated that one-tenth of the Russian
population will be HIV positive. In Africa, life expectancy has
dropped from 65 years to 40 years. Many pregnant women who need
drugs to protect their unborn children do not have access to
them, so the babies get it too.
We need a cure. We need education. We need action to deal with
this scourge and to stop the epidemic of AIDS. Let us hope that
next year we will have good news, that the tide will change to
reverse this illness, that less and less people will be infected
and that more and more lives will be saved.
* * *
WORLD AIDS DAY
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on World AIDS Day to bring attention to an important
initiative by Health Canada to promote AIDS awareness.
Last month the Minister of Health taped a segment with the
popular music band, Wide Mouth Mason, to raise youth awareness of
this disease and how it can be prevented. This initiative marks
an important awareness of the necessity of targeting messages to
youth in ways they can best relate.
The minister said earlier today at the release of his second
annual report to Canadians on the progress made on the Canadian
strategy on HIV/AIDS, “We must reach out to Canada's young
people and listen and learn with them, as the future path of this
disease is in their hands”.
The segment will continue to air on MuchMusic and will help to
ensure that we will be able to provide meaningful information to
our youth on the importance of safe sex or abstinence in
preventing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
SCOTLAND
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was
St. Andrew's day. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate
Scotland and the Scots on the distance they have come in recent
years.
In the September 1997 referendum, the Scottish people chose to
revive their parliament, which had not existed since 1707. The
Parliament of Scotland opened its doors on July 1 of this year.
For the first time in centuries, the people of Scotland
celebrated St. Andrew's day by putting their national pride in
their own political institutions.
Throughout centuries of English domination, the Scots have kept
their soul and their identity. Patiently, they awaited the hour
of their rebirth. It was peaceful and democratic.
On the question of the referendum, George Reid, the Deputy
Speaker of the Parliament of Scotland, said the following at
Mont-Tremblant this October:
[English]
“Certainly the position in our country is that it would be 50%
plus one, and that is clear for the British government too”.
[Translation]
Greetings to all our Scottish friends, for whom Quebecers feel
both friendship and affection.
* * *
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, all
members of the House have received thousands of letters and
signatures on petitions regarding the issue of child pornography.
In their letters and petitions, my constituents quite rightly
make the point that not only is pornography degrading to the
individuals depicted in it, it has a negative effect on the moral
fabric of our society generally. This is doubly so when we
consider the issue of child pornography. The use and abuse of
children for that purpose is so degrading and reprehensible that
it deserves special attention by government.
Therefore, I call on the government to take the necessary legal
and legislative actions required to curb the production and
distribution of pornography, especially child pornography.
Canada is a free society, but with freedom comes responsibility.
On the issue of child pornography in particular, I feel the time
has come for government and all of us here to work to bring child
pornography to an end.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
support for Quebec sovereignty in decline, the Prime Minister had
an opportunity to renew federalism and to build a Canada that
works better for all of its citizens. But all by himself,
without consulting other federalist leaders, he made another
choice. He chose not to strengthen federalism but instead to
fuel sovereignist sentiments.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister's threat to take unilateral action runs the
risk of rekindling the sovereignist flame and threatening
Canada's future.
The supreme court found that clarity is a condition to all
negotiations on secession.
I am in favour of a united Canada, but if the sovereignists hold
a referendum, the National Assembly will have to ensure that
clarity is the order of the day.
* * *
1415
[English]
CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2000
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in two months Ottawa will have the honour
of hosting the Canadian Special Olympics 2000 Winter Games.
What a wonderful way to greet the new millennium. These
athletes train hard in their chosen sports. Many compete
nationally and go on to the world stage.
There is much truth in the Special Olympics oath: “Let me win
but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt”.
On behalf of all members in the House, I welcome the Team Canada
Special Olympics athletes in Ottawa today. These are some of the
special Olympians who represented Canada this summer in North
Carolina.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general's report harshly criticizes the
government for its mismanagement of various agencies and
services, but it applauds the government in one notable area, the
efficiency with which the government collects $21 billion a year
from Canadians through the GST.
Is it not ironic that the party that advocated the abolition of
the GST is now impressing the auditors with the effectiveness
with which it collects the tax.
Why is the government better at collecting taxes than it is at
cutting, abolishing and scrapping them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a debate a long time ago. The hon. member should
read very carefully the red book number one where we made our
policy very clear on that.
I am very happy to accept the words of the Leader of the
Opposition complimenting the government for being very effective
in making sure Canadians pay their due to the government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, only a Liberal would be proud of collecting taxes. The
auditor general has also joined business and labour critics in
condemning the government's mishandling of employment insurance,
particularly the payroll taxes that support it. He says “parliament
and the public are left to speculate about the factors driving
decisions concerning one of the government's largest and most
visible programs”. They are left to speculate because the
government is imposing payroll taxes far higher than those
required to support the program.
EI no longer means employment insurance. It means extra income
for the finance minister.
Why is the government so good at collecting payroll taxes and so
bad at reducing them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have reduced them. When we started it was $3.07 and it
was projected to be $3.30. We have reduced it every year and
keep reducing it all the time.
The hon. member should know that when we were in
opposition—something that we are not projecting to happen
soon—we remember that at that time the UI fund was in a deficit
position. In those terrible days, the taxpayers had to take from
the consolidated revenue fund to pay the deficit that we do not—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the taxpayers are not impressed.
I have a copy of a bill from a Saskatchewan farmer who recently
bought $531 of gasoline for his farm. When provincial sales tax,
federal excise taxes and GST were added, his bill came to $1,137.
That is more than $600 in taxes. In other words, the taxes were
almost $100 more than the gasoline, and the government says it is
helping the farmers.
The farmer asks, why is the government so good at collecting
taxes and so bad at cutting them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will tell that
farmer that when we started as a government, he had to pay 11%
interest on the loan he had on his farm.
It is because we have given a balanced budget and good
management that he started saving thousands and thousands of
dollars every year because the interest rates are lower.
* * *
1420
GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the government, farmers are losing their farms. The
government is so good at taxing people; it has turned it into
an export.
When Castro was casting around for the most oppressive tax
system in the world, guess which one he chose? Guess who is
paying for it?
The government has spent $5 million to show the dictatorship in
communist Cuba a thing or two about squeezing the last peso out
of destitute Cubans.
Why has the government become so good at taking down taxpayers
that we are now the envy of dictatorships around the world?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are the envy of most economies around the world
because our economy is doing so well.
The hon. member talks about exports. Let me give him an
example. The numbers came out yesterday. Real goods and
services exports surged 15% in the last quarter alone.
The leader of the opposition talks about the GST. Yes, our
revenues are up because consumer confidence is up, and Canadians
are buying. Our revenues are up because the economy is firing on
all cylinders.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's revenues are up because taxes are at record high
levels, thanks to the minister.
Canada's tax system might be a great help to dictators like
Castro, but it is a pox on the people of Cuba. What did the
people of Cuba ever do to the minister that he has taken the
extreme measure of siccing Revenue Canada on them? Oh, the
humanity. What did they do?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand why the Reform Party is focusing on Cuba.
It is because they cannot criticize this government.
Let us take a look. The numbers came out yesterday. Canada's
gross domestic product advanced 4.7 in the third quarter. That
is four quarters in a row. Our business investment is up an
average of 12%. We are now creating jobs at a faster rate than
any other G-7 country.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Radio-Canada reported that the government was putting
the finishing touches to a bill setting the conditions and rules
for a future Quebec referendum.
Will the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a bill to
the House and tell us whether he intends to introduce it before
Christmas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
will not have any legislation on how the referendum should be
conducted.
If there is a referendum—and 72% of Quebecers hope that there
will not be—it will be conducted according to the provisions of
the provincial referendum legislation.
What we are saying is that we will state clearly the conditions
applying to any future negotiations well in advance.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has also forgotten to mention that the poll he
keeps referring to revealed that 66% of Quebecers would like him
to step down.
An hon. member: Now that is a clear majority.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: In his speech to Liberal delegates on the
weekend, the Prime Minister held up Newfoundland's last two
referendums as examples where the questions had been clear.
We know that 52% of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of joining
confederation. Clearly, 50% plus one was the rule used.
How then does the Prime Minister explain that the same rule of
50% plus one would not apply now, if the question were clear?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member had done his homework, he would know that,
in an initial referendum, 86% of Newfoundlanders voted to
separate from Great Britain. The percentage for separating from
Great Britain was 86%.
Then, in a second referendum, they had to decide whether they
wanted to be an independent country, or a province of Canada.
But on the separation question, only 14% voted to remain part
of Great Britain.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister justifies wanting to get involved in the Quebec
referendum process by saying that the supreme court used the
expression “clear majority” 25 times in its ruling and more than
10 times in its conclusion.
Did the Prime Minister ever wonder why the justices, who had a
golden opportunity to clarify things, never questioned the 50%
plus one rule?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the court was very clear on that issue. It did not mention any
numbers, but said that there had to be a clear majority. Had the
court meant a simple majority, it would have referred to a
majority. There would have been no need to qualify that majority
by adding the word “clear”.
A majority is a majority. In my opinion, a clear majority means
much more than a simple majority.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
what the court had in mind was not 50% plus one, it would have
talked about a qualified majority.
Long before the reference to the supreme court, the Prime
Minister's intention not to recognize the 50% plus one rule
should the yes side win was known to all, including the supreme
court justices.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why, under the circumstances, the
supreme court did not deem necessary to set a rule other than
the 50% plus one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
simply want to quote one line from the ruling and I would like
the hon. member to think about it. The court wrote “Democracy
means more than simple majority rule”.
I think this statement is pretty clear. And it is in the ruling.
I have told this House and all Canadians repeatedly during the
referendum campaign that I would never negotiate independence on
the basis of a one vote majority. No self-respecting head of
government would agree to break up a country without a real
consensus.
* * *
[English]
LABOUR STANDARDS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister stated that labour standards do not
belong in trade agreements, send them to the ILO. By contrast,
President Clinton stated yesterday that core labour standards
should be part of every trade agreement and we ought not to buy
from countries that oppress workers with poor labour conditions
and lack of a living income.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that labour
standards do not belong in trade agreements or does he agree with
President Clinton?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that we insisted before we
agreed to NAFTA that the labour conditions be in the agreement.
They were not before we formed the government and we insisted on
having them there.
I just want to report at this moment that the Minister for
International Trade has been named today to be the head of the
WTO working group on trade in developing countries, just to show
the House of Commons the reputation of Canada with other
countries.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us
hope that the trade minister stiffens his backbone and begins
standing up for labour rights and environmental protection. It is
pathetic when the Canadian government has to take lessons in
social justice from the Americans.
Listen to what else President Clinton said yesterday: “They're
going to have to open up the WTO process so that the voices of
labour and the environment can be heard”. Yet for our Prime
Minister, labour issues belong at the ILO and environmental
issues just are not on the table.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that trade and labour,
that trade and environment are inextricably linked?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): That is
what we demanded before we signed the NAFTA agreement. We were
opposed to the previous NAFTA agreement because they were not
talking about the environment, because they were not talking
about labour conditions and because they were not talking about
water.
We showed our colours long before the hon. member got up to ask
these questions.
* * *
1430
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in his report tabled yesterday the auditor general said there
might be a link between the awarding of contracts by the
government and donations to the Liberal Party of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Are there any links between moneys awarded to companies through
the TJF fund and financial contributions to Liberal members?
The Speaker: Order, please. I think that is a question
about a political party, as I heard it, and I would rule the
question out of order. Does the member have another question?
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in Papineau—Saint-Denis, represented by her predecessor at HRDC,
a company by the name of Rougier Inc., which received $81,000
from the TJF program, gave Liberal candidates of Montreal in the
1997 election a total amount of $8,400. Then in 1998, after
receiving a TJF amount, it increased the donation to the Liberal
Party of Canada by $1,000 and received contracts of over $40,000.
Are there any links between donations to the Liberal Party of
Canada and getting—
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
* * *
HEALTH
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has absolutely no idea what it is actually
spending on health care. It knows that it slashed $21 billion
from the health care budget, but other than that the details are
getting pretty sketchy.
The auditor general says that the federal government has no idea
whether its health care spending ever makes it to the waiting
lines or the emergency rooms. The truth is that it ain't even
coming close.
Why does the government care so little about the health of
Canadians that it does not even bother to monitor where Canadian
health tax dollars are going?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general made some very useful recommendations
yesterday. In fact we are already implementing some of them. On
this very point the member should know that we are now acting to
fill that gap.
Last February the government announced that it was to invest
significant sums in developing an information system so that
every year we would get an annual report on the state of the
health care system in Canada, including the amounts spent by all
governments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is right, but this is not something new that the auditor
general has talked about. It should be acted on before he even
thinks of reporting how despicable it is.
The auditor general also says that there are weaknesses in the
surveillance of diseases and injuries which are compromising the
ability of Health Canada to protect Canadians. That is what it
is all about.
After confiscating half the income of Canadians on taxes one
would think the government would take it upon itself to try to
protect Canadians from health risks. Why is the government so
good at cutting and so bad at caring?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we announced in the last budget that we were increasing by $11.5
billion over the next five years the transfers to provinces. We
did that only after they all agreed that every nickel would be
devoted to health and nothing else.
Part of our commitment, as the Prime Minister has often said, is
to have a report card that will tell Canadians what they are
getting for their money in the health care system. We believe
not only in caring but in accountability.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Transport expressed surprise that the
President of InterCanadian did not lay the blame for its
difficult situation on the management team of the company.
According to him, they are the ones responsible for the
difficulties the company has been experiencing.
How can the minister justify his lack of interest in saving the
900 jobs at InterCanadian, while he has been involved for some
months to a greater extent than necessary in trying to save
Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely simplistic for the company to attempt
to put the responsibility on the federal government for the
financial difficulties of InterCanadian, or to attribute it to
the battle between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, without
assuming any responsibility itself. InterCanadian bought Air
Atlantic, and this was a very troubled company.
As I have already said, InterCanadian's problems were very
evident a year ago.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Transport's explanation for the difficult
situation of InterCanadian is excess capacity on regional
routes.
1435
In this regard, how can he explain that he is still refusing to
say he will not grant a regional licence to a future carrier
based in Hamilton? Would it not be totally logical to take a
clear position in this matter?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Hamilton service is part of the Air Canada
proposal, which is being examined by the Standing Committee on
Transport at this time. The hon. member sits on that committee.
However, I must emphasize the fact that there is excess capacity
on the regional routes, in Quebec particularly. I am told, for
instance, that there are 400 available seats on the
Sept-Îles—Montreal route weekly, but only 80 passengers.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the HRD minister about a $1 million
transitional jobs fund grant to set up a call centre in her
riding.
The company was told that it would not be eligible for a TJF
grant if it set up next door in Sarnia, which is strange because
the unemployment rate in Sarnia was 25% higher and the
unemployment rate in the minister's riding did not qualify under
TJF rules.
Yesterday the minister dodged the question, so I will ask her
again today. Does the minister think she has a right to rip off
the TJF and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the House that no
rules were broken on the application for transitional jobs funds
in my riding.
I also want to make it clear that by implying that is so the
hon. member is suggesting that the member for Kootenay—Columbia
with an unemployment rate of 10.5% in his riding, who received
$3.5 million to create 291 jobs in his riding, was breaking the
rules. She is suggesting that the member for Okanagan—Shuswap
with an unemployment rate of 10.5% in his riding, who received
$800,000 for the creation of 46 jobs, was breaking the rules.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to turn around and talk to
her own members about the importance of the transitional jobs
fund.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am talking to the minister who is responsible for the
fund. I might say that if the minister's department is giving
out funds when the grants do not qualify she should be doing
something about it.
Why does this minister not just acknowledge that she is getting
special treatment from this fund and tell Canadians what she
intends to do to make sure that their money is not misused in
this way?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no special treatment here. I
want to clarify for the House that in many ridings where the
unemployment level was less than 12%, where indeed there were
areas of high unemployment, TJF projects were approved. They
include the riding of Nanaimo—Alberni, the riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan, and the riding of
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
Transitional jobs fund moneys have been approved in ridings
right across the country where unemployment levels have been
high. It is as a result of those projects that we are seeing
success and a reduced unemployment level.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HIV/AIDS LEGAL NETWORK
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network released a report on
injection drug users and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The report
indicates that Canada's repressive approach, which treats drug
users like offenders, deters these users from making use of
public health services.
