36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 62
CONTENTS
Friday, March 3, 2000
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1005
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1010
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1030
1035
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1040
1045
1050
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1100
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| HMCS PROTECTEUR
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| VIOLET ARCHER
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1105
| ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| BILL C-20
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| KASHMIR
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUINTETTE COAL MINE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1110
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| GROUPE D'IMPRIMERIE SAINT-JOSEPH
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1115
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1120
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1135
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1140
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1145
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1150
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1155
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1200
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1205
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1210
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Government Website
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
1215
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1255
(Division 759)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Motions in amendment to Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1300
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET OUT
|
| Bill C-20—Notice of time allocation motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1305
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1310
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1315
1320
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1325
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| WESTRAY MINE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1335
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1340
1345
| Mr. John Bryden |
1350
1355
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1400
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1405
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1415
1420
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 62
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 3, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
MOTION NO. 8
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a question of privilege concerning the government House
leader's tabling on the March 1 Notice Paper of a motion that
threatens the rights and privileges of the House.
I will explain. Motion No. 8 introduced by the government House
leader and published in the Notice Paper yesterday could, if
deemed in order, threaten the rights and privileges of
parliamentarians, of the House and, worse still, of the Chair.
If this motion were deemed in order, it would show contempt for
parliamentary democracy. It would unilaterally—and I emphasize
the word unilaterally—change the rules of the parliamentary game.
Usually, when the standing orders are amended—and this is the
practice, or has been since I have been here—the parties consult
each other and hold discussions, which has not been the case
this time around. This motion would muzzle the opposition by
limiting its right to introduce amendments to the government's
bill. It would allow only one amendment per member, but this
limit would not apply to ministers.
This would be unfair because the motion would thus create
intolerable discrimination among parliamentarians. It would
allow members of the government party—but not all—to introduce an
unlimited number of amendments, but would place outrageous
limitations on the right of opposition members and of members of
the government party not in cabinet to do likewise.
This motion strikes me as out of order because it makes a
distinction between the rights of the constituents of a minister
and those of opposition members, by giving more rights to one
group than to the other. This motion is an illustration of how
democracy is eroding in the hands of the Liberals, who want to
gag not only the people of Quebec, but also the House of
Commons, and all parliamentarians sitting in this House.
This is a government of secrecy, as we have seen with the HRDC
scandal, with the APEC summit, and with the multitude of gag
orders this government has made use of since it came in. This
motion will again give more prerogatives to the government,
which is already assured of a dominant position as far as all
the business of this House is concerned.
This motion is out of order because it would impose unreasonable
and unprecedented limits on any and all criticism, when that is
precisely the role of an opposition in a British style
parliamentary system. It is the role of the opposition to
question the government party, which has an obligation to be
answerable to parliament for its actions.
This motion would constitute an attack on the right of
parliamentarians and members of parliament to speak, a right
that goes back to the very origins of democracy. This motion is
out of order because it would limit the freedom of the Chair to
decide undisturbed and fully independently the status of the
amendments we in the opposition might submit to the House.
This motion is out of order because it would break with the age
old tradition preventing the Chair from becoming the executor of
the wishes of the executive.
It is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because it would deprive you of
your role, which is to deal in total impartiality with all
parliamentarians, from the highest of ministers to the lowest of
MPs.
1005
This motion is out of order because it would strike at the very
heart of an institution whose role it is to maintain and
preserve a space and a forum for public debate.
The government has raised the issue of the cost of debate here
in this House. That is serious. Has the government reached the
point where it raises the question of money when the opposition
wants to debate an issue? How to explain the government's
criticism of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to committees
travelling outside Ottawa and the country, as in the case of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, which would like to visit
the Caucasus? Perhaps there would be no cost involved? How can
they spend money in one instance and in another say it is a
terrible thing?
Democracy has a cost. It is far preferable to places where
there is no democracy.
When I hear the argument that the government side is going to
win the vote in any case, I say we know the morning after an
election that one party has a majority. Is the government
telling us that there should be no opposition parties because it
is a matter of fact that the party with the majority will win
the vote? That is not valid.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, your role is at stake. You must
have the trust of all parliamentarians and all parties. That
presupposes that the Chair is absolutely neutral and perfectly
impartial. This motion would make you an instrument of the
government. You cannot assume such status without losing the
trust of this House.
Accordingly, I ask you to recognize that the action by the
government House leader infringes the rights and privileges not
only of parliamentarians but of the House and, more seriously,
of the Chair, without which there would be no democratic debates
here in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: So far, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has
addressed Motion No. 8, which, in my opinion, has yet to be
introduced. When the motion is introduced in the House, if it
is, perhaps that would be the time to raise the issue rather
than debating a hypothetical issue right now.
Are we going to debate all the motions on the Order Paper before
they are called by the government? I wonder. If the question of
privilege of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois relates to Motion
No. 8, the motion is not yet before the House.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I want to understand what you just said. The Bloc Quebecois
leader clearly specified that his question of privilege did not
have so much to do with the motion per se, as with the action
taken by the government House leader, and I also want speak to
this issue.
As you indicated, Motion No. 8 is on the order paper, but the
action in itself is highly reprehensible, because it ensures
that, by remaining on the order paper, this motion will be a
constant threat to all opposition parties for the rest of the
session. This is totally unacceptable.
1010
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take into consideration the fact that
the question of privilege raised by the hon. Bloc Quebecois
leader does not have so much to do with the motion as with the
action taken.
As I said, this measure will have the effect of creating a
threat to all parliamentarians in this House, particularly to
opposition parties but also to government backbenchers, who
should understand that this is an unacceptable and intolerable
violation of the privileges of this House and of every
parliamentarian.
As the protector of the rights and privileges of independent
members, you must take into consideration the fact that Motion
No. 8 is also a potential threat to their right to table
amendments at report stage.
I would urge you to allow the debate on this question of
privilege to continue. Again, the question of privilege is not
so much on the motion itself as on the intolerable action taken
by the Leader of the Government in the House, who put this
motion on the order paper, where it will remain indefinitely,
thus posing a threat to our rights.
Moreover, yesterday, in response to the Thursday question about
the future business of the House, he announced that this issue
would be debated today. For one reason or another, it is not
being debated today. When will it be? When will our rights and
privileges as parliamentarians be put into question?
I am asking you to consider this issue.
The Speaker: In connection with the motion, if it is not the
motion we are going to discuss, but rather the action taken in
relation to a question, then perhaps I will hear a few other
contributions.
I notice that the Leader of the Official
Opposition is on his feet; I will recognize him.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to
the privilege motion brought forward by the leader of the Bloc.
For clarification Mr. Speaker, are you just taking
representations on what the whip presented? I am not sure what
you are asking for here, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The day before yesterday I ruled that we would
have points of order and points of privilege, whatever we wanted,
when Motion No. 8 was brought to the floor. A very subtle change
is being brought up here that is not so much on Motion No. 8 but
now the whip is introducing the question of a gesture that is
being made which may or may not carry with it some kind of
threat.
I never heard this point before so I am interested in hearing a
bit more about it. I am not going to let this go on forever but
I want to hear a bit more about this.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Speaker: I have already recognized the House leader of the
opposition, and I am going to give him the floor.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think it is without precedent to treat a motion on the notice
paper as something that should concern the privileges of the
House. I would remind the Speaker for example that if someone
were to place something on the notice paper that said they had
lost confidence in the Speaker, even though it is on the notice
paper, the House would be seized with it. Whether it has been
called or not is not the issue. The issue is it is a threat over
the head of the House in the case of non-confidence in the
Speaker.
In the same way, I think this motion does hang as a sword over
the rights and privileges of all members of parliament and I will
explain that in some depth. I believe that the motion violates
the first principle of parliamentary law because it targets the
minority groups in the House. It takes away the privileges of
the minority while leaving in tact the privileges of the cabinet.
The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 18 of the
act provides that the privileges, immunities and powers of the
House of Commons and of its members are those of the British
House of Commons and can only be defined by an act of parliament.
Thus they cannot be suspended, altered or diminished by simply
passing a motion here in the House of Commons dealing with those
privileges.
1015
A member's right to propose amendments, call concurrence motions
and vote is a well established right that indisputably makes up
part of the powers enjoyed by individual members of parliament.
It is a constitutional democracy and the right of members to vote
is fundamental and goes to the very heart of our parliamentary
system.
The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 refers to a
constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
A 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick
Broadcasting Corporation v Nova Scotia confirmed the
constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on that very
basis.
Many of the powers and privileges of members of this House are
the result of centuries of practice and convention. The courts
have clearly recognized that conventions are part of our
constitution. Our legislative procedures, including voting on
amendments, are part of our historic heritage, our parliamentary
traditions and, indeed, the privileges collectively of the House
and individually of its members.
If Motion No. 8 were allowed to be moved, if it even gets to
that, and were adopted it raises the question, what can this
House not do by majority vote? I submit that it would constitute
a very dangerous precedent. Even if there were a way to achieve
the government's objective of trying to affect votes in the
House, I would argue that could only be done by means of a
statute, not by a mere motion that takes away the rights that we
have gained collectively over the centuries and decades by
convention and historic practice.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirement
of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and of section 23 of
the Manitoba Act, 1870 respecting the use of both the English and
French languages in the records and journals of the Houses of
Parliament is mandatory and must be obeyed. Accordingly, the
House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when
considering a practice protected by the constitution.
We had two similar cases in the last parliament regarding
committees. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker
ruled that “while it is a tradition of this House that
committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot
establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon
them by the House”. If we are to be consistent, I would point
out that while this House is a master of its own proceedings, it
cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred
on it by the constitution.
The last point I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker, is the very
first principle of parliamentary law, as set out in Beauchesne's.
Beauchesne's states that the principles of parliamentary law are
“to protect a minority and to restrain the improvidence or
tyranny of a majority”.
Motion No. 8 targets the opposition. It is no secret that
Motion No. 8 is designed, in part, to deal with Bill C-20.