Does the minister agree that the Controlled Drugs Act is a
serious impediment to the establishment of needle exchange
centres with safe material that is not infected, a situation
which is not compatible with an effective strategy in the fight
against AIDS?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday I met Ralf Jürgens, who wrote the report with his team.
I discussed his recommendations and I promised to provide a
detailed answer in the coming months. Mr. Jürgens made
interesting and meaningful recommendations, and his report is
now under consideration.
1440
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell the House now what he intends to do with the
recommendation of the Canadian Legal Network to amend the
Controlled Drugs Act, so that injecting devices used under the
supervision of a health professional are not deemed to be a
designated substance under the act? We would like an answer now.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
view, the most important thing is to have treatments available
for those who need them.
I would rather provide an answer after careful consideration of
the report. I will examine it and discuss it with my officials
and I will provide an answer at the appropriate time.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians continually read about how armed forces operations have
been hampered by the failures of the antiquated Sea King
helicopter. It is really no wonder. The 1994 defence white
paper stated that the Sea King helicopter was at the end of its
operational life.
The government promised to put into service a replacement by the
end of the decade. We have four weeks left. My question is for
the government and for the Prime Minister. Where is the
replacement for the Sea King helicopter?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the maritime helicopter
project is our top priority in terms of equipment, and we are in
the process of developing a procurement strategy.
This project is based on a statement of requirements, but
several other issues must be examined and other departments must
be consulted. The government will make an announcement when
these issues have been resolved.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is putting Canadians at risk. The white paper
clearly promised to put into service a replacement for the Sea
King helicopter by the end of the decade, not to tender a
contract but to find a replacement for the Sea King by the end of
the decade.
The government has reneged on its promise, which has caused
reduction in our armed forces capability and has put air crew at
risk. Why has the government broken this promise?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised by
the hon. member's question.
The minister appeared before the committee the other day and he
made it very clear that the new helicopters will become
operational around the year 2005, if I am not mistaken. This is
what the minister said. Until then, we will rely on the Sea King
helicopters.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed the
following motion:
That the National Assembly call on the federal Minister of
Justice to suspend passage of Bill C-3 so that she can better
evaluate the provinces' enforcement of the measures provided in
the Young Offenders Act and so that Quebec can maintain its
strategy of intervention based on the needs of young people and
favouring prevention and rehabilitation.
My question is very simple. How does the Minister of Justice
intend to respond to the unanimous motion by the National
Assembly of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact on Thursday and Friday
I will have the opportunity to discuss the renewal of our youth
justice system with provincial and territorial colleagues,
including the Attorney General of Quebec. I look forward to that
opportunity.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
AIDS is a disease that reaches across all borders. This year 2.6
million men, women and children will die from AIDS. Some 95% of
those infected with HIV live in developing countries with limited
resources to fight back.
What is Canada doing to help AIDS victims and to prevent further
spread of the virus in developing countries?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recognition of World AIDS Day I have
announced $50 million in new funding to help in the war against
HIV-AIDS in Africa where the pandemic has been more severe to
date.
Some 33.6 million people in the world are HIV positive and 70%
of them are in Africa. In the next 10 short years more than 40
million children will be orphaned in Africa. I also announced
today an international HIV-AIDS conference in the year 2000.
* * *
1445
RCMP
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1997 Corporal Robert Read discovered evidence of a cover-up by
RCMP officers in a visa scam investigation in Canada's Hong Kong
office. He made serious allegations of criminal misconduct but
he could not get the RCMP to review his allegations. Read has
been told he is being suspended for repeating his allegations in
the province this summer, yet the RCMP still has not investigated
the cover-up.
Will the solicitor general appoint a special prosecutor to
investigate these serious charges?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any allegation of wrongdoing that is
brought to the RCMP is operational, and if it is to be
investigated the RCMP will decide what measures to take.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I see. So the RCMP investigates itself in spite of the fact that
there is this serious allegation by one of its own members.
This issue goes to the heart of Canada's security. We are
talking about allegations of a visa scam that has allowed triad
gang members to freely enter Canada. They got free entry by
compromising Canada's computer security system in Hong Kong.
These are serious allegations.
Why will the minister not take them seriously and appoint a
special prosecutor?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that if
there is any problem with the operations of the RCMP, there is a
complaints division that he can apply to, the Public Complaints
Commission. I do not run the operations of the RCMP.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of the Environment failed to take responsibility and
show leadership in protecting Canada's water resources. The
minister failed to reach an agreement with five of the provinces
and these are the minister's own words when he conceded that our
water resources are vulnerable as a result. Will he now do the
responsible thing, the right thing, and enact a federal ban on
all water exports?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if only the hon. member
would talk to his provincial colleagues in British Columbia.
This government believes that the issue of water exports is an
environmental issue not a trade issue. Eight provincial
governments and territorial governments agreed with the federal
government in a national water accord.
We fully expect four other provinces to come onside once they
have consulted with their own cabinets. I would encourage the
Government of British Columbia to get onboard because we are
doing the right thing.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who
will remember back in February of this year when the House of
Commons, with the government's support, supported a motion
calling for federal legislation banning bulk water exports. That
was a motion of the House that was virtually supported by all
political parties. The Prime Minister will certainly be aware
that Canada has the constitutional authority to regulate
international trade and to ban bulk water exports.
Why does the Prime Minister not do what all Canadians actually
want him to do, show leadership on this issue and introduce the
appropriate legislation that the House called for?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, the Prime
Minister has shown leadership. In fact, there is a bill already
in the House that will be coming up for second reading as soon as
it can be arranged among House leaders.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, things
must not only be right but they must appear to be right. In
March 1997 a company called Bas Iris received over $8 million
from the transitional jobs fund. That company is based in the
riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. It gave over $5,000 to
the government candidate in the election and over $1,000 to the
governing party.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development not agree that
it is inappropriate for companies receiving funds from a
government program to turn around and give money back to a
political party that gave it the money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will agree with is that the
transitional jobs fund has done an extraordinary job at making
sure Canadians get back to work. What I will agree with is that
for $300 million we have been able to leverage over $2 billion to
ensure there is work for Canadians who have not had it in ridings
right across the country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
are many in the House who are in the Christmas spirit, but the
Minister of Human Resources Development seems to forget that it
is better to give than to receive.
The minister continues to deny even the possibility that the TJF
money was handed over inappropriately.
1450
In the spirit of the upcoming holiday, will the minister
guarantee that her New Year's resolution will be to ensure that
the Canada jobs fund money will only go to those ridings with
serious and legitimate unemployment problems?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where they have gone.
* * *
[Translation]
RESEARCH
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this knowledge-based revolution, the future will belong to those
countries with the best and most innovative human resources.
This means that there is nothing more important than the
research done in our universities.
My question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research
and Development. What does the Government of Canada intend to do
to intensify research in Canada?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the throne speech,
the Prime Minister announced an investment of $180 million over
three years to establish 2,000 university research chairs in
order to support our universities.
Following the budget, the Minister of Finance increased the
budget of the Canadian foundation for innovation to $1 billion.
Last week, the Minister of Health announced the creation of the
Canadian institutes of health research.
I myself announced last week a $1 million prize, the Gerhard
Herzberg prize for research, a prize that may be awarded in
amounts of $200,000 a year for five years to continue research.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general, following
on the question of my colleague.
The solicitor general says that Corporal Read should go to the
Public Complaints Commission with his concerns. Corporal Read
went to the Public Complaints Commission in 1998. He was told
that was the inappropriate body to investigate this. We have the
RCMP officials investigating one of their own members who is
laying criminal complaints against them.
Is it not time that the solicitor general looked at this very
seriously and appointed an independent prosecutor to get to the
bottom of this issue?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP are currently conducting a
criminal investigation. The commissioner has also assured me
that he has assigned a senior officer to this investigation.
* * *
[Translation]
POLLUTION
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
throne speech, the government promised to address
pollution-related problems and to support innovative clean-up
technologies.
But a recently published study revealed that the city of
Jonquière holds the somewhat dubious title of the city with the
highest concentrations of toxic products, such as PAHs, dioxins
and furans.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to keep his promises and move
quickly to free up funds so that the industries and communities
in the Jonquière region can improve the quality of the air we
breathe?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working with
the province of Quebec trying to ameliorate the situation in
Jonquière. The province has assumed some responsibility and we
hope it will live up to that responsibility.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on this World AIDS Day it is important to note that HIV
infections are going up and that half of the new cases are related
to drug injection use. What do we get from the minister? We
get more studies but no action.
He refers to the Canadian HIV-AIDS legal network, which has made
a very specific recommendation of getting the government to move
on to a public health strategy and start to deal with this as a
public health crisis, and the minister says that he needs to
study it.
Will the minister finally make a commitment to change to a harm
reduction health strategy and act promptly on the recommendations
of this latest report?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have a strategy and it is a good one. It involves $42 million
a year to fight HIV-AIDS. It will prevent HIV infections. It
will help researchers to find treatments and, one day, a cure. It
will support community groups that provide assistance to people
in communities across the country who are HIV positive or
suffering from AIDS.
Part of the strategy is the creation of an AIDS ministerial
council made up of 20 people from across the country who advise
the government on whether we are doing it right. That report was
a good one and we are studying its recommendations. We have a
strategy that is working.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, for over
a week now the referendum debate has raged more fiercely than
ever. All this talk has created expectations, positive or
negative, concerns, anger, even disappointment.
Many people are asking themselves the following question:
Unless this is nothing more than an empty and divisive debate,
could the Prime Minister tell us where is the beef?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, how long will it take the Progressive Conservatives
to understand that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the reason there is a
referendum debate is because of the first article in the Parti
Quebecois' program, because the PQ keeps saying that it wants to
hold a referendum at a time of its choosing, using the confused
and illegal procedure of 1995, and because the right of Quebecers
to be full-fledged Canadians is jeopardized until they have taken
a clear decision to the contrary.
It is time the Progressive Conservative Party behaved like a
party with pan-Canadian responsibilities.
* * *
ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY IN QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today's newspapers report that the PQ government does
not intend to renew its framework agreement with the Canadian
government relating to social services and health care for the
anglophone community of Quebec.
If that is true, it is truly a disgrace. I would like to know
what the Minister of Canadian Heritage intends to do to protect
the rights of Quebec anglophones.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or
not the report is correct, but I do know that the anglophone
community in Quebec can rest assured that the Government of
Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage intends to
continue to offer assistance to ensure that services are
available to this community as we do for the francophone
community.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are prepared to
continue this agreement, just as we are prepared to help the
Government of Ontario with respect to its francophone community,
and to help the governments of the other provinces in Canada to
do the same.
The irony of this, however, if it is true, is that the person
who would be terminating these agreements would be the same one
who created them, as can be seen from the letter Lucien Bouchard
sent to Gil Rémillard in 1988.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the solicitor general.
He mentioned that the commissioner told him the name of the
individual investigating Corporal Read. Does the solicitor
general not know that this individual is one of those accused by
Corporal Read of the same crimes? It is like the fox looking
after the chicken coop.
These triad leaders have power, so much power that Timothy Fu,
one of those accused, said that his brother was shown in a
picture shaking hands with the Prime Minister. This shows the
power these triads and underworld people have.
Can the solicitor general—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. My colleagues, we are going
to listen to this question. The hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
1500
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the powers that
these triads have and the stories that are coming out of Canada,
will the solicitor general not agree they should not be
investigated by the RCMP, but an independent prosecutor?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CSIS also always investigates any people
that enter this country. CSIS investigates all types of national
security. There is an investigation. There will be a report and
I will receive the report.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today is a rather special day for us here
in the House and for some guests that we have. I would like to
draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in our
gallery of a very special group of people. They are the Canadian
Special Olympic athletes. I want to introduce them to you
because they are special to all of us. I would like you to hold
your applause and as I call their names, I would ask them to
stand and stay standing until I mention all of the names of
the athletes: Bev Beals, Sherry Toporowski, Julie Keldsen, Ryan
Courtemanche, Judy Weage, Marc Thériault, Jason Ballantyne,
Jeremy Mueller, Curtis Tymko, Matthew Guptil, Jason Pope, Chris
Doty, Lynn Marie McLean, Harvey Arcangelletti, Derek Dumbrell,
Lynn-Marie Maclean, and their coaches. Would their coaches
please stand too.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
earlier in the very lively question period you ruled two
questions out of order concerning matters which were raised in
the report of the auditor general yesterday.
It may be that you did not hear my question, which had to do
with actions by a government department in awarding crown
funds. These are clearly matters within the competence of the
minister, and the minister is accountable for these funds.
The Speaker: During the course of question period, I am
called on to make decisions many times about the
questions themselves. In fact every question has to, I guess to
use the words, pass muster.
From what I heard and could make out, I judged these questions
to be out of order. For that reason I refer the hon. member to
409(7) of our rule book, and I would just leave it
there.
I have another point of order I will listen to.
DECORUM
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order arises out of what happened at the end
of question period. Every member in the House has an obligation
to support the Speaker of the House when he is trying to restore
decorum in this place.
Today we had a lot of people in the gallery from all across the
country, and young people. We have set a terrible example of
parliament. It is a very black eye for parliament.
1510
Mr. Speaker, what I suggest is that you might want to consider
conferring with the House leaders and the whips as to how we are
to maintain order in the House. It is the obligation of all of
us to
support the Speaker in maintaining some decorum and some order in
this place as a place that represents all the people of Canada.
The display we saw today was embarrassing and disgusting in terms
of the reputation of this place.
The Speaker: My colleagues, perhaps the best way for us
to keep decorum is to treat each other with greater civility when
we are in question period and during debates. Of course, I will
take all of these interventions, consider them and will act in
due course.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
CANADIAN LAND MINE FUND
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
of tabling, in both official languages, the first annual report
of the Canadian Land Mine Fund.
As this report shows, our efforts have gone a long way toward
clearing land and helping victims rebuild their lives. We
support mine action programs in 19 countries and are now working
with other nations to create a new norm against the use of this
weapon.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during question period, I quoted from a National Assembly motion
on the Young Offenders Act.
I am requesting the unanimous consent of the House to table the
motion, and the transcription of what was said in the National
Assembly this morning, for the information of the minister, who
obviously had not read it.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs.
This report asks the government to implement a five year plan in
the next budget and to significantly increase the funding for the
Canadian forces. I note that all parties, except the Bloc
Quebecois, supported this motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs proceeded to the
consideration of the mandate of the Department of the National
Defence. The committee has agreed to report to the House with
these recommendations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee does request a
government response.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 12th report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a
peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act
(technical amendments).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and
other matters).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES FOR
NON-ESSENTIAL PURPOSES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) moved
for leave
to introduce Bill C-388, an act to prohibit the use of chemical
pesticides for non-essential purposes.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce this
bill in this House. This is the second bill I introduce.
This bill seeks to impose a moratorium on the use of chemical
pesticides for esthetic purposes on home lawns and gardens and
on recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses, until
scientific evidence that they are not harmful is submitted to
parliament and approved by a parliamentary committee.
There is currently no scientific evidence that the use of
chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes is not harmful to
health, particularly the health of children and people at risk.
This is why I am introducing this bill. I hope to get the
support of both sides of the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
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, I
move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present a petition with a long list of rationale.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take
whatever action is necessary to see that the Senate of Canada is
abolished once and for all.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another
petition signed by quite a few petitioners from Kamloops.
Our founding fathers depended upon God and exhibited faith in
God for wisdom and guidance as they established this dominion. To
exempt one of the greatest resources of our founding fathers who
possessed faith in God is a disaster they personally want to
avoid.
Therefore they call upon the Parliament of Canada to do whatever
is necessary to keep our heritage intact, which includes the
reference of our founding fathers to the supremacy of God in the
constitution.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some of the constituents in the great
riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I present a petition that
reads in part that parliament take necessary measures to ensure
that—
1520
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that he cannot
read the petition. He will want to comply with the rules and
give the House a brief summary.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: It will be a very brief summary.
The Deputy Speaker: It had better be a brief summary and
not a reading of part of the petition.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence on
this matter. The petitioners request that the federal government
take all necessary measures to eradicate child pornography.
NISGA'A AGREEMENT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure today to table four petitions.
The first petition contains 134 signatures of people mostly from
the Vernon and Armstrong areas of my riding. They are asking
parliament to reject the Nisga'a treaty because it may divide
Canadians forever.
TAXATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 249 persons from the
riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
They ask for tax relief of 25% over the next three years,
leading the way to job creation, economic growth and the
reduction of poverty.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition I am pleased to table today is signed
by 278 people from the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
They ask parliament to change Canada's immigration laws to
quickly separate genuine refugees from those trying to take
advantage of our system.
GASOLINE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth petition I wish to table today is from more
than 1,000 people from the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
They are concerned about the environmental effects of the
Canadian Coast Guard authorizing the sale of gasoline through a
gas station floating in the narrows of the Shuswap Lake. They
ask parliament to ban floating gas stations on Shuswap Lake.
TAIWAN
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present the following petition signed by 26 interested
Canadians.
The petitioners pray and request that parliament support
Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization. Taiwan has
been unfairly barred from any participation in World Health
Organization activity since 1972.
Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization is a basic
human right for all Taiwanese people. Last year this basic human
right was denied again. This is the third year in a row that the
Taiwanese bid was rejected, disregarding the basic health rights
of the 22 million people of Taiwan.
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, they just keep rolling in. I have a petition signed by
many people who say that the Senate is undemocratic, unelected,
unaccountable and costs us about $50 million plus a year and that
it usurps the role of ordinary members of parliament elected to
the House of Commons.
Therefore the petitioners want steps taken now to abolish the
Senate.
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by
over 1,200 concerned Canadians mostly from the province of
Quebec.
The petitioners ask our government to affirm that all Canadians
are equal under all circumstances and without exception in the
province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
They wish to remind the government to enact only legislation
that affirms the equality of each and every individual under the
laws of Canada.
THE SENATE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to introduce a petition today signed by several dozen
people from Dartmouth who would like to see the Senate of Canada
abolished.
They believe that it is undemocratic, unaccountable to the
people and a colossal waste of money to the taxpayer.
LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to table two petitions today. The first one is
from Victoria in the province of British Columbia.
Several hundred people ask that parliament respect the facts of
history and refrain from passing any act or bill that seeks to
rewrite history regarding Louis Riel.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from people in my riding. It pertains to the
Divorce Act and asks parliament to take into consideration
immediately the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on
Child Custody and Access of December 8, 1998.
SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure to present a petition to the House on behalf of
residents largely from Moose Jaw but also from other communities
in Saskatchewan.
They ask that the government take all necessary action to ensure
that the continued and stable funding of the 431 air
demonstration squadron Snowbirds remains a priority.
1525
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table two petitions today signed by people mostly
from the community of Westlock in my riding.
The petitioners object to the deplorable failure of the
government to protect children from the exploitation and abuse of
those who produce child pornography and to introduce the
notwithstanding clause to bring back subparagraph 163.1(4) of the
criminal code.
HEPATITIS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I guess this is a case where you
have saved the best for last.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36 it gives me great pleasure to
present again a wave of signatures from across the country, this
time from Niagara Falls and Port Colborne, Ontario.
These very informed people wish to inform the House that the
disease of hepatitis affects over 600,000 Canadians. They pray
that parliament support Bill C-232, surprisingly one of my own,
to make the month of May hepatitis awareness month.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 7 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 7—Mr. Peter MacKay:
With respect to RCMP officers of civilians classified under the
person year exemption status: (a) how many are there; (b) how
were they appointed; (c) where are they located; (d) what are
their job descriptions; (e) what are their responsibilities;
(f) what is the cost to the Canadian government of these
officers' expenses and salaries; (g) who assigns their project
and on what projects are these officers currently working; and
(h) to whom and how often do these officers report their work?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib):
With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, officers or
civilians classified under the person year exemption status, the
information is as follows:
(a) There are currently 156 regular and 5 civilian members
occupying full time equivalent exempt from classification, FTEEC,
positions for a total of 161 members.
(b) RCMP members currently occupying a FTEEC position are
selected on the basis of their qualifications and/or experience
in a field specific to one of the various assignments in the
FTEEC program.
(c) Of the 161 RCMP regular and civilian members currently
occupying FTEEC positions, four of the five civilian members are
located at headquarters in Ottawa and one is located in
Vancouver, B.C. Of the 156 regular members occupying FTEEC
positions, a total of 31 are currently posted in foreign
countries as liaison officers. The remaining 125 regular members
are distributed throughout Canada.
Liaison Officers in Foreign Countries:
United States—4
France—3
Italy—2
Austria—1
Spain—1
Germany—1
India—1
Thailand—2
Switzerland—1
England—3
Pakistan—1
Russia—1
Indonisia—1
Netherlands—1
Bogota—3
Mexico—1
Jamaica—1
Peru—1
China—2
Regular Members in RCMP Divisions:
Headquarters—53
A Division, NCR Ottawa, Ontario—2
B Division, Newfoundland—4
C Division, Québec—4
D Division, Manitoba—7
E Division, British Columbia—21
F Division, Saskatchewan—5
G Division, Northwest Territories—2
H Division, Nova Scotia—7
J Division, New Brunswick—8L<
K Division, Alberta—8
L Division, Prince Edward Island—1
M Division, Yukon—2
Depot, Regina, Saskatchewan—1
(d) FTEEC positions do not have a job description per se. A job
description will only be required if and when a decision is made
to classify such a position, which occurs occasionally.
(e) The responsibilities of the RCMP members holding a person
year exemption status differ from one assignment to the other.
The following are the various FTEEC responsibilities to which the
161 RCMP members are currently assigned.
Secondment Assignment:
This is an assignment of duties outside the RCMP for a maximum
period of two years. These types of assignments enable the RCMP
to develop a certain expertise and provide a link for the RCMP
with other organizations at the federal, provincial and municipal
levels.
Special Project Assignment:
This is an assignment to duties within the RCMP for a maximum
period of two years. Such an assignment enables a member to
conduct or participate in a specific project which does not form
part of the RCMP continuing function.
Training and Development Assignment:
An assignment to provide or develop knowledge, skills and
expertise in job related technical areas through on the job
training and/or attendance at technical institutions.
Division Staff Relations Representatives Assignment:
This is an assignment to comply with the need for more effective
internal communication respecting staff relations within the
RCMP. The member is elected to a two-year term and is eligible
for re-election.
Member Assistance Program, MAP, Co-ordinator Assignment:
An assignment to allow for the posting of qualified members,
independent of rank, possessing knowledge and related experience
together with appropriate personality characteristics to MAP
co-ordinator positions in the RCMP. Selection of co-ordinator is
made in conjunction with our Health Services Directorate.
Foreign Service Liaison Officer Assignment:
An assignment to allow for posting of liaison officers in
foreign countries who have the required foreign language skills,
job related skills and personal attributes, including family
configuration that are necessary in such foreign postings.
(f) The cost associated with the FTEEC program was approximately
$11,899,485.00 in salaries and other related expenses for the
1998-1999 fiscal year.
Secondment Assignment:
Funds for secondment assignments within the federal government
are recovered from the department to which the member is
seconded. Secondment to external agencies incurs no cost to the
federal government.
Special Project Assignment:
Special projects are funded from existing funded positions
within the RCMP. As such, members are paid by the
directorates-divisions from which they are reassigned.
Training and Development Assignment:
As per special project assignment.
Division Staff Relations Representatives Assigment:
These assignment are funded internally from the existing RCMP
budget.
Member Assistance Program, MAP, Co-ordinator Assignment:
These assignments are funded internally within the RCMP's budget.
Foreign Service Liaison Officer Assignment:
Funds for this program are allocated through the Treasury Board.
(g) Members are assigned to one of the various assignment found
in the FTEEC program by their director and/or commanding officer.
Current FTEEC program assignment are identified above in item
(e). As for the projects, these are referred to as special
projects. Several members are assigned to projects within the
RCMP such as: the security committee for the francophonie summit
in Moncton, the Year 2000 project, the alignment task force, the
security committee for the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg, the Canadian
firearms project and other short term initiatives.
(h) These members normally report to their immediate supervisors
or project managers. The frequency of reporting their work is not
a component of the monitoring process of the FTECC program.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Did I miss the introduction of private members' bills?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member did.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, then I seek unanimous
consent of the House to revert to that item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I assume the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska will be seconding the hon. member's bill.
Mr. André Bachand: Of course.
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-389, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act (discharge of ballast water).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank all members of the House. I guess
we have friends on both sides of the House. I appreciate their
generosity.
The bill amends the Canada Shipping Act. Its purpose is to
prevent the accidental introduction of living organisms that are
not natural to Canada into Canadian waters by the discharge of
ship ballast water.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, and I want to do so because, unfortunately, we are
once again looking at a bill that is a shocking example of
duplication.
The purpose of the bill is to enhance federal visibility in a
sector that clearly falls within Quebec's jurisdiction. It is a
sector of Quebec that is extremely well organized and that is
working well, because the stakeholders work together.
What does the bill accomplish? It establishes a Canadian Tourism
Commission.
1530
As the bill clearly states, this Canadian Tourism Commission is
a corporation. And what is it being established to do? What are
its objects? The bill states, and I quote:
I would point out that this initial objective is a complete
mystery to me.
Since when is it the business of a crown corporation to “sustain
a vibrant and profitable” industry? Enough has been said in
this House and elsewhere that it should be clear that private
businesses, whatever their size, will, through their own
efforts, find a way to become vibrant and profitable.
The government's role is to support them through measures that
are not specific to any one industry, but that apply generally
to all industries, as does the Small Business Loans Act, or
Technology Partnerships Canada, in the case of federal measures.
There are many other measures that are available in the
provinces and in Quebec to support investment and help identify
markets.
I wonder why our colleagues on this side, to the right, that is
the members of the Reform Party, are not surprised that the
first object of the commission, as a crown corporation, is to
sustain “a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry”.
Except for that first one, all the other objects, and I will
read them, are already covered by Quebec law. And if there are
similar laws in the other provinces, these objects must also be
included in them. What are the other objects? They read, and I
quote:
It goes without saying that the Quebec law says “market Quebec
as a desirable tourist destination”. Quebec is indeed a
desirable tourist destination. What is the next object? It
reads, and I quote:
To co-operate is also an important object of Tourisme Québec,
which is in a position to do so.
Finally, the last object reads, and I quote:
In Quebec, it is information about Quebec tourism.
In reading this, we must ask ourselves the question: What is the
mandate of Tourisme Québec? Its mandate is:
As we can see, Tourisme Québec has a broader mandate, but it
includes all the mandates given to that corporation, which would
be known as the Canadian Tourism Commission. Frankly, why is the
government getting involved in this area?
1535
Of course, the government is saying that there was already a
commission, but it did not have the same status. It is not for
nothing that the government is suddenly transforming it into a
crown corporation, with its own legislation, that will report to
the Minister of Industry.
When I look at this bill, I have to wonder: Why is the
government again bringing us such duplication? How will it
co-ordinate on a Canada-wide basis what is already extremely well
co-ordinated within Quebec? Why is it bent on having a Canadian
Tourism Commission?
I read the preamble and I think I have it figured out.
This will come as a surprise. This is the Canadian Tourism
Commission we are talking about. The preamble starts out as
follows:
Frankly, I nearly fell off my chair. I will read it again “the
Canadian tourism industry is vital to the [—] identity”.
There will be identity problems if the government pushes ahead
with its plans for a Canadian Tourism Commission. It does not
trust Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia to look after their
own tourist industry.
Programs need to be co-ordinated in order to make the most of the
funds available. That is fine. We know, however, that there
are tourism targets for each of the provinces. Each has its
interests and its own attractions. But now we hear that “the
Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural
identity and integrity of Canada”. Frankly, it take's one's
breath away.
This is beginning to make less and less sense. I have read
several reports of a task force set up by the former Clerk of
the Privy Council to prepare Canada for 2005, and several
references are made to Canadians' serious identity problem. I
saw it mentioned more than once.
For Quebecers, it was both disturbing and surprising to read,
page after page, how much the Canadian identity would be
threatened by the fact that our economic links would be more on
a north-south axis, by the fact that a vast majority of Canadians
would watch American television programs, and so on and so
forth.
But I think it is going much too far to perceive the problem as
so serious that the Canadian tourist industry should be
considered an essential component of that identity. This kind of
exaggeration baffles the mind.
Concerning this first part of the preamble, it is easy to
understand that Tourisme Québec does not want to give rise to
identity squabbles, but simply sell a distinctive tourist
destination. Tourisme Québec is banking on Quebec's difference.
1540
We are proud of Quebec City, which was founded in 1608 by
Champlain and is the national capital of Quebecers. We are proud
of our past. And we encourage tourists to come and visit us in
Quebec.
Are we to understand that, from now on, Quebec's invitation to
tourists should be sent via Ottawa, and that we should invite
them to come and visit “la belle province”? Is that the basic
tenet?
It cannot be, because Canada does not have the means to stop
Quebec from selling its own tourist attractions. But one thing
is for sure: this will create a great deal of confusion.
Instead of ensuring better co-ordination, the bill will be
confusing for many businesses that work perfectly well with
Tourisme Québec. They will not know who to turn to.
Far from improving the opportunities for Quebec's tourist
industry, which is a very major one, the bill could prevent this
from happening and could even be harmful to the industry.
I cannot leave the first paragraph of the preamble without
adding, at the very least, that it is extremely irritating and
annoying to see how on the merest details—not to mention basic
rights—concerning tourism, we must once again wage a battle to
make the government understand that we can take care of this on
our own in Quebec.
Of course, we can discuss with the other provinces, but this is
not the issue here. When a national commission, a big crown
corporation, with a budget we do not even talk about, is given the
same powers as Tourisme Québec, this can only be called
duplication.
The bill states also that the Canadian tourism industry makes an
essential contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians;
this is also true for Quebec. And we believe that the better we
are organized in Quebec, the better Tourisme Québec can fulfil
its mandate, and that the more the federal government gives to
the provinces in terms of adequate transfers, the more we will
be able to develop our tourism industry.
Does this mean that the federal government would use its large
surpluses to give to the Canadian tourism commission funds that
would otherwise not go to the provinces, to Quebec? If that is
the case, this is utterly shameful. The federal government is
misusing its spending power, and this means that all the
structures we set up, which are begining to work well, all the
preparation, all the consensus building could be bypassed or, as
I have already said, duplicated by the Canadian tourism
commission.
I remind the House that there are regional tourist associations
and that each one must produce a plan. This system works. There
are discussions in each region. Not everybody agrees on
priorities, but that is to be expected, because that is what
consensus building is all about. People make concessions to
reach a consensus. It is a remarkable effort.
The last part of the preamble states:
Work how?
Through this centralized agency.
1545
The Bloc Quebecois strongly opposes the bill because it will
create duplication and is useless. It even borders on the
counterproductive, because duplication is counterproductive.
It is always better to have clear priorities. It is always
better to have one strategy than two. This is true for economic
development. Not a single company could survive with two
strategies. An industry, tourism in particular, must have one
strategy and only one.
We are morally tired—I think that is the most accurate way I
can put it this afternoon—of the constant desire of the
government to encroach, to centralize, to bandy “Canada, Canada,
Canada, Canada, Canada” about everywhere, and of reading that
Canada's tourism industry is essential to Canada's identity.
I am tired, as a Quebecer and at the age I have reached, of
hearing, day in and day out in the House, especially on days
like this one, that this country clearly has no time for the
people of Quebec, who are proud to be a people and who want to
get themselves organized. There is no room for them either.
We are in the throes of a full constitutional debate revived by
the Prime Minister. He says he wants to get on with other
things, but he has revived the constitutional debate. The truth
is we think they want to stick us in a corner and stamp the word
Canada on us. They would tolerate La Belle Province.
In the meantime, a people is in the process of being forged,
forged in adversity. It is an independent, a distinct and proud
people increasingly capable of achievement and increasingly
aware that Canada is a yoke they want to put on it.
Of course, not everyone speaks of this all the time in the buses
and the metro, but one cannot stretch the elastic too for before
it flies back into the face of the person holding it.