Virtually every motion to amend Bill C-20 is in the name of a
member of a minority party. While Motion No. 8 would restrict
the minority, it leaves in tact a cabinet minister's right to
propose amendments.
In addition, independent members and independent minded members
of recognized political parties would also fall victim to this
motion. The motion presupposes that every member has a right to
move amendments at committee. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker,
independent members are rarely members of committees.
Independent minded Liberal members are often thrown off
committees or removed by the whip because of their independence.
I recall when certain Liberal members voted against the gun
control bill. The very next day those members were moved off the
committee by the government whip and other people were moved into
their place.
The other consideration is the fact that the government runs
roughshod over the opposition in committees, which often
seriously hampers the opposition in its ability to move
amendments in those committees.
Motion No. 8 is offensive. It is an affront to all opposition
members, independent members and independent minded members of
all parties of the House. Mr. Speaker, it is your duty to defend
their rights against the government majority. You cannot allow
the majority to deny the minority its right to propose and vote
on motions. Because of the situation in committees, you have to
be the guardian of the rights of the minority and independent
members of the House.
Although Motion No. 8 was designed with Bill C-20 and the Bloc
in mind, it affects every bill that will be considered in the
House and restricts independent members and members of all
parties. The government cannot continue to upset the balance
between the opposition and the government.
On April 14, 1987, in response to a Liberal complaint about the
bullying tactics of the day, it was said: “It is essential to
our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated
at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall
be available to hear the arguments pro and con, and that
reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable
opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point
of view”.
1020
Stanley Knowles, a former member and table officer of this
place, once said:
The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the
authorities on parliamentary process emphasize the great
importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the
protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the
opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching
equality of strength between the two sides.
The government wants to drastically change our procedures and
upset the balance between the opposition and the government. It
is attempting to destroy that balance of strength which Mr.
Knowles and Speaker Fraser addressed.
I cannot emphasize how important this principle is to this
institution. It cannot function without some semblance of
balance between the role of the opposition and the role of the
government.
The reason this House is becoming dysfunctional is because the
government no longer seems to support that principle of balance.
It did while in opposition, but it has since abandoned respect
for balance in this parliament. The government has invoked
closure or time allocation 62 times. It bypasses members by
making announcements outside the House. It routinely leaks
information intended for this House. Now it is suggesting a
measure that goes too far to solve a problem that is a response
to the government's own way of handling issues in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider how Motion No. 8
targets the minority with respect to committee concurrence
motions. Again, a cabinet minister could restrict opposition
members, and backbench members of all parties, by deeming the
debate on a concurrence motion adjourned simply by rising on a
point of order. Even if a member has the support of the majority
of members of the House for the concurrence of a committee
report, that member could not, without the consent of a cabinet
minister, obtain that support for the motion. The cabinet then
would have seized control of one of the last few remaining
procedures that backbench members of parliament enjoy on both
sides of the House.
All that would remain is Private Members' Business. The rules
of private members are already so restricted that very few
members of parliament ever get their issue on to the floor for
debate, and even a smaller number get an actual vote on the
issues they bring forward.
I would like to quote an MLA from the Nova Scotia House of
Assembly. Mr. Holm said on January 26, 1995:
There is an old saying that holds as true today as it has forever
in parliamentary democracy; the government opens the legislature
and the opposition closes it. That truth is no more evident than
it is right now. There is opportunity for compromise, for
working together. We won't get everything we want as opposition;
the government will probably get most of what it wants. The
opportunity is there but we have to start anew with a
relationship that will work.
I hope the government will seek another remedy that we can all
work with and buy into on both sides of the House. Until that
spirit of compromise and working together to make this place more
functional, more winsome to the Canadian public, exists, I would
ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take this question of privilege
seriously. If you do not find that there is a prima facie
question of privilege, I urge you to at least consider my
comments as a point of order and remove Motion No. 8 from the
order paper. I think it is offensive and an affront to the
House, an affront to the workings of how this place should
function.
This place functions because we work together as men and women
who want to work together for the betterment of the country.
With Motion No. 8 hanging over the heads of all members of the
House, backbenchers on both sides, I do not think that spirit of
co-operation or that spirit of balance between the rights of the
opposition and the right of the government exists. That balance
has to be restored and maintained so that opposition members are
not singled out as people who not only do not carry the agenda
forward, but are not even heard in this place.
The Speaker: Once again, the member's attention was drawn in
my view mostly to Motion No. 8. At the end he reflected on what
was brought up.
1025
I am going to recognize the House leader of the NDP right after
I recognize a short intervention from the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, in order to do away with any
possible ambiguity, since you may have not heard the beginning
of my point of privilege properly, what I said was—and I am
repeating it word for word—that I am raising a point of privilege
in connection with the action taken by the government house
leader on March 1. That is exactly what the whip of the Bloc
Quebecois said.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the clarification. I
am going to listen to a few more hon. members on this matter.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I can understand the ambiguity of the Chair with respect to
whether it is appropriate for the House to be raising questions
of privilege or, for that matter, points of order with respect to
Motion No. 8, but I think it is wise on your part to hear us out.
When we consult our latest tome, House of Commons Procedure
and Practice, which we all celebrated not too long ago, there
is a role for the Speaker cited at page 971, which states:
When a notice is submitted for inclusion on the Notice
Paper, it is examined by procedural staff of the Clerk. If
any procedural irregularity is found, modifications as to the
form and content of the notice may then be made in consultation
with the sponsoring Member.
Here we see that at least in some senses, although I would
presume this is at a stage prior to it actually appearing on the
notice paper, there is a role for the office of the Speaker in
relation to a matter that is not yet before the House. This
matter is actually further along and is therefore more before the
House than a matter which has not yet reached the notice paper.
It is on those grounds, it seems to me, that there is wisdom in
your hearing members of parliament with respect to Motion No. 8.
I would submit that one of the procedural problems, if you like,
with Motion No. 8, as opposed to the politics of Motion No. 8, or
for that matter all of the other things that have been brought up
with respect to the appropriate balance between government and
opposition, has to do with protecting minority rights, a matter
on which you have heard me speak before, in this parliament and
in previous parliaments, Mr. Speaker. All of these things have
merit and should be taken into account.
I do not want to repeat them, but it seems to me that there is
another matter which you should consider, and that is the
retroactive nature of Motion No. 8. If it were to come before
the House and pass, it would take place right in the middle of a
process and it would be directed at the middle of a process, in
this case a process having to do with Bill C-20.
For instance, there is the dilemma in which I found myself
yesterday, not knowing whether I should keep my name on all of
the amendments that I had submitted for Bill C-20, or whether I
should ask other members of my party to move those amendments,
because Motion No. 8 would stipulate that there would only be one
amendment per member.
It was quite unfair to the House and to all members,
particularly to critics, to have put us in this procedural
twilight zone where we did not know whether we were going to be
dealing with amendments in the context of Motion No. 8, or
whether we were going to be dealing with amendments in the
context of the established procedure. We did not know whether to
withdraw amendments. We are only entitled to four pursuant to
Motion No. 8. Should we withdraw the rest of our amendments?
Or, if we left them on the order paper, would we then be
endangering our right to select which four of our amendments
would be dealt with by the House?
There were so many uncertainties that I would submit it created
a violation of our privileges; that is to say, a violation of our
ability to do our job, our ability to know what to do to make
sure that those things which are most important to us to come
before the House would actually come before the House. We did
not know exactly what procedure we would be dealing with.
Even if we knew, we did not know exactly what to do because, I
would submit, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how
that would unfold should Motion No. 8 pass.
1030
Many people in the House rail in other circumstances when it
comes to various economic measures and other things about the
unacceptability of retroactivity, yet in this case we have before
us something which I think you, Mr. Speaker, should take very
seriously as guardian of the House and guardian of the ability of
members to do their jobs properly, which is the way in which this
retroactivity, and the uncertainty that attaches itself to it,
makes it impossible for us to do our jobs properly. That is one
other thing I would like you to consider, Mr. Speaker.
Second, let us be frank. This arises out of a particular
procedural opportunity being used by the opposition, which I
think is legitimate, but legitimate only in the sense that it is
a response to a government's suppression of proper debate. It is
something I do not like. In the end, the fact that we vote day
and night brings the whole House into disrepute, which does not
help anyone.
On the other hand, it is quite unfair to lay this entirely at
the foot of the opposition. This is a response to a growing
frustration with the ability of the House to deal substantially
with matters of importance. We have arrived at a place in our
parliamentary tradition where if something is important it has to
be dealt with briefly. If something is not that important it
drags on and on and on. This seems to me to be just the
opposite of what should be the case.
Getting back to my point, Mr. Speaker, I think we all need to be
concerned, and you, in particular, with what brings the House of
Commons into disrepute. We have a practice growing of far too
many votes at report stage and a practice of voting through the
night, which does not enhance the reputation of the House of
Commons.
The question is, how can we deal with that in a way that does
not call the House of Commons into further disrepute. My concern
is, and I think your concern, Mr. Speaker, should be, that Motion
No. 8 makes the problem worse. It does not improve on the
situation and does not deal with that particular problem.
Instead, it purports to deal with that problem while at the same
time redressing the already imbalanced balance between the
government and the opposition in a way that is not just a matter
that the government should be concerned about, because obviously
it would be subject to a great deal of criticism.
I do not want to get into that because that would be getting
into debate on the motion. However, I think we all have a
responsibility to see if we cannot put our heads together and
deal with the problem we have on report stage. This cannot be
done by eliminating the rights of members of parliament, not by
making the imbalance between the opposition and government worse
and not by taking away the rights of members to move concurrence
in committees, because that will affect not just the opposition
but, as others have pointed out, the rights of government
backbenchers. The very thing that they have at their disposal
now, the one lever that they have over the cabinet, will be taken
away from them by their own government House leader in the name
of dealing with something that has nothing to do with it, that is
to say, report stage.
All these things impinge on the reputation of the House of
Commons with the Canadian people. This motion belongs to all of
us. It is a matter that you should concern yourself with, Mr.