I will conclude. I think I have said the main things I wanted
to say. This bill is an example of what must not be done. If
the government really wants to have it for the other nine
provinces, let it include the right to opt out. If there is
money, it should be left to Quebec. But the government must
stop trying to force us into a model we do not want, when we
have one that works.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment to make.
All I heard from the hon. member, aside from of course stating
separatist aspirations, was forcing, forcing, forcing. Nobody
has forced anybody into this wonderful arrangement upon which we
are embarking. All the stakeholders came together, Quebec
included, and their representatives.
The member talked about duplication. It is not a matter of
creating something. This was already there. We are simply fine
tuning it to crown corporation status, which is basically what
all the stakeholders asked, including Quebec, which is granted a
seat on the board, as are all other representatives, so that
collectively we can market not only the beautiful province of
Quebec but the entire country.
1550
There is no duplication. The system already exists. We simply
want to work much closer with our provincial partners, who will
have the opportunity to promote and enhance the tourism industry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
knows full well that I know there is a commission. I mentioned
it in my speech.
What I am emphasizing is that there is a good reason for making
changes to it. All the mandates given to the commission—and he
should be sensitive to this—apart from the first, which is
unacceptable for a crown agency, are mandates already being
carried out by Tourisme Québec.
The first thing the commission is mandated to do is to sustain a
vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry. Come on.
Support the industry, yes, do as Quebec has and do blanket
publicity for the whole group, but not ensure that they are
profitable. That has never been the mandate of any crown
agency.
As for the other mandates, they are the jurisdiction of Tourisme
Québec. I can do no more than repeat what I have already said,
which he does not accept. I would have liked to hear his
comments on the preamble.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I notice from the intervention by the parliamentary
secretary that the government at times can interpret acquiescence
to mean agreement, because by using federal government spending
power it is buying something.
The member for Mercier talked about duplication of effort and
abuse of federal spending power. I would like her to elaborate
on how this is an abuse of federal spending power. I am sure she
has a couple of examples to elucidate that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, what I said is that, if the
government makes use of this commission to invest money that
would not be used elsewhere, everything they want to do with
this commission, everything in its mandate, is already being
done in Quebec, where tourism is organized around a
collaborative effort. What is lacking, as it is in the fields
of education and health, is money.
If a commission is established and money is put into it, this is
going to derail the process. That is what I have said.
In my opinion, this is abusive, because this is an area that
must prosper. The economy is involved, deeply involved.
Tourism is a $5.4 billion industry in Quebec, far from
negligible. It ranks sixth in terms of exports, and is
therefore an important industry.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thought
you were boycotting me. I was getting scared; I was surprised
because this is not a habit of yours.
I have a two tiered question for my hon. colleague, our critic
for foreign affairs, something it is important to remind the
House of.
I know she does some excellent work and has to represent Quebec
and the sovereignist movement all over the world. She has had
the opportunity on several occasions to visit embassies abroad,
where there are often offices of the Canadian tourism
commission.
I would like her to tell us a little about how she sees things.
When she visited these offices, what was the image of Quebec
shown abroad?
Not too long ago, I was the critic for international trade, I
also had the privilege to visit these offices. Canada is a big
country and when one tries to promote tourism for almost all the
provinces, some of them are left aside, and it happened quite
often that I saw little or no information about Quebec.
I would also like to make another comment. By trying to
repatriate everything to the federal level—I have seen this in
different English provinces—does the federal government not
give quite clearly the impression that provincial jurisdictions
are second class jurisdictions, that it is the one who has to do
the real work and leave minor details and trivia to local
authorities, which are expected to carry out the orders taken by
the superior minds, as they see it, in the central government?
1555
All the government's bills smack of its smug attitude toward all
institutions. As the hon. member for Mercier said quite clearly,
in Quebec, there is another example of a principle that works.
Tourisme Québec has been around for a very long time. It has
developed through regional divisions, and this is working. I
would like to hear the hon. member on these two issues.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will answer
the second question first.
I agree with the member and this will not come as a surprise to
him. The impression we glean from what was said over and over
again in this place is that the federal government always does
everything better. It is said to be the government of all the
provinces for some reason or other; perhaps because it is
bigger. This would apparently make it the real government.
That is contrary to a federal system that is truly based on the
participation of all of its components, which are each the best
at what they do.
When a federation starts thinking that the central government is
the only one able to do everything, it is on the verge of
shifting from being a federation to having a central government
with the others becoming regional governments.
This reflects more closely what I am seeing take shape in
Canada: a large central government with regions. We can even
think that this might be the fate of the Canadian federation if
Quebec were to become an associated partner.
As far as the first question is concerned, my colleague has been
involved in international trade issues longer than I have. I
only visited very briefly a few embassies, but each time, I make
sure to monitor closely how products from Quebec are faring.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the bill we are debating concerns the Canadian Tourism
Commission. It will change the legal status of the Canadian
Tourism Commission from that of a special operating agency to
that of a crown corporation.
The words “crown corporation” raise the anxiety level in the
House when heard by some, because from time to time we have taken
a close look at some crown corporations. We have put them under
close scrutiny because of their lack of management skills.
Canada Post comes to mind.
Some argue that if we are ever to get Canada Post moving into
the 21st century we will have to make it a private entity which
will no longer operate under legislation concerning crown
corporations.
Obviously the member was here during the Air Canada debate when
it was changed from a crown agency, put on the market and bought
by shareholders. As well, Petro-Canada was a crown agency which
was privatized.
Information we have received from our researchers tells us that
in 1997-98 the Canadian Tourism Commission spent $146 million.
Of that, $63 million came from the federal government and $83
million from private sector partners. Most of the budget was
spent on marketing, with smaller amounts being spent on
administration, research and product development.
1600
The government is arguing, not the commission, that the
commission does not have enough autonomy. When we are talking
about autonomy, we are actually talking about the decision to
chart its own destiny or set its own course. However, there is
nothing in the bill that would lead me to believe that there will
be more autonomy.
This commission will be structured like a crown corporation and
will be at arm's length from the government. However, knowing the
government, we will probably be standing in this place in the
near future talking about the privatization of this very agency
once the private sector gets to examine this so-called autonomy.
The commission will be set up in such a way that the chairperson
will be appointed by who? Will it be by private sector
interests? No. The governor in council, meaning the Prime
Minister of Canada, will pick the chairperson of the commission.
What does that tell us about autonomy? He or she will be under
the callous hands of the Prime Minister within six months.
The president of this new organization, believe it or not, will
be appointed by, who else? The Prime Minister of Canada, the
governor in council. There is not much distance between the new
president, the new chairperson and the Prime Minister and the
cabinet. It goes back to my opening comments in terms of
autonomy. I cannot see much autonomy there.
Let us further read the bill. The question I would ask is
whether anyone in the House has read the bill. I mention that
because today during petitions at least two NDP members, God
bless their souls, presented petitions with regard to the Senate.
I do not agree entirely with their position on the Senate but
they are talking about an organization that is appointed by the
Prime Minister of Canada. Talk about accountability. I know
what the Bloc members are saying about the bill, but I think the
bill requires close scrutiny. I hope the NDP members take a look
at clause 9 on page 3 of the bill.
We have gone from the chairperson to the president. What else
happens in any kind of a commission? The next logical jump would
be to the directors, would it not? Where would the directors
come from? I know we do not dare to say it out loud, but they
are appointed by the minister with the approval of the Prime
Minister. Talk about autonomy. Does anyone see any autonomy in
the bill, any distance from the Prime Minister's office? For the
love of me, I cannot.
My argument is that one of the reasons the government wants to
move it out of the department is because the department comes
under the purview of the Public Service Administration Act. In
other words, we have civil servants who are not quite as easy to
push around as appointed folks. When push comes to shove, who
will the commission be listening to or taking directions from? I
suggest it will be the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet.
This is not the first bill to come to the House in the last
couple of weeks, which leads me to believe that we are heading
for an election probably sooner than later. The other bill that
is before us is the Canadian institutes of health research.
It is the same situation from the president on down. All the
members of the advisory board are appointed by, who else? The
old Prime Minister of Canada himself. Sir John A. Macdonald
would roll over in his grave if he knew that.
1605
Have we not moved somewhere beyond the point where every member
of a commission or a board is appointed by one man and by one man
only? That is the argument the NDP uses with regard to the
senate. It is somewhat the same argument that the Reformers use
with regard to the Senate. We are not all fundamentally opposed
to the Senate. Most of us would like to reform the Senate, but
the Canadian people should have a choice. However, surely there
has to be a better way of doing it than this.
This ain't all, as they would say back home. These appointments
are all by pleasure. Mr. Speaker, do you know what pleasure
means? It means that when the Prime Minister wakes up in the
morning and decides he still likes you, then you are still there.
If he gets out on the wrong side of the bed, then you are gone.
You are history. There is no autonomy in that. There is no
arm's length from government in that type of institution. We see
it over there on the back benches of the Liberal party. The Prime
Minister says “jump” and the members say “how high”, or the
Prime Minister says “don't come down until I tell you to”. That
is exactly what will happen with this board, and I do not like
it.
Let us take a look at their remuneration. We always start at
the top with the president and then work down through. The
president will be paid the remuneration that the governor in
council may fix. The Prime Minister of Canada will determine
what this person makes. Not only that, he will determine how
long he or she will collect his or her paycheque. The chairperson
and the private sector directors, other than the president, shall
be paid the fees that the governor in council may fix. It is the
same thing. Governor in council is a fancy word for the Prime
Minister of Canada. It is basically the Prime Minister and
cabinet making a decision, but it is one man.
Witness the debate that is raging now in the House between the
Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec on the 50 plus one and
his stance in regard to any constitutional initiative on Quebec
and the referendum. That is a one man decision. It is a one man
band leading the way down through the town with not too many
followers even from his own cabinet, which is sort of a suicidal
march.
I know I am getting off the topic, but there has to be a better
way to do this. We are moving into the new millennium. We are
moving into the 21st century and we are still using the outdated
institutions of the past to proceed into a new century. If we
are talking about reform in the House, it could start right here
when we are debating bills like this.
I mentioned earlier the CIHR. It sounds like the call numbers
or letters of a radio station.
An hon. member: Country music.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Country music, but this is a really
sad country song. It will bring tears to our eyes.
The Canadian institutes of health research is supposed to be
modelled after the American example. The minister and his people
are taking credit for redesigning the wheel, but this is
basically a model that they picked up in the U.S. They brought
it in, wrapped their arms around it and called it their own.
Obviously they did not invent this new institute. What they have
invented, and I brought this out yesterday in committee, is the
structure.
In the United States, the public and members of the legislative
bodies, senators and members of the House of Representatives,
have some input into who goes on those boards or institutes. In
Canada, the Minister of Health introduced a bill a week ago
today, Bill C-13, structured in the same fashion as the bill we
are talking about today.
1610
Nobody argues that we have to pay attention to tourism in the
country. It is a big generator of jobs. What scares many of us
in the House is that the government is going to politicize the
very commission that is asking for more autonomy, if we can
believe what the government is saying.
I do not think there will be any autonomy or any arm's length
relationship from government. I think we will have the strong
hand of the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada,
over this commission. This bill has serious flaws that have to
be addressed either in the House or in committee.
It is hard to run in the face of motherhood. This is sort of
like a motherhood bill. This is what the government is talking
about. It is all good in the eyes of the government. There is
nothing negative here. This is a good news bill.
Let me go through some of the points that we might argue are
good news. The commission may establish a head office anywhere
in Canada. That is fine, but what about Chicoutimi as a head
office? What would be the chances of Chicoutimi being the head
office of this new commission? I am just thinking out loud, but
being in the Prime Minister's hometown I think it would have a
pretty good kick at the can.
The commission may not finance, acquire or construct facilities
related to tourism. That is a good point. In other words, it
will not be able to turn the Prime Minister's summer home into a
hotel. That is good news, unless the Minister for Human
Resources Development Canada gets her hands on the application.
Maybe then it can do that. Anything is possible in the Prime
Minister's riding.
The commission may enter into agreements with other governments.
That is fine. It may create new corporations as a result of
these agreements. So it does not end here. There must be a
hidden clause in there that even I might have missed under close
scrutiny. It may create new corporations as a result of those
agreements as long as they are consistent with its mandate and do
not involve financing or construction of tourism facilities.
The commission's annual corporate plan will be approved by the
ministers of industry and the treasury board. That is good.
I hope there is a mechanism in here, which I did not see in the
bill, where the commission has to actually come before the House
and the auditor general for scrutiny. I hope there is a
provision in the bill where it does have to table a report
annually on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not see it
in there, but I will ask my colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc, the
Reform and the Conservative Parties to search through the bill
while I am on my feet. I did not see that.
The board of directors will continue to have up to 26
representatives. Goodness gracious, that is almost a quarter of
the appointments that the Prime Minister gets to make in the
Senate. Imagine, 26 new appointments. On the eve of an election,
it sounds good does it not, Mr. Speaker? I would not be
surprised if you were appointed to that board.
In addition to that, we have the chairperson and the president
and up to 16 private sector directors in six regions. I did go
through how that is going to be apportioned, and I think some
members have a problem with that, as I guess they should. These
will be appointed, as I mentioned before, by the minister on the
advice of the board or the committee. There will be one director
representing the provincial governments in each of the six
regions. The president, the chair and the directors will all
serve at pleasure.
That means as long as the Prime Minister of Canada is happy.
1615
We have witnessed what has happened in some government
departments and agencies when the Prime Minister and a particular
minister are not happy with them. I am not talking about not
doing their jobs or not showing up for the job. I am talking
about civil servants, some of them senior civil servants, who
just happen to disagree with the government. The Prime Minister
has taken the baseball bat to their kneecaps on occasion simply
to get rid of them.
I am not exaggerating. I have mentioned names in the House of
individuals who have had longstanding, long ongoing battles with
the government. In fact, some of them have taken it to the Human
Rights Commission and won their cases. These are people who are
protected by the Civil Service Act. This new commission, no
protection.
I think this new commission is ripe for political manipulation.
I think the House deserves closer scrutiny and more debate on the
bill. I do not think it is a bill that can simply be rammed
through the House. I call on every member in the House to read
this bill clause by clause and stand up on their hind legs and
argue for a new and better way of doing this.
I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than what it is getting.
I do not think we can simply give the government a blank cheque
based on its performance with commissions and boards like this in
the past. Let us intelligently debate this in committee, bring
forth some amendments which the government might consider and
improve this bill before we get to third and final reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend my hon. colleague for his speech.
When we talk about tourism, there is one very important thing
that we have to keep in mind, which is the fact that there are
several different regions in this vast country of Canada as well
as in Quebec, and there is a competitive element involved. A
number of regions are increasingly trying to attract more
tourists. These regions are not all the same.
Now that the federal government wants to gain control of
tourism, it could very easily end up discriminating in favour of
some regions and against others.
I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks about the
possibility that the federal government might do what it did in
terms of regional development and discriminate in favour of one
region and against another, as has too often been the case in
Quebec. What does the hon. member think about a government,
which has often chosen to promote some regions and ignore
others, getting involved in tourism?
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that just shows that
great minds think alike. I think the hon. member's point is
worth noting. That is in fact what can happen because they can
politicize this commission. We must think about that, 103
members of parliament in Ontario alone. One has to win the
province of Ontario to form the government in this country.
This may be stretching it, but can we not envision the Prime
Minister looking at political opportunity and using this
commission to his best advantage in terms of where to put the
advertising dollars and what portions of the country to promote.
Obviously, there is not support in every province.
Mr. George Proud: I have heard.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Good point. Nova Scotia, which is the
tourism capital of eastern Canada. I hate to say that because it
should be New Brunswick and possibly P.E.I.
I think there is a big risk in that very thing happening.
1620
We have to remember there are 500,000 Canadians employed
directly in tourism in Canada. What is the multiplier? It would
be at least a multiplier of four or five, a big engine of
economic growth in Atlantic Canada and other parts of Canada as
well. The member's point is well taken.
There is a very clear risk when we have the directors and the
president of the commission appointed by the Prime Minister of
Canada. That is a very strong possibility. That is a point well
taken. That has to be considered when we are looking at
amendments to this bill. There must be a better way to set up
this organization rather than having one man dictate who the
members will be. That individual would be the Prime Minister of
Canada and he would be dictating who would be on the commission.