Speaker, and ask yourself whether or not this is in fact a motion
that should be deemed in order, that should even come before you
or whether there is a responsibility on the part of the Chair
either to convene a meeting in which this problem could be dealt
with or to ask House leaders to get together and see if we can
deal with the problem we have on report stage that does not take
away from the rights of members of parliament. Those kinds of
solutions are available, Mr. Speaker. I would urge you to urge
the House to find that solution and never have before us the kind
of motion that the government put down yesterday.
1035
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I must add to earlier comments that we appreciate the
indulgence and the wisdom displayed by the Chair in hearing this
point of privilege because it is an extremely important matter
for all members of the House.
Motion No. 8 brings about a very dark era for the remainder of
this parliament should it pass. I realize that the Chair has
directed members to speak specifically to the potential threat,
the threat of intimidation that arises as a result of this motion
even sitting on the order paper.
I would suggest that the motion, by virtue of its being tabled
and resting before the House, even being held in abeyance,
threatens to impale democracy and to impale the good workings of
this Chamber.
This House is the place for the people of Canada to speak and
for the people of Canada to be represented by their elected
officials. By virtue of changing the rules of engagement, by
virtue of the very intent of this motion, having this motion
waiting, holding it over us like the sword of Damocles ready to
descend, impugns the ability of members of parliament to do their
work on behalf of their constituents.
This is a very provocative attempt by the government in
response, I might add, to a very specific situation. Obviously
this is aimed at one piece of legislation and one party.
Mr. Speaker, you as a member of the House but, more importantly,
as the individual who presides over this House as a judge would
preside over a court, should be blind, armed with a sword and
armed with the scales of justice.
The motion asks you, Mr. Speaker, to remove the blindfold and
use the sword. That is what the motion seeks to have you do,
which, as has been alluded to earlier, undermines your ability
and your credibility within this process. This would impugn the
impartiality of the Chair and remove the non-partisan nature of
the office that you hold.
In this House we are to respond and conduct ourselves with
impartiality and fairness. The motion, without a doubt, is aimed
at removing those boundaries, removing our ability to interact on
a fair and even playing field.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are a fan of the sport of hockey. What
the motion would do—and we are playing short-handed as it is—is
essentially turn the government's net around and remove the blue
line. It changes the rules by which we play the game. It changes
the way we conduct ourselves here.
I want to speak specifically to the issue of intimidation. I
refer the Chair to Erskine May, 22nd edition. I would also note
quite importantly that this is British procedure, the basis on
which the government is now relying on for Motion No. 8. On page
121 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the chapter headed
“Obstructing Members of Either House in the Discharge of Their
Duty”, I will read from a paragraph half way down the page. It
states:
The House will proceed against those who obstruct Members in the
discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their
participation in its proceedings.
Turning to page 123, I will refer to the last paragraph on that
page. It states:
To attempt to intimidate a Member in his (or her) parliamentary
conduct by threats is also a contempt, cognate to those mentioned
above.
Actions of this character which have been proceeded against
include impugning the conduct of Members and threatening them
with further exposure if they took part in debates;
1040
Finally, on page 124 of the same edition, under “Improper
influence”, it states:
Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their
parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts.
This motion and those actions which would flow from this motion
intimidate members of the House. This motion, by virtue of
sitting on the order paper ready to be used at some near future
date in response to a specific bill in the House, as has been
alluded to, having this hang over us undermines our ability to
carry out our parliamentary duties. It hinders the Chair and all
members on both sides of the House.
It would be much easier if the government in its wisdom would
agree now to withdraw the motion and, as was suggested by the
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, go back to the way we used
to conduct ourselves here, to sit down, co-operate and try to
work together in some fashion to come to a reasonable solution as
opposed to the bullying tactics that have been displayed by the
government House leader.
Mr. Speaker, the motion not only sullies your office but, I
would suggest, it sullies the entire process and sullies and
damages all members of the Chamber.
Canadians will be watching to see how this occurs because a
significant number of them still have faith in this process, as
they should. However, in order for that process to be reinforced
and for Canadians to continue to have faith, we must now deal
with a situation that has arisen. It has arisen as a result of a
provocative attempt by the government House leader to somehow
intimidate and put members off their ability to conduct
themselves in the normal fashion.
I am not overstating the case when I say that the government is
now, by virtue of the motion, standing in the House with a knife
to the throat of the opposition. It has said to the opposition
members that if we do not back off with our intentions it will
change the rules under which we play and it will somehow
undermine the process by which we have been playing and
conducting ourselves over the past number of years. The
government must be disarmed.
I strongly urge the Chair to exercise its discretion, to
exercise the tools of office with which it is empowered. By
removing the motion from the order paper, we will then be able to
fall back on the processes and the normal rules of engagement to
which we are accustomed.
The government should withdraw the motion and once again, I
would suggest, the spirit of co-operation and consultation could
then flourish.
We have been told, and the Chair would obviously be aware of
this by virtue of having reviewed the motion, that we will now
face a situation where we have two classes of members. We know
that the cabinet and the executive will be given certain powers
and specific entitlements. However, in this Chamber, I, as a
young, new member of the House, was led to believe that we were
all equals. When we set foot in this sacred, hallowed Chamber we
were to be treated equally and fairly by the Chair and by one
another with mutual respect for the purposes of the smooth
workings of parliament. This motion changes that. It changes
the class structure. It changes the equity that is supposed to
exist and pertain and reflect on all members.
This is an attempt, I would suggest, a last desperate and
despotic attempt to bankrupt the administration and the smooth
workings of the House. We have been working within these rules,
albeit there are certainly times when there should be change and
certainly occasions when we should all participate in a positive
fashion to try to improve the workings of parliament not
denigrate them nor remove or impinge on the ability of members of
parliament to do do their work, but to improve and ameliorate the
ability of members of the House to act. This is a step
backwards.
This is an attempt to return to an age when all of the power was
centralized in the hands of but a few. I suggest that it would
be a very dark day and a very sad day if we are to allow this to
happen.
1045
Independence and impartiality are what the Chair is empowered
with, and those are very much the cornerstones of the workings of
the House. The Chair's ability now is the last bastion of our
ability to appeal for fairness. Changing these rules is anything
but fair and anything but equitable.
I would suggest that this motion is very much an attempt to
intimidate members of the House. It is very much an attempt to
limit our ability to participate in an open fashion in the
debates. It is not only debates that take place here, as we
know. This motion very much touches upon the ability to work at
committee.
I am sad to report that I believe for the most part Canadians do
not understand the amount of hard work and the amount of positive
work that is done at the committee level because it is done
behind closed doors.
We know very much with reference to Bill C-20, which I think
again is the specific root cause of what we see happening before
us today, that the work that can be done at committee is very
much curtailed. Even more than the work that takes place here in
this public and open fashion, the work that is done at committee
is the real, the substantive and the very important sustenance of
what takes place in terms of the preparation of legislation and
the presentation of new ideas, new laws and changes to our entire
workings.
If we allow this motion to sit on the order paper, to continue
to be a knife at the throat of members of parliament, we will not
be able to move forward to make positive changes.
Again I implore and ask the Chair to take into consideration the
words of all members of the House. I would expect that we would
hear from the government on this particular point of privilege.
Again I would suggest that by the very virtue of this motion
sitting before us, pointed directly at us like a gun at our
heads, the government is saying “If you do not comply, if you do
not participate in the way we want you to, we will pull the
trigger”.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking you, as members of the opposition, to
remove that threat, to take that threat away, to disarm the
government and allow us to get on with the work that Canadians
expect from this Chamber.
1050
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
also raising the question of privilege in relation to the
actions of the government House leader in tabling with the
Journals Branch on March 1 a motion which infringes on the
rights and privileges of this House.
I am not asking you to rule as to whether or not the motion is
in order, but rather on the action by the government House
leader in putting on the Order Paper a motion violating the
privileges of the members of this House.
This is, in my opinion, an attempt to extinguish or render
meaningless one of the most fundamental privileges of a British
type parliamentary system. Contrary to tradition, without
consulting the opposition, the government House leader has
introduced a motion to change the rules of the House for the
rest of the current session.
By raising a point of order, this motion would enable the
government to shut down debate in the House even before a member
has finished speaking to his or her motion. The motion would be
transferred to Government Orders and the debate would be resumed
as the government saw fit, which would likely mean never.
Worse yet, this motion is intended, to all intents and purposes,
to prevent the members of the opposition from proposing
amendments at the report stage in the House. No amendment would
be selected for consideration at the report stage if it was or
could have been proposed and been deemed in order in committee.
In practice, this means that no amendment at report stage can be
selected for consideration, except amendments to delete clauses
of bills.
Moreover, the motion provides that the total number of
amendments to the bill that may be received shall not exceed the
number of clauses, preambles and schedules contained in the
bill. Each member can propose only one amendment.
There are always exceptions, of course, and these restrictions
do not apply to ministers. That is disgusting.
This motion is an unprecedented violation of the rights and
privileges of the members of this House.
Until now, members of the House of Commons had some guarantees
that allowed them to freely express themselves on the
appropriateness of government measures. These guarantees are
provided by the standing orders, the conventions and the
practices of the House.
The protection of the rights of the opposition is one of the
most fundamental unwritten rules.
The contemporary role of the House of Commons is to monitor
government action. Members must have the opportunity to question
and to criticize freely, constantly and publicly the government
and the measures that it proposes to the House. Any infringement
on the role of a member diminishes the useful role of the House
of Commons as a democratic institution.
The right to propose amendments and to debate motions to adopt
committee reports are critical tools to allow members to
exercise the most important privilege granted to them.
According to Marleau and Montpetit, at page 261, and I quote:
Freedom of speech...a fundamental right without which they
would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits
them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any
matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they
feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national
interest and the aspirations of their constituents.
The Leader of the Government in the House would want to
transform parliament into a docile and partisan instrument, this
for the rest of the session. He would want to transform
parliament into a servile and insignificant institution, which
would merely rubber stamp the government's decisions and
policies.
This motion would infringe on the authority of the Chair to
decide in an impartial manner whether an amendment is admissible
at the report stage of bills, as provided in Standing Orders
76(5) and 76.1(5).
According to Marleau and Montpetit, at page 668, and I quote:
Under the Standing Order, the Speaker thus has the power to
select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report
stage.
1055
This decision leaves him a certain discretion that he must
exercise with the utmost impartiality. If Motion No. 8,
standing in the name of the government House leader, were to
come before the House, this would mean that he could no longer
exercise this discretion and protect the right of members to
introduce amendments.
On page 299 of Droit constitutionnel, Brun and Tremblay state as
follows:
In enforcing the Standing Orders, the Speaker sets aside his
political persona in order to perform a neutral and impartial
function. This flows from tradition.
With the government House leader's motion, the Speaker's hands
would be tied and he would be forced to reject all amendments at
report stage because motions that were in order in committee
could no longer be ruled in order at report stage by the
Speaker.
With this motion, the Speaker could no longer serve the House
and its members. He would become nothing more than a ceremonial
presence in the House. This would be a dangerous precedent that
could jeopardize the democratic operation of the House.
If this motion were to come before the House, it would violate
the integrity and the very dignity of this place because it
would have a direct negative impact on members' duties.
This motion infringes the rights of parliamentarians to express
their views and to do their work properly.
As Maingot wrote on page 26 of Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada:
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature,
is not so much intended to protect the Members against
prosecutions for their own individual advantage, but to support
the rights of the people by enabling their representatives to
execute the functions of their office without fear of either
civil or criminal prosecutions. One of the first and greatest
of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of
legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing
abuses by means of free speech.
By tabling his motion on Wednesday, March 1, the government
House leader's sole intention was to block members' rights to
criticize and oppose government measures.
It was his intention to compromise the most important privilege
of the members of this House, the freedom of speech.
In addition, placing this motion on the Order Paper represents a
threat to the House and the members of the opposition.
With this motion, the government House leader is sending the
following message to the House and more specifically to the
opposition members “You would be well advised to table no more
amendments at report stage, otherwise I will prevent you from
doing so for the rest of this session”.
With this motion, the government House leader is saying he is
prepared to limit the powers of the Chair and to jeopardize the
rights and privileges of the members of this House if they
disagree with the Chair. This is contempt of the House.
It is therefore your duty to consider the action taken by the
government House leader a threat to the rights and privileges of
the members and contempt of this House.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your impartiality and to
your sense of justice and democracy. You are the last bastion
against the arbitrariness of the government majority in this
House. Without your energetic intervention, parliament could
become a totally meaningless institution.
I am prepared, with your authority, to table a motion of
privilege in order to refer this matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed
to Statements by Members and then Oral Question Period.
Afterwards, I will return to this matter.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Niagara Regional Police service has recently received prestigious
international recognition by its award of accredited status by
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
Inc., following a vigorous three year test and satisfaction of
439 professional policing standards in areas of administration,
operation and technical support.
The police service also received the mark of excellence award
from the Criminal Intelligence Services of Canada for exemplary
investigation in Project Expiate.
1100
I congratulate all members of the Niagara Regional Police
Service for their continuing excellence in providing high quality
law enforcement to the residents of the Niagara region. I
commend our officers for their dedication, pride and
professionalism. They epitomize their motto “Unity,
Responsibility, Loyalty”.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am concerned about recent reports that the government
will not implement all the recommendations of its own commissions
on grain transportation. Both reports emphasized the need for a
more commercial, accountable, contract driven system.
A key recommendation was to remove the Canadian Wheat Board from
any involvement in grain transportation. Mr. Kroeger gave this
warning to the transportation committee on Tuesday:
I am worried about the proposal from the wheat board that you go
to a contractual system but the wheat board would hold all the
contracts. If the wheat board holds all the contracts but the
parties haven't got contracts with each other then a grain
company can't call a railway to account.
I urge the government not to cherry pick pieces of these reports
to suit its political purposes but to implement the proposed
changes including moving the Canadian Wheat Board to spout.
Regulation and government control caused the problems in grain
transportation today and so will not solve them.
* * *
HMCS PROTECTEUR
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us express our gratitude and admiration to the 285
men and women aboard HMCS Protecteur who returned home to
Esquimalt yesterday.
After being away from home for over five months, we wish to join
the cheers and congratulations of the flotilla greeting our
sailors who have made a significant contribution to the
international force in East Timor. They performed a vital
sustainment role for Interfet. They ferried supplies, equipment
and personnel between Darwin and East Timor, replenished Interfet
ships, and supported the land forces of both the Canadian
infantry company and our allies.
HMCS Protecteur also provided work parties that helped
establish the base camps for our troops who still remain in
Zumalai and Suni as well as numerous humanitarian projects for
the people of East Timor.
In recognition of the great work performed by our sailors and
the support provided by their families at home, let us offer them
our congratulations and thanks for a job well done.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1999 the government of Lucien Bouchard ate up part of the
allowance to Quebec children.
Today's La Presse contains an article by Marie-Claude Lortie
under the headline “Griping from Stay-at-home Mothers”. Constance
Dubeau, a mother of four: Noémie, 6 months, Amélie, age 2,
Adrienne, 3 and Kim, 4, is quoted as saying “It stinks”.
Mrs. Dubeau, of Pointe-Calumet, is a member of one of the many
families who do not want to see the federal increase in child
benefits diverted into daycare or other programs by Quebec.
Lucien Bouchard is contemplating doing as he did last year when
Ottawa announced increased payments for children at home,
decreasing the Quebec allowance so that Mrs. Dubeau will not see
any more money for her children.
Lucien Bouchard does not want any real family policy. He
supports a guaranteed minimum income for Quebec artists, but
nothing for mothers and fathers staying at home to rear their
children.
Lucien Bouchard was in agreement with secretly holding the sum
of $842 million in the Toronto-Dominion Bank in Toronto for 12
months. So how much is there going to be for Mrs. Dubeau's
children, Messrs. Bouchard and Landry?
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week the National Capital Commission announced plans
for a major long term revitalization project affecting the core
areas of Ottawa and Hull in the vicinity of the Parliament
Buildings. These plans are precisely what is needed to improve
the appearance of our national capital.
This project will slowly replace the existing industrial
facilities near Parliament Hill with parkland and refurbished
heritage buildings, making full use of the majestic Ottawa River.
A beautiful aboriginal centre is proposed for Victoria Island.
The creation of a square in the Metcalfe-Sparks Street area will
create a people place, improve the tourism infrastructure close
to Parliament Hill with better parking and open up a beautiful
vista of the Parliament Buildings from the downtown core. Also
Lebreton Flats will finally be redeveloped.
I am sure that I speak for many of my colleagues in the
Ottawa-Hull area when I say that we look forward with great
enthusiasm to the realization of this magnificent plan for
Canada's capital.
* * *
VIOLET ARCHER
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada lost a national treasure with the death of Violet Archer
at age 86. I often passed Miss Archer in the hallway of my
apartment building. Though aware of her cheerful smile, I was
unaware of the magnitude and depth of her success as a musician.
Composer, pianist, organist, percussionist and professor: this
was Violet Archer, a woman who established an international
reputation and composed some 400 works.
1105
She received dozens of awards and five honorary doctorates. She
was born in Montreal the daughter of Italian immigrants and had
composed her first work at age 16. She attended McGill
University and then studied with the great composer, Bela Bartok,
who continued to mould her musical genius.
After attending Yale University on a scholarship, Miss Archer
enjoyed an illustrious career as both composer and performer of
her many works. She taught music at the University of Alberta
and at three American universities.
Violet was named a member of the Order of Canada in 1983. I ask
the House to remember today the achievements of this great
Canadian who contributed so much to our society.
* * *
ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this coming Sunday the 2000 Arctic Winter Games will begin in
Whitehorse, Yukon. The three northern territories along with
northern Quebec and northern Alberta will be joined by Alaska,
Greenland and northern Russia for an exciting week of competition
in traditional and modern sports, along with cultural events.
This will be the first time that Nunavut will have its own team
of athletes at the games since becoming a new territory.
I take this opportunity to wish all participants good luck and
to emphasize how important it is for youth to be involved in
sports. Sports provide young people opportunities to show true
character and how to be a team player. Often the manner in which
we play sports is a true measure of how we live our lives.
Our government support of amateur sport is truly an investment
in young Canadians. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for
Amateur Sport will be on hand to help open the games. I also
applaud other members who will be attending the games to lend
their support.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seeing how
the federal government is behaving in connection with Bill C-20,
and Motion No. 8, can young people of my generation be faulted,
along with the rest of population, for no longer having any
faith in the world of politics and its present institutions?
What is the Liberal government's next step going to be? To
barricade the doors of the Quebec National Assembly so the
Quebec people cannot be represented? To plaster all of Quebec
with the Maple Leaf and the commandment “Thou shalt honour
Canada”? While they are at it, why not ask the members of the
National Assembly to start their session with O Canada? No way,
Mr. Speaker.
With Bill C-20 and Motion No. 8, the federal government is on the
wrong track. It is headed down a road with no return, while
admitting that it has nothing to propose to Quebecers and that
it is incapable of fulfilling the fundamental aspirations of the
Quebec people.
* * *
[English]
KASHMIR
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for over 50 years the people of the former princely
state of Kashmir have been divided by a ceasefire line fixed by
military conflicts, sanctioned by the United Nations and
originally intended to be temporary.
Both India and Pakistan have so far been unable to reach a final
agreement between them and with the people of Kashmir and have
fought wars across the line. Thousands have been killed, maimed
and displaced by the conflict not just between the armies but
also because of the terror of a political insurgency that is
stripping this area of its beauty, its economy and its peaceful
heritage.