Let us re-examine and improve this bill and reduce the risk of
the very thing the member said might happen from happening.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place among all parties and I believe you will find consent for
the following travel motion:
That, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, be
authorized to travel to western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta), from December 5, to December 11, 1999, in relation to
its study on the effectiveness of long term safety nets and other
national initiatives to provide the stability and environment
necessary for stable growth in the agricultural industry and that
the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, there are things in the
explanations my hon. colleague provided the House that need to
be clarified, like the dates and the names of the members taking
part in this trip and their destination.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has indicated that
he was talking about the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. He was referring to the members of this committee,
therefore.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could we get more information about where
are they going and how long their trip will last?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member referring to the whole
committee?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, there are nine members
listed, with all parties being represented. The dates are
December 5 to December 11, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an
act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the member had to say. He touched a
bit on the constitutional issue, as he was supposed to do,
openly criticizing, as his party did, the Prime Minister's
attitude with regard to referendum rules, and I congratulate him
for that.
Saying that the rules should be different from those applied in
past referendums on the political future of Quebec and Canada is
a serious attack on democracy.
On the issue of tourism, I would also like to know if the member
thinks that the federal government is once again trying to
interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, not only in
Quebec but in other provinces as well, and that, by doing so, it
is breaking another one of its commitments, namely the
commitment to withdraw from the tourism sector. We were told on
several occasions that tourism was a provincial jurisdiction.
1625
In fact, under the Conservative government, the Charlottetown
accord contained a provision saying that the federal government
would withdraw from the tourism sector and would not interfere
again in this area under provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say on that
subject, in other words whether his party still believes that
tourism should be exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a
role for the federal government in tourism. I do not question
the need for that role as custodians for the entire country. I
am not arguing that point.
What I am arguing is the construction of the very commission we
are debating here today. I do not believe that that will lead to
good management practices. I think it can lead to political
manipulation, if you wish, in every province including the
province of Quebec. On that basis, I do not support the
construction as laid out in this design paper we have before us
entitled Bill C-5.
I think it could be taken back to the drawing board, keeping in
mind that there is a significant role in tourism for the federal
government, but not under this plan. I think it is slightly
flawed, to say the least.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps it
would be advisable to check whether we have a quorum to continue
the proceedings of the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. We may resume.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague for New Brunswick Southwest just mentioned that Nova
Scotia is one of those fine tourism places. I have to say I
cannot disagree with him. I think of the beautiful Annapolis
Valley. I think of the Bay of Fundy. I think of the fine
lobster we have in my part of the country. I think of the great
apples we have, all the parks and all the fine beaches.
My hon. colleague also mentioned that the head office for this
new organization would be somewhere in Canada. I am wondering if
my hon. colleague would support this headquarters being
located possibly in my fine riding of West Nova.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in
the driver's seat. Under the act, as presented, the Prime
Minister of Canada will be able to use his influence to determine
where that might be.
The town that comes to my mind, looking at the Prime Minister
and his past practices, would be Chicoutimi. I would not be
surprised that it would wind up in Chicoutimi. Under the act, it
could be any place in Canada, but I am sure there is going to be
a little bit of arm twisting to put it a little closer to the
Prime Minister's home.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5,
an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to acknowledge
the great growth of the Canadian tourism market over the past
number of years. In many parts of the country, tourism accounts
for perhaps fourth or third, sometimes even second or first,
among the industries that produce dollars. From the
unique locations that have a story to tell, the many historical
points across this land of ours, to the remote locations of
ecotourism, Canada has a lot to offer the world.
1630
All across the country there are tourism boards which are mainly
made up of volunteers looking to promote their own local
highlights. From small town Saskatchewan to urban Montreal and
all the points east, west, north and south the country has much
to offer. We ought to be exploiting the scenic beauty and the
many historical sites around the nation.
I will take some time to read into the record this afternoon a
bit about the community in which I live. The story of Chemainus,
British Columbia, is one of the success of tourism in the nation.
Those who do not know where Chemainus is located ought to know.
It is located about one hour north of Victoria, British Columbia,
on beautiful Vancouver Island. Many people are looking forward
to making that part of the country their final destination. It
is a great place to live and I suspect, although I do not know
yet, that it is probably a good place to die.
The local tourism information centre describes the history of
Chemainus as a small town having relied for over 100 years on the
lumber industry for its existence. In 1980 concern about
MacMillan Bloedel's inevitable downsizing prompted the community
to begin discussions on revitalizing the downtown core, with the
hope of developing some form of tourism.
Taking advantage of a provincial downtown revitalization
program, the town fathers developed a business improvement plan
now known as the mural project. They recommended painting large,
high quality murals depicting the logging and lumber history of
Chemainus on the exterior walls of various buildings.
The first mural was painted in 1982 by Vancouver Island artist
Frank Lewis. These amazing professionally painted murals, all
painted from authentic historical photos of the settlers, vividly
depict the history of the Chemainus valley including the forest
industry and first nations chiefs.
In addition to the magnificent murals Chemainus now boasts a new
270 seat family dinner theatre, many fascinating shops, and is
home to many talented artisans. By the third year it was
estimated that the murals were attracting somewhere in the
neighbourhood of 15,000 tourists. Today over 400,000 people
visit Chemainus annually to see the 33 world famous murals. A
sign on the edge of town reads “Welcome to the community that is
known as the little town that did”.
Chemainus is a success story of determination, courage and
vision. For over 100 years the town had solely depended on the
forest industry for its existence. Confronted with the
downsizing of the forest industry in the early 1980s, the
community began embarking on the transition to diversify its
economy. Along with the city fathers there was one man who was
the driving force behind the original Chemainus mural project,
Karl Shultz. Many people could learn a lot from Karl. His credo
is never let those who say it cannot be done stand in the way of
those who are doing it.
Many people looked at Chemainus in those days and declared that
turning the town into an outdoor art gallery simply could not and
should not be done. Fortunately the people who were busy trying
to do it were too busy to get discouraged. That is why Chemainus
is known today as the little town that did.
1635
During this transition Chemainus went from a 120 year old sawmill
town with no tourists in 1981 to a thriving tourist destination
with over 450,000 tourists by the year 1988, and from 40 local
businesses to over 300 today. Chemainus has gone from being left
off the maps of the world to becoming internationally famous.
Members can imagine that municipal revenues have more than
tripled what they were a little over a decade ago. From the work
of one man to a dedicated group of community minded volunteers
Chemainus is indeed the little town that did.
Chemainus received the prestigious British Airways Tourism for
Tomorrow Award for the Americas in London, England. It was
featured on radio with 1.5 million listeners hearing the story on
the British travel TV show Wish You Were Here. They were
viewed by 15 million people and appeared in the London
Times with a readership of 3.5 million.
In Japan the popular quiz show Naruhodo the World, with 10
million viewers, featured the Chemainus Art Gallery. As well
there was an eight page article in the May 1994 issue of the
Smithsonian Magazine.
This is just one small town with one story to tell in the
tourist industry across Canada. It is what the dream and
determination of dedicated people coming together in a common
cause can do.
Chemainus is a prime example of the success of entrepreneurial
spirit that captures the heart and soul of many Canadians across
the country today. In fact, many Canadians have come to the
conclusion that if we do not do it, it will not get done. That
is simply the way it is.
In the midst of speaking about the bill I ask why there is the
need to have one more crown corporation to do the work being done
so well by groups of people like the citizens of Chemainus. I
have no doubt that the Canadian Tourism Commission plays an
important role at the international level, but I really wonder
whether it is the government's business to be involved in such
things.
Why am I concerned? Simply put, it comes down to who can
perform the task best and at what financial cost. If we go over
the history of Canada, the involvement of the Canadian government
in the economic life of the country and the stories that are told
about government crown corporations, surely we will learn some
lessons from the past. Whether crown corporations are federal or
provincial, over a period of years their budgets and
bureaucracies are virtually out of control. It is certainly out
of the control of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer who ends up
funding these projects.
The board of directors is now largely made up of private
industry members. It is in their best interest to continue to
promote Canada as a tourist destination. Why not simply let them
continue doing the job without the apron strings of government?
Let them do what they can do best. We have the obvious example
of the Chemainus success story. Surely it can be repeated over
and over and over again across the nation.
While my colleagues and I in the official opposition firmly
support the creation of efficiency in government and the delivery
of government programs, I cannot support the move to establish
the Canadian Tourist Commission as a crown corporation.
1640
My opposition is based mainly upon lack of public
accountability. At a time when the public is demanding greater
accountability of its tax dollars at work, we should not be
allowing the creation of another crown corporation which does not
have the need to come before parliament to account for how it
spends its money.
Some of my colleagues in the House have already pointed out the
problem of too much political influence by the government in
crown corporations. That political influence starts right at the
Prime Minister's Office. It goes down through the various
departments and their ministers to the grassroots. Before we
know it power is vested in a small group of people taking control
of all crown corporations.
We already have a situation where the Prime Minister's Office
has far too much power. Are Canadian taxpayers aware that the
Prime Minister's Office has the power to make over 5,000
appointments from supreme court justices to senators in the other
house and down through parliamentary secretaries to members of
committees? It goes on and on. We have vested far too much
power in the hands of a few. Crown corporations are just another
way of keeping a tight rein on that power.
As I have shown with my hometown of Chemainus, local businesses
and municipal leaders have been able to take what was a desperate
situation in the early 1980s and turn the community into an
international success story. I invite members to join me next
summer in Chemainus to see what the private sector can do and see
what real success and community pride are.
The Canadian Tourism Commission could learn a lot from
Chemainus. The government could learn a lot from the little town
that did.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the story of Chemainus. It sounds like a
wonderful place. I would be happy to visit it some day. We have
these points of light across the country. It is a great country
to visit. Yet, when I travel abroad we are seen as a country
that plays at tourism. We do not treat it with all the respect
that it perhaps needs.
This commission and its predecessor are all relatively new. I
remember when the commission first started a number of years ago.
The Canadian government as a federal jurisdiction basically
withdrew from these areas and Canadian tourism shrunk
accordingly.
Realistically the hon. member knows that people will not simply
come from Europe to visit Chemainus. They will visit many other
tourist areas in the country. If there is one thing the
government can do effectively, it can co-ordinate tourist areas
to find destinations to which people want to travel and designate
marketing areas, for instance the European Union, southeast Asia
and so forth, in which to tell our story.
I am interested in one problem we have with the European Union
because I am interested in the area of trade. The European Union
still thinks that in Canada we mine and cut down trees. It is
very important, not only for tourism but for trade, that we
change that image or vision.
I disagree with the member. He seems to feel that if we
privatize everything industry will know best.
I can tell the member that if industry knew best it would have
done this years ago, but it did not. It has failed to coalesce
those areas in our country and market them as a country, rather
than just Chemainus.
1645
His party is fixated on the idea of privatizing everything, that
somehow if we give it over to private industry it will know best,
and maybe it will in some ways. However, what we will find is
that the big players will benefit, the airlines and the
international hotels, and not the Chemainuses of this world.
Does the member not see the importance of having a national
tourism authority?
He talked about accountability. I am very sensitive to that as
well. However, the commission will come under the Financial
Administration Act. The auditor general will audit the books of
the crown corporation, and there are ways to make crown
corporations efficient and effective.
Does the member not think there is a good use for this and that
Chemainus will be better off if we have a crown corporation set
up for tourism?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his questions. I am sure he will not be offended if I correct
his pronunciation of my hometown. It is Chemainus. Seamus is
that Irish character from a different land.
Between my hon. colleague and myself there is obviously a
fundamental difference in philosophy and approach. We in this
party believe very strongly in free enterprise, that people who
are motivated by low tax regimes and opportunities for business
create a good business climate. They make the best decisions and
do the right things in terms of driving the economy of the
country.
Government does not drive the economy of the country. Big
business does not really drive the economy. What drives the
economy are thousands of small businessmen across the nation,
entrepreneurial in nature and outlook, who take hold of an idea
and run with it. They are the ones who are closest to the ground
and to the delivery of services. They are the ones who know best
how to do this.
I point out to my colleague that in the little town of
Chemainus, of the 450,000 visitors who come each year, the
highest number come from Japan and the second highest number come
from Germany, an Asian nation and a European nation. Obviously
the people of Chemainus and their little tourism group have done
their work. They have been overseas to visit these markets.
They have done their work and they have attracted people.
I do not know why that experience cannot be duplicated right
across the country. My contention still remains that if we get
government involved in things like crown corporations, sooner or
later they rob people of initiative at the grassroots level by
trying to do the job in a huge way that can be best done locally.
My colleague and I have a fundamental difference, and I guess we
will both have to live with it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his most passionate
speech about his hometown of Chemainus. I can tell by the
twinkle in your eye, Mr. Speaker, that you will be booking your
next vacation to Chemainus. I know that warms the heart of my
hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.
My colleague spoke quite eloquently about his hometown and all
the hard work that has been done to create this thriving tourism
hot spot.
1650
As I said to my hon. colleague yesterday who made a similar
speech on this topic, when it comes to the level of jurisdiction,
I believe there is a role for all three levels of government, the
municipal, provincial and federal government, in promoting
tourism. Obviously tourism falls into provincial jurisdiction.
Does my hon. colleague think we could respect a balance between
the provinces and the federal government in the role of promoting
tourism in light of these changes?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
and the good wishes of my hon. colleague.
This is a very big issue across Canada. We have spoken about
provincial jurisdiction, referenda and possible threats of
breaking up the country in the House every day this week and last
week. This is a very important issue in terms of the kind of
roles the provinces and the federal government play in areas like
tourism.
Again, we have a fundamental difference with our Liberal
colleagues on this issue. Reformers do not want to play the role
of big brother from a federal perspective. We want to play the
role of brothers and sisters equally across the country. The
provincial prerogative to deliver services should be left to the
provinces because those services can better be delivered at the
local level.
That is why the Reform Party in the last year or so has put
forth the one Canada proposal. We call it “La Troisième Voie”.
It is a third way of looking at this. There should be equality
among provinces. Perhaps we could return to some of the original
concepts that this great nation was built on, such as allowing
the provinces to do those things which were guaranteed. Over the
years the federal government, playing big brother, has taken them
away. Health care is one of them, and now look at the state we
are in.
We have to return to the fundamental reasons for which this
country was built and create again a sense of equality so that we
can walk side by side with our heads held high and keep this
country together, united in the areas that make us great.
Tourism is basically a provincial responsibility and the federal
government should stay out of it as much as possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think we are debating an
extremely important matter. I call for a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1655
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. Resuming debate.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-5, an act to
establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
Several of my colleagues have already explained the Bloc
Quebecois' view of the bill. The bill can be summed up as
follows.
It creates a sort of crown corporation, to be known as the
Canadian Tourism Commission. If we look at the summary which
appears at the beginning of the bill, and again in clause 5, we
read that the commission's objects are to:
(a) sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry;
(b) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;
(c) support a cooperative relationship between the private
sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories with respect to Canadian tourism; and
(d) provide information about Canadian tourism to the private
sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories.
Since 1995 Canada has had a tourism commission, although it was
not formally instituted like the one proposed in the bill.
The commission will have the same mandate it always did, which
is to develop, direct, administer and implement programs to
increase and promote tourism at home and abroad.
For the present government, any and all means are acceptable
when it comes to fighting Quebec sovereignty. Or, to put it
another way, anything goes. The end justifies the means.
Never before, as far as we can remember, has Canada worked
so hard at gaining visibility, at selling itself, as it has
since the Bloc Quebecois arrived in Ottawa.
It is not much of a stretch to then conclude that one of the
unavowed objectives of this bill is to encourage and enhance the
visibility of the Government of Canada, and to bolster the
spirit of national unity it holds so dear. There may be some
laudable intentions behind this bill, and these are expressed in
the preamble to the bill proper.
For instance, the Government of Canada announces
its intention to “work with the governments of the provinces and
the territories and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the
interests of that industry”.
However, the majority of the “whereases” set out in the preamble
are of such a nature as to give me pause as far as the real
intentions of the Government of Canada are concerned. Every
time it gets a chance it repeats over and over again that it
wishes to respect provincial jurisdiction, but here we have in
writing:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and
cultural identity and integrity of Canada;
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential
contribution...to the economic objectives of the Government of
Canada
With such “whereases”, what about Quebec's cultural identity? What
might happen if the economic goals of Canada and Quebec differ?
Why such a bill, when the provinces, especially Quebec, already
have their own infrastructure, their own well developed tourism
network, and their own strategy, which is better suited to the
needs and characteristics of their respective territories?
How could the needs of each province be better served by a
Canadian tourism commission that will be expected to promote
several competing products? How will the commission allot its
promotion budget among various tourism products?
Let us have a closer look at the bill.
1700
First, clauses 7 to 14 provide for the organization of the board
of directors, which will consists of not more than 26 directors.
The Deputy Minister of Industry is, ex officio, a director of
the commission. The chairperson, who will hold office on a part
time basis, and the president, who will hold office on a full
time basis, will both be appointed by the governor in council
for a term of not more than five years.
With the approval of the governor in council and on the advice
of a committee established by the board of directors, the
Minister of Industry will appoint 16 private sector directors
for a term of not more than three years.
Nine will be private sector representatives and seven will be
tourism operators and represent the various regions. The
appointment of the latter will be done in the manner prescribed
in the act.
It is stipulated that there will be two from the
maritimes, one from Quebec, one from Ontario, one from British
Columbia and the Yukon, one from the provinces of Saskatchewan
and Manitoba, and one from Alberta, the Northwest Territories
and Nunavut.
The same process will be used to select private sector
representatives who, before being appointed by the Minister of
Industry, will first be designated by the provincial or
territorial ministers responsible for tourism.
These directors will either be deputy ministers or the
equivalent or heads of provincial or territorial agencies.
What is surprising in this part of the bill is clause 11(5), which
gives three definitions. It is obvious that the bill was drafted
in a hurry. I would like somebody to shed some light on this for
me some day.
I would now like to look at the three definitions in clause
11(5): private sector director, tourism operator and private
sector representative. These three expressions are defined and
clause 11(5) specifies that “The definitions in this subsection
apply in this section”.
I have read these three definitions over and over again but I
could not make anything out of them. I do not possess the
necessary philological knowledge to make an expert comment on
this text, nor the expertise to compare the French and English
definitions. Perhaps members can follow me as I go through these
extraordinary definitions.
A private sector director is a tourism operator. A tourism
operator is an owner or a manager of a private sector tourism
business. The private sector director is a private sector
representative. Why use two terms that mean the same thing?
I am really surprised. La Palisse himself could not have done
better, and he was the expert on truisms. A private sector
director is a private sector representative. Is this not
obvious?
What is the owner or manager of a business if not a private
sector director? Again, I do not have the answer, because this
is the definition given. The bill says that the director is an
operator and that the operator is an owner or a manager of a
private sector tourism business.
The third definition is that of the private sector
representative. This is quite the find: the private sector
representative is a tourism operator. Can anyone tell me the
difference between a private sector director who is a tourism
operator and a private sector representative who is a tourism
operator? How will we distinguish between the two on the board?
1705
This is a new element that will open the door to arbitrary
decisions and political patronage. I must say that the English
version of that definition sheds a different light, since it
specifies that the person to be appointed will have to have the
expertise required to satisfy the board's needs. This means that
the person appointed may be someone who is really needed and not
a person who is being rewarded for political reasons.
When the time comes to conduct a clause by clause review of the
bill and to propose amendments, it would be appropriate for the
government to take a serious look at clause 11(5) and to make
the necessary changes so that the definitions are, as the Prime
Minister likes to say, very clear, very precise and mutually
exclusive. Dictionaries exist to provide definitions which are
usually mutually exclusive.
This is not a dictionary of synonyms. It is a series of
definitions to define which people will sit on the commission's
board and what their duties will be. Perhaps the legislator
intends to have vague, imprecise, obscure and mutually inclusive
definitions to be in a position to appoint friends of the
government, regardless of their qualifications.
The government has its work cut out for it, because it has a bad
habit of refusing any suggestions for amendments, however
brilliant, from the opposition parties. It will therefore have
to go back to the drawing board if we are to know exactly whom
it has in mind.
Clauses 15 to 28 cover the other features of the bill, such as
the duties of the chairperson and the chief executive officer,
head office and meetings, remuneration and fees, and
compensation. Clause 26 specifies that:
26.(1) The Commission may enter into an agreement with the
government of any province or territory to carry out its
objects.
Then, beginning with clause 29, the bill launches into a series
of transitional provisions for transferring the activities of
the former commission to the new one. The last four clauses
contain the consequential amendments to the Access to
Information Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,
the Financial Administration Act and, finally, the Privacy Act.
I drew the House's attention to the fact that one act has again
been omitted; every time a commission or agency is established,
we want to see a specific reference to the Official Languages
Act. Once again, the government has left out this piece of
legislation.
We might once again see that translated into facts, when the
advertizing fails to point out that tourism in Canada can be
done in French or in English, depending on where the tourist
registers.
Some will claim that mentioning that act in this bill is not
necessary since Canada is officially a bilingual country, but I
really wish that an amendment along those lines be seriously
considered at committee stage.
Now that we have a fairly good idea of the bill's contents, let
us see what kind of a political impact it could have. With the
establishment of this commission, the government provides itself
with a parallel organization that will allow it to escape
accountability. Of course, the commission will report to
Parliament like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
National Film Board and Telefilm Canada do.
Having an organization reporting to Parliament is very useful:
all the scandals occurring are overlooked. A report is produced
and someone opposite rises in the House and says “I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, this report”. But
accountability is really avoided. Parliament will be informed
through the commission's board of directors. But the minister
will always find a way to walk away from ministerial
responsibility.
We are witnessing the implementation of a new way of managing
public assets and funds. This time, a commission is created;
last year, it was agencies: the Revenue Agency, the Canadian
Parks Agency and the Agri-Food Agency.
1710
What distinction does the government make between a commission
and an agency? I did not find the answer. It is as if the
country were asking a third party to monitor all the actions of
its politicians. A commission or an agency is almost the
equivalent of a contracting out system. Who will account for the
actions of the commission?
The bill provides that, within the limits of the Financial
Administration Act, the commission will be given greater leeway
to purchase the goods and services necessary for the programs
established by the board of directors.
The new system will make it easier to contract out consulting
and advertising services. One can readily see that it will be
easier for the commission to act from outside a department
rather than from inside. Easier to operate also means easier to
elude the control of the House.
To understand the Bloc's opposition to this bill, one must
realize that, for us, Tourism Canada is a duplication of
Tourisme Québec, which is already in place and functions very
well.
In several speeches made by its members and in the throne
speech, the Liberal government promised to withdraw from
provincial jurisdictions. This bill shows today that visibility
comes first, regardless of the cost.
Can the vision of the federal government in terms of tourism
development really compete with the diversified and positive
vision of Quebec?
Will the goals of the commission and the actions it will take
support the strategy put forward by Tourism Quebec? Can we trust
that this commission will work at consolidating the tourism
centres of Montreal and Quebec City when we know an agreement
could not even be achieved on the expansion of the Palais des
Congrès in Montreal? Yet it is the driving force of the tourism
strategy in the greater Montreal area. How can we rely on this
new commission?
The greater Montreal area and Quebec City play a strategic role
in the Quebec tourism industry. They are showcasing the province
of Quebec for the benefit of foreign markets. Montreal's
international reputation is based on its economic and cultural
strength. Tourism has greatly sustained and promoted this
strength.
Quebec's distinctive culture has been the focus of our tourism
strategy for many years now. Quebec has been able to
successfully feature its cultural uniqueness through many of its
attractions and events. Will the commission continue on that
track?
Quebec is known for its distinct culture in North America.
Quebec's tourism policy is based on this characteristic. Tourism
Quebec is one of Quebec's main engines in promoting its
distinctiveness on the world markets. Will the new commission be
able to do the same?
Instead of pushing for the federal government to get involved,
would it not be better to financially support the provinces
that, especially where Quebec is concerned, have proven quite
successful in this area?
The Bloc will vote against this bill mainly because it
duplicates what is already being done, and quite successfully,
in the provinces and because, on the face of it, this bill looks
like a new propaganda tool for the Liberal government to gain
more visibility.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the member's intervention and speech.
First of all, I would like to touch on the issue of
accountability because that has come up a number of times in
debate. This comes under the Financial Administration Act. By
doing that, it will come under the ambit of the audit of the
auditor general. I wonder why the member dismisses that. The
auditor general is fairly well respected by parliament. In fact,
he just gave a report the other day, accounting a number of
areas, some of them not all that complimentary to the government
but at the same time giving us, as parliamentarians, the ability
to look into these organizations and recommend changes that would
improve their efficiency and effectiveness and basically be of
value to the taxpayers of Canada.
1715
First, I want to ask the member what more accountability she
would like to see. Does she not respect the auditor general?
Does she think the auditor general is not doing an effective job?
Second is the issue of duplication. I understand Tourisme
Québec is a very effective organization in bringing tourists to
Quebec. Surely the member would respect the concept that when
people travel to other countries, they often want to experience a
multiplicity, a multifaceted experience when they visit those
areas. While we are a huge geographical country, it seems to me
that if people come to Ontario, they would also like to go to
Quebec. The same thing when we go to the maritime provinces, we
would like to experience Quebec.
When I travel to Europe, I do not just go to France
while I am there. Since I expended such a great amount of money
to get there, I like to also go to other European countries. I
have done the same thing in Africa and India. I would assume
that tourists coming to Canada would like to experience the same
thing.
Why can the member not see tourism, a crown corporation,
being a major benefit? It is not a duplication in the sense that
all those people that would have come via Tourisme Québec would
also come from Tourism Canada. They are identical people. In
fact, Quebec will benefit by the fact that there is another
marketing tool out there, whether it is in Europe, Asia or
the United States. It can only be a positive thing for Quebec
and for the rest of Canada that we complement each other in our
tourist ventures and that we try to increase our economic
well-being, whether it is in Quebec or Ontario, or anywhere else in
this country.
I wonder why the member has such blinders on and sees this as a
fence around Quebec and that only Quebec could possibly enjoy the
tourist trade of people coming to Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his comment and his questions. But I would like to come back to
certain aspects based not on theory but on experience.
Often, when we ask questions of the government, it tells us it
cannot answer a particular question because it is a matter for
the board of directors, whether we are talking of Telefilm
Canada, the CBC, or another corporation.
For those crown corporations, agencies or commissions that have
boards of directors, this is the board's primary responsibility.
There are crown corporations like Telefilm Canada, for example,
that escape the scrutiny of the auditor general, unlike the CBC,
where the auditor general has the legislative mandate to conduct
an audit every five years. This is not the case for Telefilm
Canada or for the National Film Board, and they somehow escape
the scrutiny of the auditor general.
It is not enough to say that, where public finances are
concerned, reference is made to very specific legislation. We
must go beyond that. If we want to make absolutely sure that the
auditor general will be able to take a close look at the
commission's finances, it must be spelled out in the bill.
Otherwise, he could very well not be able to do so.
So it seems extremely important to me to consider all these
questions and to find the necessary answers that will guarantee
the kind of transparency we want, so that the commission can
have all the credit it will certainly deserve if it helps
Montreal get a bigger convention centre.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must inform the House
that, starting now, the length of speeches will be 10 minutes.
1720
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, there are
bills that are introduced in the House the purpose and even the
necessity of which is easy for all to see. With other bills, we
have reservations on a few points or even fundamental
differences, but at least we can understand their purpose and
significance. In this case it is exactly the opposite. Let me
explain. It is easy to understand.
This bill is based on the first four paragraphs of the preamble.
I will go through them, and members will see that, as a matter
of fact, it is based on next to nothing.
I will explain. Here is the first paragraph in French:
Did members get that? The tourism industry is vital to the Canadian
identity. What happens if the tourist industry disappears? Will
the Canadian identity disappear too? Should we infer that it
could not survive? This is not a mistranslation. I checked the English
version, because I suspected a mistranslation. I could
not believe anybody could write that the tourism industry was
vital to Canadian unity, so I checked the English version. Here
it is:
[English]
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and
cultural identity and integrity of Canada
[Translation]
Without the tourism industry, will the social and cultural identity
and the integrity of Canada disappear? Come on. This does not
seem very serious. I cannot believe that it is so fragile and so
dependent on foreign visitors. In other words, if foreigners do
not come to see us, Canada no longer has a cultural identity and
social integrity.
Hon. members will admit that whoever wrote this probably had a
bad night and was somewhat out of his or her mind. It is
unthinkable to find a whereas as hare-brained as this one, if I
can put it that way, at the beginning of the bill. Let us get
serious.
I looked at the second whereas, absolutely convinced that I
would now find something substantial.
This is what it is said:
This is true, but not only of the tourism industry. Does this
mean that we have to create a Canadian commission for every
industry that makes a major contribution to the economic
well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the
Government of Canada?
That is what the whereas is all about. It is one of the reasons
this bill is before us.
If this is so important for the tourist industry, would it not
be equally important for any other? I have to say that I do not
believe we could name a single industry that did not make a
vital contribution to the economic well-being of the people who
derive their livelihood from it, the people of Canada or of
Quebec.
Let hon. members name one industry that we could do without
because it has no importance. I agree the importance of some
may be relative, but the importance of tourism is certainly
considerable. Yet how many more are also of great importance to
the economic well-being of ordinary people? Are we to have a
commission for each?
That is the second whereas in the preamble, and hon. members
will agree with me that it is pretty weak. It could apply to
anything at all, not just the tourist industry in particular.
Who in heaven's name wrote this? Who is the one that had this
brilliant idea? It makes no sense.
Perhaps the third whereas will offer us some clarification and
will show us that this bill is really a serious one, that there
are really pressing reasons for it to be passed.
1725
It reads as follows:
Most jobs in Canada and in Quebec are in small and medium sized
business, not just those in tourism. For instance,
neighbourhood convenience stores are important. Are they going
to create a Canadian convenience store commission? How about
getting serious here.
This third pillar is being presented as a fundamental argument
in support of the bill. This pillar is just as far off as the
first two.
Only one pillar is left, now—the fourth one. Let us examine it.
Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment? Is
it really desirable to do so? This is an unwarranted
affirmation; or I am missing something.
I have looked.
Perhaps it was explained on the preceding page why it was
desirable; perhaps. But there is no explanation to be found in
the recommendation or in the summary. Who said it was desirable
to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism? Who made
this statement? Where does it come from? Can anyone explain
why?
I do not want anyone to get me wrong. I think tourism is an
important industry in the economic fabric of Canada and Quebec,
and in my own riding I am an ardent proponent of tourism. As a
matter of fact, money spent promoting tourism produces the
biggest, and the fastest, bang for the buck. And, in my riding,
investments in this sector have paid off handsomely.
But does it necessarily follow that it is desirable to
strengthen Canada's commitment? If Canada wants to use my tax
dollars and those of the average Canadian to help the tourism
industry, it does not need to establish a commission. It seems
to me this is only common sense.
This bill rests on four pillars; four extremely fragile
pillars that make no sense. I do not know who wrote these four
“whereases”. Obviously, the person did not examine the matter
seriously. It does not come across as serious; neither I nor
anyone else is convinced.
But there is one thing in the bill that struck me—the fact that
there will be a board of directors. And that, to all intents
and purposes, the directors will be appointed by the Prime
Minister.
Then I began to see the light.
The four pillars just mentioned, the four “whereases”, are not the
important thing here. The important thing is those 16 persons
who will be appointed to the board of directors. That is the
important issue.
Let us get serious. The tourist industry has been developing
quite well for a long time now both in Quebec and in Canada.
Quebec has created institutions, developed tools.
Municipalities, urban communities and agencies have all worked
hard to promote the tourist industry.
If the federal government, with our tax money, wants to support
the tourist industry, I am all for it. But if the federal
government wants to do some window dressing just to reward its
friends, then I have to be against it. Tourism is much more
than that; it is more important, much more important than
this useless creature.
This bill insults our intelligence; it is an insult to taxpayers
and to all Canadians and Quebecers. This bill should never have
been introduced. It should never have been drafted. It should be
withdrawn.