Both India and Pakistan and the rest of the world can benefit
from the Kashmir region that is peaceful, democratic and offers
economic opportunity to its citizens. I call upon both countries
to collaborate in enabling Kashmiris to put violence behind and
build a future, pull back the armies and invest in the people,
celebrate what the Kashmir region can be for both countries, end
the oppression of violence, renew the bilateral dialogue, include
the Kashmiris, and please begin now.
* * *
QUINTETTE COAL MINE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the residents of the town of Tumbler Ridge in
my riding of Prince George—Peace River were informed that
Quintette coal mine, the town's largest employer, will be
shutting down in August. Unfortunately the combination of low
commodity prices and a rise in the Canadian dollar has forced it
to close down nearly three years ahead of schedule.
Tumbler Ridge is a small, close knit community nestled in the
Rocky Mountains where helping one's neighbour never goes out of
style. At this time of crisis, when the economic future of the
town and its residents is so uncertain, it is important for all
levels of government to lend their support by cutting red tape
and encouraging economic diversification projects such as value
added wood mills, peat moss extraction opportunities, natural gas
facilities, destination ski resorts and increased tourism
ventures, to name only a few.
No one is looking for a handout, just a helping hand.
Opportunities abound. The challenge is for all three levels of
government and the private sector to put their collective heads
together to find the right combination that will save Tumbler
Ridge.
* * *
1110
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week The Globe and Mail reported that
the Canadian Environmental Industry Association is worried that
Canada's rules allowing the dumping of untreated hazardous waste
into landfills are too lax. The industry itself is warning that
Canada risks being flooded with cancer causing wastes from the
United States because of Canada's weak regulations.
It is not the import of waste that the industry is warning us
about. It is the practice of dumping toxic pollutants into
landfills, banned in the United States but still legal in Canada.
There are treatments for destroying the dangerous materials, but
the matter is under provincial jurisdiction and the Ontario
government has taken no action whatever to match the more
rigorous U.S. rules. This negligence has been noted by the U.S.
EPA. It reflects badly on Canada's reputation internationally,
let alone on the health of Canadians who live in Ontario.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, March 8 is a time for us to celebrate the first
International Women's Day of the new millennium. Women's day is
a time to reflect and celebrate the progress that has been made
in achieving women's equality in our homes, communities and
across the world.
This year the stage is set for the exciting seven month long
event, the World Women's March, otherwise known as March 2000.
After the success of the Bread and Roses campaign in 1996, the
Quebec Women's Federation decided to expand its idea and create a
forum for women to talk, lobby, protest and march all around the
world.
March 2000 will begin on March 8 across Canada and will continue
until October 15 with a large rally in Ottawa. For the next
seven months organizers of the women's march will draw attention
to two key issues: poverty and violence. Whatever gains women
may have made, poverty and violence are still huge obstacles to
achieving true equality and justice for women in Canada and
throughout the world.
For Canadian women the next seven months will be very exciting.
It will be a time for creating and renewing relationships and
connections around the world in solidarity with our sisters. The
women will all come marching, marching hand in hand.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Facal,
the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, testified
before the committee examining Bill C-20, he reminded the members
of the committee that this bill served simply to, and I quote:
—obscure the Canadian problem, forgetting that more Quebecers
voted yes than there are voters in Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island combined.
Bill C-20 will not get rid of the sovereignists or the idea that
Quebec will become a country some day.
He continued:
The National Assembly is the sole custodian of the right of the
people of Quebec to decide its political status. Quebec existed
as a political entity before the Canadian federation was created
and by exercising its right to choose its political status
freely it helped to create Canada in 1867. Never forget that.
He concluded as follows:
In joining this federation, the people of Quebec neither
renounced its right to chose another political status nor
intended to hand over its destiny for all time to a parliament
the majority of whose members come from outside Quebec.
* * *
GROUPE D'IMPRIMERIE SAINT-JOSEPH
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, almost three
years ago now, the Corporation Saint-Joseph acquired the former
Queen's Printer, Canada Communication Group.
Today, this former government agency in Hull has a new name: the
Groupe d'imprimerie Saint-Joseph. There is more than just a
simple name change involved. It is one more step in the move to
the private sector.
After its acquisition, the Groupe d'imprimerie Saint-Joseph was
restructured, and the head office invested in the latest
technology in order to expand its potential.
After 130 years of service to the Government of Canada, the new
Groupe d'imprimerie Saint-Joseph has made remarkable progress to
become a competitive business.
With three divisions and over 500 employees, the Groupe
d'imprimerie Saint-Joseph is considered the largest supplier of
printing and related services in the Hull—Ottawa region.
The new name marks changes in a historic institution. May the
Groupe d'imprimerie Saint-Joseph and its employees enjoy a long
life.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the present Liberal government has created today's
crisis in our health care system. After seven years in office it
is still in a state of denial in terms of its responsibility.
Here is its record: no plan, no vision, no ideas. It is still
“make it up as we stumble along”, a day to day patchwork
approach to the single most important issue in the country.
Responsibility for this crisis falls at the doorstep of the
Prime Minister and his government. He, and he alone, created the
crisis and Canadians want it fixed.
* * *
1115
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Wednesday, March 8 is International Women's Day, a day for all of
us to celebrate women's talents and accomplishments. It is also
a day to take stock of the tremendous amount of work that needs
to take place in Canada and around the world to ensure that women
really do achieve equality.
Domestically the theme “Canadian Women Taking Action To Make a
Difference” provides a broad opportunity for all of us to
encourage our youngest women to pursue their dreams.
In Burlington our fourth annual International Women's Day
breakfast will be our biggest ever. Maureen Kempston Darkes,
president of General Motors, will be sure to inspire and
encourage all in attendance to continue to work hard. Thank you,
Ms. Darkes for your generous offer to get the message out, to
mentor others and to be living proof that women do make a
difference and they do take action.
Thank you to the people in my community for allowing me to
represent them in a place that used to keep women out.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning we received an extensive communications
plan developed by HRDC to position the release of the internal
audit on the billion dollar boondoggle. It includes discussions
on strategic considerations, storylines, media strategies and
time lines. It was dated August 30, 1999. Given this, is the
minister planning to stick to her story that she only found out
about the audit on November 17, 1999?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of communications plans and stories, I am
surprised the hon. member did not get up and with her first words
admit that she was totally wrong yesterday when she said Export
Development Corporation had given a $10 million line of credit to
Earth Canada.
She was totally wrong on that. Her colleagues' accusations were
baseless. If she had respect for the House, for herself and her
party, the first words she should have spoken would have been to
withdraw, to retract and to apologize. That would be
communication.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the government that cannot get its story straight.
I find it very hard to believe that the minister's department
was in the process of developing a department-wide action plan in
August to deal with the release of internal audit results and
that the minister knew nothing about it.
Again this communications plan is very extensive. It talks
about release strategies and the need to equip the minister with
questions and answers, question period cards and media lines.
How can the minister expect us to believe that she did not know
anything about the internal audit until November 17, 1999?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is showing her ignorance of government and how it works.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I would hope we would refrain from
this kind of comment in question period. I know that the member
for Calgary—Nose Hill would also want to refrain. I would
invite the parliamentary secretary to continue with her answer.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
When there is a problem in the department, it is the job of the
deputy minister and senior officials to prepare solutions and
options for the minister's perusal. I would remind the member
that the final audit report was not finalized and brought in
until the fall. Before it was presented to the minister it would
have had to have the problems outlined with potential solutions.
These draft communications plans to which she refers were part
of the potential solutions to be put before the minister after
the audit was finalized and the plans were finalized. That
happened on November 17, 1999.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the minister needs to know what her department
is up to.
I quote from a letter from her deputy minister, which says,
“Since June, when the interim audit report became available, we
have devoted intensive and sustained management attention”.
1120
In June HRDC set up a working group to deal with the internal
audit. In August it started developing a department-wide action
plan. By the end of August her department had produced an
extensive communications plan.
Let me ask the minister one more time, how could she possibly be
unaware that her department was in high gear—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party may jump to conclusions before a final report comes but we
do not.
The department did what it should have done. When the first
results showed something to be worried about, it began to prepare
for the final report. There is nothing untoward about this.
The exchange of letters she refers to took place in December
1999. They show that the minister was determined to be open,
transparent and to have a strong management response to these
problems.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is revealing that the very first thing the department did once it
knew by the interim audit that there was a big problem in the
department was to develop a communications plan rather than fix
the problem.
Here is what actually happened. The communications plan and
strategy was ready to go as of August because there was a crisis
in the midst, but the minister waited until January to release
the information on the audit. Why? She waited by happy
coincidence until the day after we submitted an access to
information request.
How long was the minister really planning to keep it under cover
that she had actually bungled a billion dollars?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the Reform Party not fix its own problem,
restore its dignity and credibility and start off by
acknowledging that it was totally wrong in its baseless
accusations against the Minister for International Trade when it
said that he was involved in giving a $10 million line of credit
to Earth Canada? That was totally wrong. Reform members are
showing their lack of credibility, their lack of respect for the
House and for Canadians by keeping quiet on this and trying to
have some diversionary tactic which does not stand up to
examination.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
this a diversionary tactic, it looks like the Grand Coulee Dam
over there.
Everyone knows what is going on. The department knew there was a
crisis. The interim audit pointed to all the problems: the
reporting; the lack of reliability; the lack of statistics; the
lack of credible job numbers; and the lack of everything we have
been talking about for the last month. What did it do? It did
not fix the problem. It said it would have to develop a
communications plan. A communications plan went ahead in August.
The department suggested that the audit be released in October.
What happened? The minister waited until January when the access
to information request came in. Why?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
correct the record on a few things the member said. First, their
billion dollar bungle implies that a billion dollars was lost.
Such is not the case. We have reiterated that over and over
again. The minister moved with alacrity as soon as she had the
final report and the final management plan. She ordered a
stronger management plan. As soon as it was prepared she
released it.
The communications suggestions that Reform members are referring
to are naturally part of the whole methodology to deal with the
problem. They are nothing more than that. But they will put a
negative spin on everything.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, we heard that there were nine investigations under
way at Human Resources Development Canada. Today, we learn that
there are 12. The number increases with each passing day.