I will of course vote against it; I know all my colleagues from
the Bloc Quebecois will do the same and I encourage all members
in this House to vote against it. I see my time is up. I thank
all members for their attention and I hope they will agree with
what I said.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
TREATIES ACT
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved that Bill C-214,
an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons
when treaties are concluded, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill C-214
providing for the participation of the House of Commons when
treaties are concluded. I would like to ask all members of the
House of Commons to support this bill so that it can one day
become law.
A vote for this bill would give a new voice to all members,
would confer increased legitimacy on treaties and finally would
democratize the process by which the state assumes international
obligations.
As I speak, the 135 member states of the World Trade
Organization are gathered in Seattle to launch the millennium
round of negotiations and start international trade negotiations
that will end in the signing of many treaties.
These treaties will create international obligations for the
states that are parties to them, and will have to be implemented
through legislation the House of Commons will have to consider,
the same way it had to pass implementing legislation for the
agreements reached during the Uruguay round, which preceded the
current millennium round of negotiations.
Other negotiations are in fact going on, whether on bilateral
treaties on social security or investment protection, or on
multilateral treaties on disarmament, human rights or trade.
These negotiations will also lead to international treaties that
will have a significant impact on people's lives, on businesses
and also on government institutions. The number of such treaties
is constantly increasing.
During a study that I conducted in 1992 for the Commission des
questions afférentes à l'accession du Québec à la souveraineté,
I found 1,388 treaties that were in effect in Canada on April
30, 1991. From 1992 to 1998, at least 644 other treaties came
into effect, and we must now add the 84 treaties for which
measures were taken in 1999.
While globalization has something to do with the increase in the
number of international legal treaties, it should not diminish
the legislative sovereignty of the House of Commons and deprive
it of its authority to look at the content of these numerous
treaties.
Such a power is necessary for important treaties, those which
are likely to have a significant and lasting impact on our
country.
This is why clause 7 of Bill C-214 provides that no treaty shall
be ratified by Canada unless the House of Commons has first
approved the treaty by resolution.
Such approval would be necessary for important treaties, as
defined in clause 2 of the bill that I am tabling in the House.
An important treaty includes any treaty whose implementation
requires the enactment of an act of parliament, treaties
creating international institutions, treaties on international
trade and many other treaties listed in the bill.
1735
As set out in clause 7(2) of this bill, approval by the House of
Commons would not include the power to amend the text of a
treaty, because the approval would be on the text of a treaty
already signed. This would preserve the government's margin of
manoeuvrability in negotiations and would allow it to sign
treaties without fear that the House of Commons would
subsequently reject terms that had already been validated by
signing.
The purpose of such a clause is, moreover, to restore—and I
stress this, to restore—a parliamentary practice whereby major
treaties were approved by resolution of this House, a practice
first implemented in 1923 at the instigation of Prime Minister
William Lyon Mackenzie King, and confirmed for treaties in
general, and treaties relating to military and economic
sanctions in particular, in 1926.
Prime Minister Mackenzie King stated, moreover, that the
practice meant that “with the exception of treaties of lesser
importance or in cases of extreme urgency, the Senate and the
House of Commons are invited to approve treaties, conventions
and formal agreements before ratification by or on behalf of
Canada”.
The last instance of a treaty deemed important was back in 1966,
when the House of Commons and the Senate approved the Auto Pact,
on January 16, 1966 and January 30, 1966 respectively. Since
that time, the Government of Canada has not submitted any treaty
to this House for approval, although it has implied in certain
documents, certain memoranda from the Department of Foreign
Affairs, that such a practice is still in effect.
Despite their importance, neither the Free Trade Agreement
between the U.S. and Canada, nor NAFTA, nor the recent treaties
on landmines and disarmament, were approved by this House before
the government expressed its consent to be bound by them.
Thirty-three years have elapsed since parliament really had a say
in the process leading to the signing of treaties and when it
could make a detailed examination of the treaties subject to its
approval.
Bill C-214 also provides, in clause 8, that the tabling of
treaties be based on legal requirement instead of being left at
the discretion of the government of the day. Inspired by the
British Ponsonby rule, but based on no particular legislative or
constitutional rule, the tabling of treaties in the Parliament
of Canada was done sporadically and interrupted without
explanation in 1990. Even extradition treaties, which had to be
tabled pursuant to section 7 of the Extradition Act, were not
tabled. In this case, the government clearly violated a
legislative obligation to table extradition treaties.
Following my remarks on this subject after my election on June
2, 1997, the practice of tabling has resumed: the Minister of
Foreign Affairs forwarded to the Clerk of the House of Commons,
on January 8, 1999, seven extradition treaties, accompanied by a
list of these treaties and a letter indicating that they were
being tabled pursuant to Standing Order 32(1).
1740
I must add, however, that section 7 of the Extradition Act has
been abrogated. The obligation to table treaties was abrogated
by Bill C-40, in spite of my strong opposition and my attempt to
amend section 8 of the bill during its examination on November
23, 1998 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,
by replacing its wording with the wording of section 7 of the old
act.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs tabled, on April 13, 1999, the treaties
concluded by Canada in 1995-96, accompanied by a list of these
treaties.
Only a few days ago—and I guess they did it in anticipation of
today's debate—on November 26 and 29, treaties signed in 1991
and 1992 and in 1989 and 1990 were tabled by the parliamentary
secretary. We are still waiting for the treaties signed in 1993
and 1994 and in 1997 and 1998, not to mention the 84 treaties on
which measures were taken this year, none of which has yet been
tabled in the House.
Canadian parliamentarians should not be subject to the
arbitrariness of the government in this regard and should be
informed of all international treaties signed by Canada, through
their being tabled in the House.
To make these treaties easier to understand, they should include
as an attachment explanatory memorandum containing, as provided
under clause 8(3) of Bill C-214, a statement of Canada's
obligations under the treaty, a summary of any legislation that
must be enacted by parliament in order to implement the treaty
and other relevant information.
By adopting this provision, the House of Commons would not be
innovating, since three other Commonwealth parliaments, namely
those of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the
mother of all the Commonwealth parliaments, adopted similar
rules and explanatory memoranda were sent to all
parliamentarians.
Bill C-214 also includes provisions requiring the government to
publish treaties rapidly and to post them as quickly as possible
on a government website.
The purpose of clauses 11 and 14 is to ensure that treaties are
published within certain time limits, that is, in the Canada
Gazette not later than 21 days after being ratified, in
the Canada Treaties Series not later than three months after
being ratified and in an electronic version even more rapidly,
as would be necessary, that is, not later than seven days after
being ratified.
The current publication practices are so inadequate and there is
so little transparency that no treaty is reproduced in the
Canada Gazette except for extradition treaties and that only 32 of
the 34 treaties on which measures were taken in 1999 were
published in the Canada Treaties Series. I checked this a few
hours ago with the Library of Parliament,
and none of these treaties are on the website of the Department
of Foreign Affairs, with the exception—and I also checked this
as of today—of the North American free trade agreement, which
is mentioned under the heading “Regional and Bilateral
Agreements”.
This bill would correct an obvious deficiency, allowing ordinary
citizens as well as parliamentarians to have access to
international treaties.
Bill C-214 also contains four clauses on the negotiation and the
conclusion of treaties that I would like to bring to the
attention of this House.
1745
While recognizing the respective jurisdictions of the federal
and provincial governments regarding the conclusion of treaties
in areas under the exclusive authority of either level of
government—I must mention at this point that we consider the
Gérin-Lajoie doctrine in this respect to be in accordance with
the Canadian Constitution—clauses 5 and 6 of the bill are aimed
at fostering co-operation between the federal government and the
provinces when the treaties being negotiated are joint treaties
in an area under the authority of both the federal and
provincial levels of government. Treaties of this kind are
numerous.
In fact, clause 5 of the bill provides that the federal
government will have to enter into an agreement with each
provincial government on the manner in which it will consult the
provincial governments.
In fact, the premiers asked for this kind of agreement during
their annual conference that was held in August. Clause 5
reflects the desire of 10 provinces which want to see an end to
improvisation in this respect, and the federal government
commit, in a formal and permanent manner, through an agreement
among governments, to involve the provinces in the negotiating
process and the conclusion of international treaties that have a
significant impact on provincial governments and legislatures.
Before I conclude with the presentation of Bill C-214, I want to
thank my parliamentary intern, Mr. Gibran van Ert, who helped me
to draft this bill last spring and got so interested in this
field that he has decided to address this issue in the master
thesis he will be working on this year at the University of
Toronto, highlighting some of the work of two renown
internationalists, Mr. Alan Gotlieb and Mrs. Anne-Marie
Jacomy-Millette.
I also want to thank my parliamentary assistant, Éric
Normandeau, for all the preparatory work he did on this bill
every step of the way and for his continued support and loyalty.
Lastly, I would like to thank legislative counsel Louis-Philippe
Côté who put Bill C-214 in perfect legal form.
In conclusion, I advocate changes to the treaty process and I
want to convince the federal government and the
parliamentarians, even those in opposition, that the time has
come to reform the obsolete process being used by the
government. The process has been changed elsewhere in the
Commonwealth, but not here, in the House of Commons.
As elected representatives, we have to change the process in
order to give our fellow citizens the opportunity to express
their views on international treaties. In the short term, we
need to change the process used in the House of Commons and I
intend to advocate changes to the role the House of Commons
plays in negotiating and implementing international treaties.
As we move into the next century, is it not our duty, where
treaties are concerned, to meet this democratic challenge?
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-214, an act to provide for the
participation of the House of Commons when international treaties
are concluded.
1750
I support the bill. I encourage everyone in the House of
Commons to support it. There is a real lack of consultation and
approval in the treaty making process. I wonder if people
watching and listening to the debate today realize how much the
House of Commons is cut out of the action when it comes to
international treaties.
We get a chance to vote on an odd treaty which comes before the
House, maybe a free trade agreement, but between 1994 and 1999
during the life of the government it has signed 470 international
treaties and has ratified 295 treaties.
Most members of the House of Commons have never seen them and
know almost nothing about them because the government handles
them behind closed doors. The negotiations take place behind
closed doors. The signing takes place behind closed doors. I do
not even know who signs them. We do not even know who negotiates
on our behalf. The government takes a group of NGOs, a big group
of bureaucrats and a whole bunch of other people, and they all
head over on a big bus to sign the deal. Then we do not learn
about it until we read about it in the papers.
This is what the bill is meant to address. It is a perfect
redress to this lack of democracy. What is happening right now
has happened for too long in the House of Commons. Too much
power has been vested in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet
and not enough power is spread around to other members of the
House.
The bill properly addresses the requirement of the government to
be part of international agreements and negotiations but to come
back to the House for consultation and approval. This is a good
balance for the government and the House of Commons when
assembled together.
The Reform Party believes that Canadians have a right to be
consulted about international treaties. We believe it should
happen through their duly elected representatives in parliament.
We also believe that public debate, public discussion and public
input are ways to improve treaties and to improve public
participation in our democratic process. This is not something
to be feared or something to be hidden or something to run from.
The bill adequately addresses those points.
Canadians expect the House of Commons to advance solutions. Not
just the bureaucrats, not just the government, but the entire
House of Commons should put our minds and our best ideas together
on all issues, certainly on international treaties which affect
all of us in our day to day lives. Presently that expectation is
not being met.
Bill C-214 sets out to change the problematic process of hidden
negotiations. There was the problem which the government faced
last year concerning all the rumours surrounding the MAI.
Concerns were expressed about what the government was negotiating
and proposing. What was our position in the negotiations? When
it comes back, will we have a chance to ratify it before we are
signed on to an agreement that will affect everyone in Canada?
The bill would ensure that it comes back to the House to be
debated and talked about. We will approve it as an entire House.
The government may decide to push it through with its vote, but
at least we would have a debate and at least we would have a
vote. Then Canadians would have a full hearing and a full airing
of these important discussions.
The bill provides that all important international treaties must
be tabled in the House of Commons for approval by resolution. No
treaty may be ratified unless approved. This is a good balance
between the necessity for the government to negotiate, to do fine
work on behalf of all Canadians and through their representatives
in the House of Commons to put a final stamp on it showing that
we think it is a good idea.
The bill also provides that every international treaty shall be
tabled for 21 sitting days prior to ratification. In other
words, we will all have a chance to look at it. We will all have
a chance to go through it with a fine tooth comb if that is our
wish. Very importantly, an explanatory memorandum accompanies
the bill, something which explains why it is in the best interest
of Canada, whether there are tax implications, how it will affect
Canadians, whether there are estimated expenditures to which the
government might be obligating Canada, and all such things that
Canadians expect us to keep an eye on.
Under the current system they do not get the opportunity. This
bill does not stop the government from doing its job; it just
entitles all Canadians and all of us who are duly elected
representatives to scrutinize these 400 or 500 international
treaties that Canada has signed on to.
1755
This bill proposes that the government not be permitted to
ratify or modify a treaty without House of Commons approval,
after the treaty has been tabled for 21 days. That would provide
a good opportunity to go through the details.
Reform agrees with the provisions of the bill, but we would like
the legislation to go even further. Before I explain that I
would like to state our policy on treaty negotiations. Our
policy book states that parliament should be asked to approve all
agreements or declarations before they are ratified as Canadian
positions. We think it is a good idea to include
parliamentarians early on in the process.
I wrote a dissenting opinion following the foreign policy review
in 1994. I wrote 40 or 50 pages which I am sure the Speaker has
in his library. I wrote about the dismay that many of us felt
when the government continued to sign agreements. In one case,
the hon. André Ouellet announced Canada's support for a United
Nations standing army, even while the standing committee was
reviewing Canada's foreign policy.
The Prime Minister made a major policy address on the need for
UN reform two weeks before the committee reported its findings to
parliament. That undermines and undercuts the role of
parliamentarians and places all the power and influence in the
Prime Minister's hands. In this bill the Prime Minister would
have a role, the cabinet would have a role, but the House of
Commons would also have a role in the making of international
treaties.
We only have to look at what happened in Seattle these last
couple of days to see how important people feel international
agreements have become. They are in many ways more important
than the day to day business we do in the House because the
hundreds of treaties that are signed by the government on our
behalf make commitments on behalf of all Canadians on issues like
trade, human rights, women's issues, family issues and the
environment. They commit the House and Canada to billions and
billions of dollars and legislative responses on any number of
issues and Canadians do not have a chance to see them first.
They should have that opportunity.
In our recently released foreign policy review, which was
released by our foreign affairs critic a week or so ago, there is
a four point proposal. The review goes into some detail, but I
will quickly say that parliamentary ratification would be needed
for all treaties. We would require an impact statement similar
to the one outlined in this bill. We also ask that these
international agreements work to strengthen co-operative
federalism. If an agreement affects provincial jurisdiction, the
provinces should be brought in early to make sure they understand
the impact it will have on the provinces. That is one way to
improve federalism. Perhaps it is a solution the Prime Minister
should be thinking about.
All of these discussions and debates would help to better inform
the public of what it is that Canada is doing on the
international stage. Canada does a lot of good work. Most of
these treaties would be routinely endorsed, but Canadians need to
know about them. The best way to let them know is to have
debates in the House of Commons.
I support this bill, and happily so, but I urge that we consider
in the days to come even more ways of increasing the
accountability of international treaties. We would like to see a
national interest impact analysis, very similar to the one
proposed in this bill's explanatory memorandum, but we would also
like to see a family impact statement. How would this affect the
family? Would it have tax implications? How would it affect
children? Those things should be discussed and debated. The
government should table them in the House when it tables the
bill.
Our foreign affairs minister said earlier this year in New York,
when he was talking about the security council, that we want to
make the council more transparent, more democratic and more open.
The trends have been going the other way. Our job is
to express our concerns and introduce alternate options.
1800
More transparency, more democracy and more accountability are
what the bill will bring to the House of Commons and I am happy
to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part
in this debate at second reading stage of Bill C-214, sponsored
by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
This bill deals with the Canadian practice with regard to the
conclusion of treaties, an important element of the Government
of Canada's prerogative.
First of all, I must tell the House that the government does not
intend to support Bill C-214 for the following reasons.
This bill seriously affects the division of powers in Canada and
questions certain priority aspects of Canada's foreign policy.
Today, the international context has a direct impact on the
daily lives of Canadians. They are increasingly mobile and
travel around the world to work and do business. Since an
increasing number of problems go beyond traditional boundaries,
countries adopt more and more a concerted approach to solve
these problems, whether they relate to the fight against crime,
the promotion of peace, disarmament, environmental protection,
sustainable development or international trade.
This concerted approach leads to an ongoing international
dialogue and to an increasing number of international
agreements, as evidenced by the fact that Canada signs about 100
treaties each year.
At this moment, Canada is party—and our colleague mentioned
some figures a few moments ago—to nearly 3,000 bilateral and
multilateral instruments.
To inform Parliament of the obligations stemming from these
treaties, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade already tables in the House—and I did so myself in the
last few days—as well as in the Senate the text of all treaties
that have been implemented and do not require special
legislation.
Moreover, all these treaties are also provided in electronic
format to both Houses and to the Library of Parliament for
consultation by all MPs and senators. Not only do
parliamentarians receive all this information, but they play an
active role in the implementation of treaties that Canada wishes
to ratify.
Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the
negotiation and the signature of a treaty, that is the act by
which Canada wishes to be bound by a treaty, is strictly the
purview of the federal executive branch. However, the
legislative branch is still responsible for implementing the
ensuing obligations.
If a treaty results in changes to current laws or in the
enactment of new ones, the lawmaker alone can take such action.
Depending on the jurisdiction, implementing legislation must be
passed by parliament or provincial legislatures.
This role is essential because, in the absence of any
participation from the legislative branch, the international
commitments made by Canada would never be followed up on for
lack of internal enactments.
Because of this implementation power, parliament is regularly
required to study and discuss treaties. We need only think of
the bill to implement the land mines convention, which banned
land mines and provided for their destruction, the bill to
implement the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which I
will deal with later, or the Corruption Of Foreign Public
Officials Act that gives effect to the OECD convention on
combating bribery of foreign public officials in international
business transactions.
[English]
I would also like to highlight the fact that while we believe
that legislative changes are not necessary, in practice the role
of parliament in treaty making continues to evolve. The hon.
member is aware that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade and its subcommittee examined and made
recommendations to the government on the multilateral agreement
on investment, on the WTO and the FTAA negotiations. They make
recommendations prior to the conclusion of any agreement.
Another example would be that parliament last spring debated
Bill S-22, implementing legislation of an agreement with the
Americans, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, in order to
give parliament greater latitude in determining what powers
Canada would provide American customs officers in Canadian
airports.
1805
Therefore, parliament does play a role, not in every case, but
in many important cases prior to the conclusion of an agreement.
[Translation]
With regard to treaties dealing with areas under provincial
jurisdiction, constitutional law already requires that the
Government of Canada secure the support of provinces before
ratifying an international treaty requiring implementation
through provincial legislation.
For example, the federal government consults provincial
governments in relation to Hague conventions dealing with
private international law and in relation to the development of
the Canadian negotiating position on environmental protection
conventions.
Provincial representatives are sometimes part of Canadian
delegations, when treaties concerning the provinces are
negotiated.
Bill C-214 creates nothing new in that area, but it imposes a
tight framework on the Government of Canada for consulting its
provincial partners.
Also, Bill C-214 refers to the royal prerogative of Her Majesty
in right of a province with respect to the negotiation and
signing of treaties. It is clearly established in Canada that no
such provincial prerogative exists and that the prerogative with
respect to the negotiation and signing of any international
treaty lies exclusively with the Canadian federal executive
branch.
Furthermore, Bill C-214 adversely affects Canadian foreign policy.
Crises throughout the world must not be used for partisan
purposes on the national political scene. The Government of
Canada, which is accountable to parliament, is responsible for
the country's foreign affairs. In order to be heard and to be
perceived as a leader, it must have a single voice on the
international scene.
For example, the partisan decision of the U.S. Senate, with its
Republican majority, not to sign the comprehensive nuclear test
ban treaty stunned Canada and the whole international community,
dimmed the hopes for peace and international stability generated
by the treaty, and dealt a serious blow to the United States'
reputation, even though President Clinton himself openly
supported ratification of the treaty.
This show of disunity by our American neighbours is a clear
illustration of what happens when sterile party politics find
their way into the conduct of a country's foreign affairs.
Canada does not wish to undergo such a drastic change in the
conduct of its foreign affairs.
Moreover, Bill C-214 would slow down the treaty ratification
process and prevent Canada from being a leader in the
development of international conventions. Here is an example of
obstacles that Bill C-214 could create.
The land mines convention, which was signed right here in
Ottawa, is an international priority for Canada. We were the
first country to sign that treaty, in December 1997. However, if
Bill C-214 had been in effect at the time, that would not have
been possible.
Canada must have a treaty ratification process that allows it to
achieve its foreign policy objectives and to deal quickly and
effectively with changing and urgent situations. The current
process meets these imperatives.
Let me give the House an example of the flexibility provided by
the current Canadian system that serves the interests of Canada.
To promote business in the air transport industry, for instance,
the government regularly signs air transport agreements with
other countries. Under these agreements, commercial carriers
from one signatory state can use the airspace of another
signatory state, which increases the number of destination
points the carriers of both countries can offer.
Quite often, these agreements are implemented even before the
countries can have them officially ratified, so that the
carriers of both countries can benefit from the terms of the
agreements as soon as possible.
If we were to abide by the process and the restricting delays
stipulated by the hon. member in his bill, we would not be able
to implement the agreements on a temporary basis.
1810
In conclusion, I think Bill C-214 provides for an overly complex
and inefficient procedure to replace a treaty negotiation
process that, so far, has well served Canadians,
parliamentarians, and Canada throughout the world.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, first,
I wish to congratulate the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for
the good job he has done on this issue. It is one the Bloc
Quebecois, particularly the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, has
been addressing for years. Why? Because it has to do with the
whole issue of respect for federal and provincial jurisdictions.
We should bear in mind that what goes around, comes around. We
have had an opportunity to be at the helm a few times and we
will no doubt have an opportunity, as a political party, to be
at the helm in the near future.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out that the two
parties that have formed the successive governments since
Confederation have basically taken the same approach to
treaties.
That having been said, I think there is a need to evolve. In the
case of very specific treaties with a major impact on the life
of Canadians, elected representatives should have a much greater
say not during the negotiation phase, but before they are
ratified.
Earlier, the millennium round at Seattle was mentioned.
Considering today's technology, it is preferable to let people
know before they decide to go and get the information
themselves. I think it is necessary to do so for the sake of
public peace.
Although I am not a procedural expert, what I can say about this
bill is that we should bear in mind two things when we talk
about it being divided into two bills.
First, about the role of Parliament. From the outset,
parliamentarians must be involved. The parliamentary secretary
gave the example of ratification after 21 days in the case of
the airline industry. But these treaties are not part of the
description or the philosophy of an important treaty.
It is a cinch; international trade agreements are not listed as
important treaties, by tradition. The examples given by the
parliamentary secretary were not good ones.
In connection with Bill C-214, the parliamentary secretary said
“But the provinces were consulted on the implementation
measures”. I hope that they were because it is their
responsibility. But that is not being taken away by Bill C-214.
The whole matter of implementation of treaties is still there.
What is being called for is for parliamentarians to be consulted
before ratification of a treaty, so that they can give it some
examination. There would then be no surprises, because they
would be familiar with it.
If I am to believe the hon. parliamentary secretary, the
government is so good that the members of parliament will just
look at the treaty—without being able to change its wording—and
will surely support it, because generally treaties signed by the
government are perfect. Afterward, we will go to our ridings to
be like ambassadors testifying to the good job this government
is doing internationally.
We could serve the cause of the party in power by approving
every international treaty. The parliamentary secretary could
make use of the opposition. It might be a good thing.
That said, in connection with parliament, Bill C-214 is
incomplete, and I do not mean that as a criticism. It is highly
complicated, nevertheless. As for all the consultation, all the
negotiation between provinces and the implementation, the
decision has to be made on how this will be handled.
Will it be limited to the standing foreign affairs committee or
will a new committee be established? Will it be a Senate
committee? What will the role of the Senate be in all this?
Nevertheless, the aim of Bill C-214 is to say: “With everything
that is going on, could we not see to it that parliamentarians
are involved?”
The parliamentary system we are living under—and I want to get
back to the example given by the parliamentary secretary with
respect to what happened in the United States—is quite different
from the United States' political system. As we saw today, more
often than not the parliamentary system allows the government to
create an alliance on a particular issue and get a majority.
In the United States, there is a republican, bicameral system
where the houses are renewed one third at a time over the years,
which can lead to some imbalance.
In spite of all its flaws, our parliamentary system has one
quality: it provides political stability to the party in power.
1815
Therefore, the government should not be afraid. Historically,
and the same goes for provincial legislatures, more often than
not, the government in power is a majority government.
We do not want to make the government fall over an international
treaty; rather, we want to be informed. We cannot change them,
but we can understand them. And this should be done quickly.
Transparency and involvement at the international level, this is
what it is all about.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is not asking to negotiate
for the government. This is not what we are asking for. We say:
“when the negotiations are over.”
This was a very short time, because 21 days is not long. The
land mines treaty, for instance, could have been signed faster.
The signing was to take place in Ottawa. It had to suit the
ministers' schedules. The weather had to be nice, not too cool
and not too hot. The signing was held up so all the guests could
be present. If the government is capable of being polite
and open to guests, could it be open a little to
parliamentarians, the representatives of the people? That is
how it works when treaties are being signed.
Ask the directors of ceremonies in the various departments.
They wait. They can put off a signing for several months
because the minister is not there.
It would be possible to have 21 days or a few months or just
a few weeks to look at them together.
On Bill C-214, this is self evident. The government has picked
up bad habits. The two parties that have taken turns in power
certainly have. That does not mean they cannot be fixed so that
we can go in the right direction.
What concerns me most is that portion of the bill that deals
with the provinces. I understand and I do not understand. The
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is much more knowledgeable and
experienced than I am in this field. However, I hesitate a bit
on this issue, because we know that increasingly, with changes
in society, the issue of jurisdiction is becoming increasingly
grey.
Increasingly, we are seeing that globalization has an impact on
trial court and even supreme court rulings. Increasingly,
opinion is divided and things are not clear. Let us take the
example of the environment. Recently, a Bloc Quebecois member
spoke about matters relating to the fishery. He said: “If the
fish washes ashore, whose is it? If it is floating on the
surface, whose is it? If it is on the bottom and only just got
there, whose is it?” This is an excellent example.
On a jurisdictional level, there is still the problem of knowing
whose fish it is.
We do not need a constitutional conference to sort this out but,
increasingly, in the case of an environmental treaty, there is
no doubt that provincial jurisdictions are just as affected as
federal ones.
I recall an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois. There was a
memorable speech by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who
said that Quebec could and should have a say in negotiations.
We were discussing asbestos at the WTO, and Quebec wanted a
place at the negotiating table. However, as I see it, there are
two ways to interpret clauses 4 and 5. The bill says that
Canada shall not—and here I am referring to clause 5, which
provides for an agreement on the manner of consultation with the
provinces—negotiate or conclude a treaty unless there is a
consultation agreement.
It means that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry admits
that the federal government has the prerogative of the
international negotiations and it is quite well. But in the
consultation scheme, would the provinces be given the right to
negotiate or to sit at the table for all important treaties?
These questions should be asked, and they are quite interesting.
It goes to prove that we are open to the possibility of sharing
the knowledge we have on the international treaties being
negotiated by the federal government.
1820
I realize my time is up. We are going to support Bill C-214 even
if there are still grey areas. But the most important point here
is that, in this Parliament, we see to it that members are
respected, after all the recommendations by committees to the
effect that people should be given information. We should start
in this House, and at the international level.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
exceedingly brief this afternoon. On behalf of the New
Democratic Party caucus I wanted to be on the record on this
subject. I think I should tell the House that we had another
speaker lined up who has been detained at a meeting and is unable
to be with us.
I listened very intently to the debate so far. I want to begin
by congratulating the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for
putting forward this important private member's bill and for the
cogent arguments and research that accompanied it. I think it is
an extremely important private member's bill.
I agree as well with the comments that have been made by the
Reform Party and the spokesperson for the Conservative Party and
therefore am disappointed in the remarks from the government
members opposite as to why they cannot bring themselves to
support this bill.
The important point for me is that the enactment of such a bill
would provide that Canada may not ratify an important treaty
unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty by
resolution, pursuant to the rules of procedure of the House of
Commons.
I dare say that in this country or in the world there are few
governments that have more power within the executive branch than
in this House of Commons. Because of our system of appointing
senators and other problems that we have had vis-a-vis the
constitution, we effectively have very little checks and balances
with which to restrain or detain the government in important
issues. This would be one way in which parliamentarians could
and should have a say in doing those kinds of things.
I wanted to get on the record and say that the New Democratic
Party caucus supports this private member's bill. We
congratulate the member from the Bloc for bringing it forward. We
are very disappointed with the reaction from the government
members opposite.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have some problems with this resolution and I will treat them
very quickly.
There is a failure to study empirically Canadian practice and to
recognize the distinction between self-executing and
non-self-executing treaties. About 99% of the treaties made by
Canada since the war are non-self-executing. That is to say, to
be implemented in Canadian law they require laws passed by
parliament.
I am amazed to hear the official opposition say they do not know
anything about it. Have they been asleep? They have had a
foreign affairs committee. It is competent to hear these
matters. Its members are competent to raise the matters when the
laws come before the House. Somebody has been playing Rip Van
Winkle and it does not reflect very credibly on the opposition
people to say that.
In Canada we have in a certain sense fused what used to be the
highly formal act of ratification with the legislative
implementation. I confirm this with the land mines treaty when
there was an issue we wanted to be the first to ratify because we
sponsored that treaty. However, it had to wait on our
legislation by parliament and we ended up, I think, number three.
But, there is the fact. Every treaty made in effect comes before
parliament and before the foreign affairs committee.
The second point which I will make is I am amazed again by this
study of comparative law. It is the first lesson. I am reminded
of what Sir Austen Chamberlain said “Comparative law is a trap
for the unwary and a signpost for the guilty”. He was saying it
to something else, but there it is.
How can you compare positive law snatched from one society to
another society unless they are congruent in terms of their legal
systems?
1825
The Canadian system and the German system are totally different
from the British, Australian and anything else. The member who
introduced this bill would be horrified if he had the American,
Australian or other systems in force here. Those systems
establish the supremacy of federal law implementing a treaty. By
the very fact of making a treaty, one gets the power to
legislate. The Canadian is in the inverse and in 1957 the German
court studying our experience said it would follow the same.
So every treaty for implementation requires federal legislation
and, if it touches provincial powers, provincial legislation.
When one gets to issues like fisheries, it will take several
years of patient negotiation, frustrating negotiation sometimes,
with the provinces. Let me simply make that point.
The third position I would make is simply this. It is not a
good plan to seek to do by indirection what can be done by the
front door. I read this very carefully and I find that article 6
of the bill on treaties either is uttered per incuriam with a
lack of knowledge of Canadian constitutional law, which I do not
believe, or it is an exercise in espièglerie.
Let us face the facts. There is no such thing as a treaty made
by a province under Canadian law. It just does not exist.
Therefore, in the interstices of a clause buried in the middle of
a projected law, how can one purport to make a constitutional
amendment? It just cannot be done.
So much of this is an act of supererogation, of stating what
parliament already does. I look at those several hundreds hours
in the foreign affairs committees on the MAI. Backward and
forward, it was exhaustively discussed. There was the landmines
treaty with input from the official opposition and others, which
the minister acknowledged.
I would have said that apart from clause 6, this is an example
of what Quintus Horatius Flacuus said, “Parturient montes,
nascetur ridiculus mus”. Briefly translated, as Shakespeare did
somewhat freely, it means “Sound and fury signifying nothing
new”.
I am also tempted by the suggestion that it was perhaps an
interesting exercise in doing by the back door what should have
been done by the front door. It is an interesting exercise.
I would advise the hon. member, whom I respect for his qualities
and his sense of humour, to come back again with a better draft.
I would also suggest putting students to exercises more fully
rooted in sociological jurisprudence. That is to say, he should
make sure the societies they study are cognate before taking away
their positive law. Comparative law is not an exercise in
butterfly collections as one has here, with one monster butterfly
from one society and one from another. There has to be a certain
relevance.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it
6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)