Pretty soon they will run out of investigators.
Is it not high time the government called an independent public
inquiry into everything that is going on at Human Resources
Development Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
call for a public inquiry into why the Bloc Quebecois has
nothing to say about the fact that the Parti Quebecois in Quebec
City is not spending $800 million today to help the sick and
improve health care in that province.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
because of answers like that that we are calling for an inquiry,
because they are obviously trying to hide things. That is what
is going on.
And what they are trying to hide is that, too often, names like
Fugère, Champagne, Gauthier, Lemire, all in Saint-Maurice, all
friends of the Prime Minister, and all under investigation now,
keep coming up. Is that not enough?
1125
Rather than burying issues here in the House—that is apparently
the role of the Deputy Prime Minister—he should answer questions,
assume his responsibilities and show himself worthy of his job.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are still hearing names of people like Bouchard and Landry—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray:—who are not interested in the sick and who have
left in a bank account $800 million that could be used to provide
immediate relief to the sick.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: The auditor general, who is an officer of this
House, is already conducting a public investigation. But the
silence over health care needs in the Province of Quebec is
troubling.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Gazette announced today that, in
a letter—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is difficult to hear the
questions and the replies. I know that everyone wants to hear.
Mr. Paul Crête: The Gazette announced today that, in a letter
dated December 13, 1999 and addressed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, deputy minister Claire Morris recognized
that, since June 1999, there had been, and I quote, “poor
administrative practices in most of our grants and contributions
programs”.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by the Prime Minister's
statement to the effect that there are only 37 isolated cases,
when, to this day, there are 12 known investigations, and the
media are talking about a “Shawinigate”?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
remind the House and all Canadians that suggesting that these
investigations are representative of what is happening is
completely false.
There are 30,000 projects. I want to remind the opposition that
in any group of Canadians we will have some people over here who
are saints and some people over here who are sinners—we call
them criminals—and in the middle we have a broad band of
Canadians who are doing their best to improve this country and to
help Canadians march forward toward hope. But if we keep
focusing on the people over here, then I suggest—
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the root of the problem not the fact that,
since her appointment, the minister has attempted to deny the
existence of a scandal and has refused to order a public,
independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why
does the hon. member not trust the auditor general, who is an
officer of this House? Why does he undermine the auditor
general's efforts?
These investigations are conducted at arm's length from the
government. Why does the hon. member speak in a way that could
prejudice the investigations, which are necessary to protect the
public interest? The hon. member should rethink his approach on
this issue.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Government of Alberta introduced legislation
having to do with the privatization of health care in that
province which, if allowed to continue, will be the beginning of
the end for medicare in this country.
Today is the day when the Government of Canada should act in
order to assure Canadians that this will not be allowed to
happen, that the spirit and the letter of the Canada Health Act
and what people hold to be true about medicare in this country
will be upheld.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what does the
government intend to do about that legislation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the House that quality accessible
health care for all Canadians is a priority of this government.
We have just learned about the bill. It is being actively
studied. We will do what is necessary in light of our
jurisdiction to make sure that the interests of all Canadians are
protected.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not as if the government did not know about this
legislation. It is not as if the government did not know what
would be tabled yesterday.
Today is the day for the government to say more than quality
health care will be a priority and that kind of rhetoric. What
we want to know is will the government act to make sure that this
does not happen? Otherwise it will be open to charges of the
political equivalent of criminal negligence when it comes to
protecting medicare in this country.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we speak of our commitment to the maintenance of a
quality accessible health care program available to all
Canadians, it is not rhetoric, it is our policy.
We will carry out our responsibilities.
1130
It is only common sense that when before there was press
speculation, now there is an actual bill deposited before the
Alberta legislature. We are studying the bill actively and we
will have a response as soon as possible.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, every premier in the country and all the provinces agree
that the health care system is in crisis. That includes, by the
way, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland.
What they are asking is pretty straightforward. They are asking
for some evidence of a long term, sustainable plan to fix a
health care system that the Liberals broke.
My question is pretty straightforward. Where is that plan? We
have been waiting seven years.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government put $11.5 billion into health care in the
last budget and $2.5 billion in this budget. That is the basis
for an effective plan. The Minister of Health has already
invited his colleagues, the provincial health ministers, to meet
with him in May to work on further renewal and restoration of the
health system.
Speaking personally, the first thing that should be done is for
those premiers who have not spent the money which they were given
by the federal government, which they could have spent last year
and this year, to get on with the job and apply that money to
health care. I speak of Quebec—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that answer is absolutely bogus. The reason it is bogus
is because he does not talk about the money the Liberals took out
of the plan. He talks about putting in $11.5 billion. Why does
he not talk about the $17 billion they took out?
At the end of their three year plan, if they do have one, we
will be back to the same spending levels that we had in 1990. We
are 10 years behind the eight ball. When are they going to get
the message? They created the problem. We want a plan to fix
it. Where is the plan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our first plan was to get rid of the mess left us by his
party, the Conservative Party, when we took office in 1993. That
is the basis for our plan and we are working on it.
We want to work co-operatively with the premiers, but I would
like to say firstly, as a resident of Ontario, that a first step
is for the Ontario government and the Quebec government to spend
the money they were given in the last budget, which they could be
spending today to help people who are ill and in need of medical
care in their provinces.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if this government would spend as much money on real
doctors as it does on spin doctors perhaps health care would not
be in the shape it is in.
According to the documents we received this morning, a strategic
debate took place regarding the potential release dates of the
damning audit in the HRDC department. The department was
considering a release date as early as September. However, the
documents suggest that a September release would follow too
closely on the heels of the TAGS report and they did not want to
draw comparisons.
Will the minister admit that it was these strategic
considerations that kept her from releasing the audit until
January?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Once again, Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party is referring to draft communication plans
prepared by the department in preparation for the acceptance of
the final audit report, which came much later than when those
plans were drafted.
There was absolutely no idea of not releasing it. As a matter
of fact, the communication referred to in the papers this morning
backs up the fact that the minister was determined to be
transparent and open, was determined to release it and did so as
soon as all the information was assembled.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is just inconceivable that the minister did not know
about this so-called draft report until November.
The department was engaged in an internal strategic debate about
when to release these documents. There was a communications plan
in place. Senior officials were engaged in these discussions.
In January, however, Reform sniffed out the audit.
Why will the minister not just admit that she was waiting as
long as possible to tell Canadians about her billion dollar
bungle?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only
say it so many times. The minister was briefed on November 17.
The audit and the plans to fix the problem were released in
January.
This is a reflection of her own determination to be transparent
and open.
1135
The release of 18 binders, five and a half inches thick, proves
that we are being open and transparent. We also have an MP
inquiry line, and I should tell the House that only 20 calls have
been received from opposition members. They do not want to know
the facts. They want to draw conclusions without facts.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the documents
the Minister of Human Resources Development has provided each
member indicate that 51 companies which received over $12
million from the TJF in order to create jobs have gone bankrupt
or closed down operations. The amazing thing is that they are
supposed to have created at least 959 jobs.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to us how a company that
goes bankrupt or shuts down, laying off its workers, can be
included in the government's job creation figures?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, anyone who
has anything to do with business in his or her lifetime knows
there is always an element of risk.
I would like to compare the statistics for our projects with
those of the private sector. According to Statistics Canada,
about 23% of new ventures do not pass their first birthday,
whether because of bankruptcy or closure. The statistics for our
projects are that 95% do pass their first birthday, so we compare
rather favourably.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every day, as
we read the documents from Human Resources Development Canada,
we reach the conclusion that the more we analyze them, the less
we find in them. It is not normal for the taxpayers to be
learning bit by bit that nothing is going right at Human
Resources Development Canada any more.
When will the government finally decide to show respect for
taxpayers by instituting a public and independent inquiry?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we respect
the taxpayers and that is why we are so proud that 95% of our
projects are successful. That is a better record than that of
the private sector.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Earth Canada lost millions of dollars over the past four years.
However, the fortunes of Earth Canada became greener when the
cronies of the Prime Minister, Mr. Fugère and Mr. Champagne, came
on board. Mr. Champagne came to Ottawa and secured access to
a $10 million line of credit.
I ask the Minister for International Trade, who did the Prime
Minister's crony meet with?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the opposition has
not forgotten me today because I can tell him that the opposition
has its information completely wrong once again.
It is simple and clear. Earth Canada has not received one cent
from the EDC. If the opposition had any sense of responsibility
it would withdraw the terrible allegations its leader made in the
House yesterday. I understand why the CCRAP party would continue
to look for another name after making this kind of monumental
mistake.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we see that the minister's approach today is to huff and puff and
try to blow this scandal away, but it will not work.
The minister must know and remember René Fugère, because when he
was HRD minister he cut cheques for $1.5 million for projects
involving him. Champagne comes to Ottawa and secures approval
for and access to a $10 million line of credit.
The minister ran away from this question yesterday, so I will
ask him to confirm for the House today whether he has ever met
with Mr. Fugère or Mr. Champagne.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Earth Canada had preliminary discussions
with the EDC and members of the opposition can check with people
at the EDC any time they want. They can go to them because the
institution is at arm's length from the department. Those
preliminary discussions needed many more steps before allowing a
line of credit of $10 million. Those are the facts. The
opposition is completely wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is refusing to answer a number of embarrassing
questions by hiding behind the investigations that are underway.
However, Placeteco is not being investigated. We note that the
trustee appointed by HDRC for a trust that does not meet
Treasury Board requirements happens also to be the lawyer of the
person who received the funding that went into the trust.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find this situation somewhat
disturbing?
1140
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member did not give notice of her question. I will check
the facts and the basis for her question, and gladly get back to
her as soon as possible.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find
the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister really disturbing.
This is the third time we have put this question in the House
and the third time the minister has refused to answer.
I put my question to a former Solicitor General of Canada, a man
of experience. Does he not find it unusual, disturbing and
dangerous that one person is both Mr. Gauthier's lawyer and the
HRDC trustee?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a
mistake made on this file by an official and trust funds were
created. It turned out to be a fortuitous mistake because after
that Placeteco signed a three-year agreement with its employees
and a five-year contract worth $8 million with Bell Helicopter.
The company has 69 people working for it. Perhaps this person
got the idea of trust funds from the premier of Quebec.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
he was human resources minister the trade minister wrote more
than $1.5 million worth of cheques for projects of Mr. René
Fugère.
Just what is it about Mr. Fugère that allows him such easy
access to the public purse? Did the minister ever meet with Mr.
Fugère?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that they
would repeat in the House allegations with not a shred of
substance. The facts are clear that the EDC has not extended a
line of credit to Earth Canada.
If the member wants to ask me any question I will gladly answer.
However, he is asking me a question on something about which
there are absolutely no facts.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the substance of the question was, when did
the Minister for International Trade first meet with René Fugère?
He has very cleverly evaded and danced around that question. He
avoids the Earth Canada connection with Petrobras.
[Translation]
Are the magic words that open the doors to federal funds “Hello,
I am from Shawinigan”?
[English]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ministers do not sign off on these kinds
of applications. There has not been any line of credit extended
to Earth Canada. The member can ask people at the EDC about the
relationship between Petrobras and Earth Canada. They are
private sector companies. I am telling the member that the EDC
has not extended a line of credit to Earth Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned from the
list obtained on September 9, 1999, under the Access to
Information Act, that a $20,000 grant had been given to
Moustiqu'Air Top Net, to create 25 jobs.
Then, in the list provided by the minister on February 15, we
discovered that the grant was in fact in the amount of $200,000,
to create 27 jobs. We also know that Moustiqu'Air Top Net went
out of business.
When will the government realize that the information provided
by the Department of Human Resources Development is not at all
reliable and that only an independent public inquiry can shed
light on this issue?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not
hear the name of the project to which the member referred.
Therefore, I cannot answer. If the member will contact me
afterward, I will look up the information and I will be happy to
pass it on.
* * *
1145
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each week three babies die inexplicably of sudden infant death
syndrome, commonly known as SIDS. Can the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health tell the House what the
Government of Canada is doing to reduce the incidence of these
tragic and devastating deaths?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Mississauga South for his question.
Although the specific cause of sudden infant death syndrome
remains unknown, we do have some knowledge of certain risk
factors. Babies who sleep on their tummies have an increased
risk of SIDS compared with babies who sleep on their backs.
Last year Health Canada launched the “Back to Sleep” campaign.
[Translation]
In French, the theme of this awareness campaign is “Dodo sur le
dos”. We recommend that infants be raised—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has admitted to nine RCMP investigations
into HRDC goings on. The media is now reporting that there are
more than nine police investigations. We know that at least two
of them are in the Prime Minister's riding.
I would like to know from the minister, where are the other
investigations?
[Translation]
Where are the investigations?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are only
aware of nine investigations. I am sure the hon. member does not
want to put anyone on this side in the position of perhaps saying
something and interfering in a police investigation. I cannot
imagine that the hon. member would want more information which
might interfere in the securing of justice in this case.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development never divulges any
information in the House unless she has been caught. She
revealed the internal departmental audit only after we asked for
it under access to information legislation. She released a
riding by riding list of grants and contributions only after she
had been caught giving them to her own Liberal MPs. She told us
about nine criminal investigations in the House yesterday after
we had cornered her.
I ask her once again, where are the remaining police
investigations taking place?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, police investigations are carried on at arm's length
from the government. Unless the hon. member wants to somehow say
things which will prevent the police from carrying out their work
and not permit the investigations to have a proper outcome, I
do not why he is asking these kinds of questions.
If he wants to get information, the appropriate thing to do
would be to go to the appropriate police force. If it thinks
they can release information, I am sure they will do it. In the
meantime, he should bear in mind that these are not charges.
They are not trials. They are apparently investigations carried
on at arm's length from the government. Let him go to the police
and see what they have to say.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it
concerns the government's responsibility for the budget in the
country.
These estimates allocate an extra 10.7% in spending for the
Senate. That is up 29% over the last three years. That is $5
million for 104 senators, compared with $20 million extra this
year for health care spending for a million people in the
province of Saskatchewan.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain this new Liberal
definition of balance where 104 unaccountable and unelected
people get an extra $5 million and a million people in
Saskatchewan get an extra $20 million for health care?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the increase is not at all as
the hon. member says it is. As a matter of fact, the overall
increase in expenditures over last year is a little over 1%
different.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the estimates have an increase of $47 million to $52
million in the government's blue book. Maybe I could put it a
different way. That $5 million increase is equivalent to about
$48,000 per senator, and the extra $20 million in health care in
Saskatchewan is about $20 per person.
I want him to explain why the government would make that
tremendous increase in allocation for the Senate and only a few
dollars for people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba for health care.
Please come clean on this.
1150
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give the
House inaccurate information. Let me be even more precise. The
actual increase over actuals for last year is 1.32%. I know I
said that it was a little over 1% and it is 1.32%. I am sure
most people will understand that.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Truckers are protesting in Ottawa today. Yesterday I stated
that high diesel prices, along with high gas and fuel oil prices,
are hurting Canadians.
What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that diesel,
gasoline and fuel oil prices are lower for all Canadians.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that
oil prices are traded on world markets and, in that vein, Canada
is an active member of the international oil energy agency.
We are actively working with our fellow members to push the OPEC
nations to increase production so that we can regain some
stability in the world's oil markets.
These measures are effective and I would ask the member to be a
little more patient.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government will spend $160 million over two years to help the
natives integrate into the fishery.
Can the minister of fisheries tell us how much money it will
cost to fully integrate natives into the fishery? Does the
department have a detailed outline of the strategy and can he
provide us with a copy? Does this strategy address the serious
issue of the summer food fishery?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked us a
detailed question about the aboriginal fishery. I will gladly
bring the issue to the attention of the minister of fisheries and
provide a full response for him in the House.
Needless to say, the government is committed to ensuring,
pursuant to the decisions of the court, that the aboriginal
fishery is properly taken care of and in a way where everyone
lives in harmony and participates in the activity.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
Tonight, with children from my riding, I will attend an
anti-racism concert in Kanata which is sponsored by the
Government of Canada.
I applaud the minister for this initiative but would she explain
what she hopes this concert will accomplish and why she believes
it is necessary?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this concert will perhaps be
the biggest initiative put on by any country in the world, both
nationally and internationally, to deal with the issue of racism.
Tonight in Ottawa, young people from about seven countries in
the world and Canadian youth will join with Dubmatique, Monica,
Bif Naked and Juliette Powell in a concert in which youth will
speak out in the language they know best, music. This is
Canada's step to what is creating a world of peace and human
security.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I realize the minister does not want to hinder any HRD
investigations, and today I heard the parliamentary secretary say
that making known who is being investigated may hinder or perhaps
jeopardize these investigations.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, does that mean that those
known investigations are already tainted and that those
individuals who are under investigation, including those in
Shawinigan, will be getting off scot-free?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think one should read that into any answers
given. These are matters for the police. Whether it is the RCMP
or a local police force, they will do their duty and, in
consultation with crown attorneys, will decide what steps are to
be taken. The premise of the member's question is totally off
base, as usual.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
release dated February 23, the Minister of Human Resources
Development boasted that a telephone line had been reserved for
members of parliament interested in getting information.
I submitted a request for information by following the suggested
procedure. Four days later, I received a letter telling me to go
through the access to information process.
Can the minister tell me why I cannot obtain information, even
when I follow her own guidelines?
1155
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
is justified in his complaint if the telephone line did not give
him the information he wanted. I apologize for that. I will see
what I can do to fix it.
However, I would remind the member that there are 18 binders,
five and a half inches each, of paper. His House leader and his
Whip I believe are in charge of them. Those papers have been
provided by the department for his perusal. I am sure he can
find it in there.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government must assume its responsibilities in health care.
Monday's budget would give the Province of New Brunswick only
$60 million over four years. This is not even enough to cover
the debts of New Brunswick's hospital corporations.
Will the government listen to the Premier of New Brunswick and
to all the other premiers and pay for 50% of the cost of the
health care system in this country, in order to keep it from
being privatized?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and the
government have indicated that they increased public health
funding to the unprecedented sum of $31 billion this year. One
step has therefore already been taken.
The Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance said that
they were open to additional funding, provided that the
provinces and the federal government discuss priorities for
renewing the health care system. We hope this will be done as
soon as May.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, Paul Lemire,
the director of CITEC, was under investigation in 1997 for
$1.4 million in tax fraud involving Abattoir A.L. Bellerive.
This same abattoir gave $1,200 to the party in power, $500 of it
for the Prime Minister's personal election campaign. Abattoir
Bellerive received a CIDA contract worth $117,400.
What were the Minister for International Cooperation's criteria
in awarding a contract to this company?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not have that
information with me. I will take notice and report back to the
House on that particular question. I am not familiar with that
at this point.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
There has been concern expressed that the budget is a good
budget for business and corporate taxes but it does not address
directly the needs of women.
Can the minister tell us whether she has made a gender analysis
of the budget and what are its implications for women?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reindexation of personal
income taxes will benefit low income families, many of whom are
women.
The increase in the child tax benefit will ensure that those
benefits are no longer eroded, nor the GST tax credit. Senior
women will also benefit from this reindexation.
Small businesses will get a lower tax, which will go down to
21%. We know that women are starting businesses right now at
twice the rate of men. These are small and micro businesses.
That will benefit them.
I could go on and on but I do not have the time.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
10,000 pages of inaccurate files, 15 days of non-answers from
this weak government, two image consultants, nine police
investigations and over $13 million spent with zero jobs created.
All this equals one incompetent minister.
Can the Prime Minister give Canadians just one good reason why
this incompetent HRD minister should not resign today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will give the hon. member 1.9 million reasons. That is
the number of jobs created by this government, including the
current HRD minister, since we took office. Those are 1.9
million reasons, 1.9 million facts that show the hon. member and
his party do not know what they are talking about when they
choose to speak about the government in the baseless way they
have been doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more
questions we ask on the unbelievable scandal at Human Resources
Development Canada, the less we learn. Everything is becoming
more and complicated, and every day we are learning of new
investigations on top of those already under way. The
government's credibility is at stake, and taxpayer confidence is
being undermined.
1200
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When is the
government going to finally decide to institute a public and
independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
already have an independent and public inquiry going on, carried
out by the Auditor General.
I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois is attacking the auditor
general, who is an officer of this House. The Bloc Quebecois
has a duty to support him in his work, not to undermine his
work. Their undermining in this House of the work of the
auditor general is scandalous.
* * *
[English]
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, attacks in the media indicate the Liberal wagons are
circling around Scotia Rainbow. The government, time and time
again, has said that it supports Scotia Rainbow because of the
jobs it has created in my riding.
Twenty-two million dollars later and the employees of Scotia
Rainbow were not paid today. My question is for the minister
responsible for ACOA. Why is the government paying a company
when the company is not paying its employees?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already have, in answer to another
question put forward by the hon. member, made reference to an
editorial in one of the Cape Breton newspapers asking that this
member step down.
Here is another editorial in the Cape Breton Post that
attacks the NDP and says:
Scotia Rainbow is regarded as an important employer, paying out
$4.5 million last year in wages. These public dollars are
necessary to get such ventures off the ground in Cape Breton
Island.
When will the NDP start supporting employment in Cape Breton?
Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Before dealing with the point of order,
earlier I recognized the hon. member for St. Albert who is not
here. I have a note in my hand that evidently was sent to me by
the member for St. Albert. I am not sure, but I am presuming the
points he wanted to make, and he told me they would be very
short, are supposed to be made by the hon. member for Elk Island.
I am in the middle of a question of privilege. I guess this
point of order will have to be put off a bit, unless I can deal
with it just like that.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, my particular point of order
arises from question period today and it could be dealt with just
in a few seconds, but it is not the one that was raised by my
hon. colleague.
The Speaker: I will deal with the member's point of order
right now and then I want to hear what the hon. member has to
say.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order arising from question period today
deals with some confusion arising from the official opposition's
assertion of a $10 million line of credit from the Export
Development Corporation that we believe benefited Earth Canada.
I have documents that would back up our assertion and I would
like permission to table them today.
1205
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to the
table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Because I committed to hearing the member
for St. Albert, and I believe from my information that his words
will be incorporated by the hon. member for Elk Island, I will
hear the member on the question of privilege raised this morning.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MOTION NO. 8
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in view of
what I anticipate will happen in a few seconds, I would like to
withhold my statement now.
[Translation]
The Speaker: This morning the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois
and the whip of the Bloc Quebecois asked me to rule on an action
taken, not on Motion No. 8.
[English]
In that case I will hold in reservation my decision on Motion
No. 8 until it comes to the House. In view of what has been
transpiring, I thought it appropriate for me to hear what was
being said by all hon. members. I am not prepared to rule on a
motion which is not before the House.
With regard to the gesture of putting the motion, at this point
I have heard from all parties except the government party. If it
wants to intervene I am prepared to hear that. If it does not
want to intervene that is okay. Does the government House leader
wish to intervene on the point of the gesture of bringing it up?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, however one wants to refer to
it, my intervention will be very brief. In the spirit of
co-operation and after some consultations with some House
leaders, consultations which could even occur later this day, I
wish to indicate my intention to withdraw the motion.
[Translation]
The Speaker: A few weeks ago, we had turbulent Oral Question
Periods for several days and I commented on the events in the
House.
[English]
I want to make another observation, only from what I see here in
the chair. There are days when the House rises above itself,
when the House permits itself not only to hear one another in
what we are saying but, in what I think is the finest traditions
of parliament, to actually listen and act on what was said. If I
may, I was the author of criticism of ourselves. Today is one of
those good days. Thank you. It was well done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand correctly, Motion No. 8 will be withdrawn. This does
not however deal with the question of privilege I raised. Are
we agreed on that?
The Speaker: We agree that, if necessary, I will get back to the
House. I will give it thought between now and our return. I
will consider the question of privilege with respect to the
action taken, that is all. If necessary, I will come back to
it.
1210
[English]
Right now I have another question of privilege of which I have
notice. It is from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have written notification and
I intend to proceed with it, but before I do so I will recognize
the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
before oral question period, when the discussion on the question
of privilege was interrupted, I proposed to put a motion of
privilege to refer this question of privilege to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I wonder if you are
prepared to entertain such a motion?
The Speaker: No, not at this time.
[English]
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate your ruling as well as the good
discretion exercised on the part of the government House leader
to back off.
This question of privilege arises out of a matter the affects
not only members of the House but those in the public who are
watching very closely as Bill C-20 proceeds through the Chamber
and eventually goes to the other place.
On the government website as of this morning the committee
reports with respect to the progress of the legislative committee
and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence that were heard
between the dates of February 14 and February 24, that short time
allotted for the committee to contemplate Bill C-20, are shown as
unavailable or not available to those who would be tracking the
process of what was taking place in the committee.
There is a window on this world that occurs when the evidence is
posted on that website. This window is essentially closed and
the blinds are pulled. This technical line of communication is a
very important and very symbolic site where the government and
members of the opposition have the opportunity to communicate
over the Internet and on the government website on what is taking
place. It is a very important lifeline and form of
communication.
This question of privilege concerns the ability of members of
the House to review, to re-examine and to contemplate what has
already taken place in committee with respect to this bill, which
has been given a great deal of priority. There has been
tremendous pomp and ceremony about the importance put forward by
the government on Bill C-20 and yet to date, for some unknown,
unexplained reason, this information is not available on this
website.
We already discussed at length previously today and on other
occasions the inability of the opposition or others in
government, for that matter, to move amendments. Similarly I
would say that this absence of information on the government
website impacts on the ability of members of parliament and
others to reflect on what has taken place already in this
process.
Perhaps there is a good reason it is not available, but if it is
part of the procedural ambush we have seen in the past I would
suggest that it is improper and I would be prepared, with your
indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if you find there is a prima facie
breach of privilege, to move the necessary motion.
It is the Canadian public and all members of parliament who are
affected by the absence on the website.
The Speaker: I am not sure we would deal with this
matter under a question of privilege. I want to consult to see
if I can get some kind of an explanation.
1215
My colleagues, with regard to the information being available, I
am told that most of it is on the website right now and we are in
the process of finishing up the information. It should be in the
hon. member's hands soon.
In direct response to the point of order, I am quoting Speaker
Francis who was quoting Speaker Macnaughton. This is what
Speaker Macnaughton had to say on March 17, 1965 as reported on
page 12479 of Hansard:
The basic question is whether or not a bill in the House of
Commons can be discussed, assuming that the evidence has not been
completely finished in its English and French printing. I have
made a search of the records since Confederation, and there is no
case that says that a bill in the House of Commons which is up
for discussion cannot be proceeded with until the evidence has
been filed. If we were to accept the suggestion of the hon.
member for Lapointe (Mr. Grégoire), emotionally pleasing as it
may be, nevertheless procedurally in my opinion it would be
completely wrong, and would establish a very bad precedent.
Again Mr. Speaker Francis stated and I quote from page 4631 of
Hansard dated June 13, 1984:
I really do feel uncomfortable when hon. members do not have the
transcripts. However, I am guided by the precedent of Mr. Speaker
Macnaughton. I am guided by the fact that the rules are silent as
to the form of printing.
I inform the hon. member officially that most of it is on the
website now. The rest of it I am sure will be there very soon,
before we get into the body of the debate on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order on this.
The Speaker: I just ruled on this issue.
Mr. Daniel Turp: I would appreciate it if you allowed me to
add something. You quoted a comment made by a predecessor of
yours in the sixties.
We are now in the electronic era. Like my colleague, I find
there is a serious problem, because the clerk of that committee
told me, the day after the proceedings, that the minutes of the
proceedings of the legislative committee on Bill C-20 would be
posted in the coming days. We are already one week past that
deadline and the minutes have yet to be posted.
Based on the statements—
The Speaker: As I said, it is not absolutely necessary to have
all the printed documents. We are doing our best. The hon.
member will get them, if not today, certainly when we come back
in the House to resume debate.
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, I am
very pleased to have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's response to 15 petitions. I move:
The Speaker: This is in order. All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1255
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Cadman
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Cotler
| Dion
| Duncan
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Fry
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lee
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Parrish
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Richardson
| Rock
| Saada
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Wilfert – 71
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 38
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, an act to give
effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession
Reference, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I will now give my ruling concerning report
stage of Bill C-20.
[English]
There are 411 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper
for the report stage of Bill C-20.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 12.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 13 to 68.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 69 to 83.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 84 to 89.
[English]
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 90 to 411.
[Translation]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House, but before
that, on a point of order, the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT TO BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. This concerns the permissibility of
some of my amendments to Bill C-20 at report stage, which I
submitted this week to the Journals Branch.
I am rising now on a point of order so that you may rule on
this, at your earliest convenience, before we start debating
Bill C-20.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practices, by Marleau and
Montpetit, says on page 538, and I quote:
Points of Order respecting procedure must be raised promptly and
before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection
would be out of place.
This is of the utmost importance.
Some of the amendments I am proposing are aimed at clarifying
the wording of clauses 1(5) and 2(3) of Bill C-20.
These clauses state that the House of Commons shall take into
account any views it considers to be relevant to the
consideration of the question and the will to secede.
1300
My amendments, which were rejected, are only aimed at specifying
that these views can be the ones of the government of the
province that wants to secede and, in my humble opinion, my
amendments do not go beyond the scope of the bill. However, they
were deemed out of order, which seems to indicate that my
freedom of expression has been restricted.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, since you are the guardian of the
privileges of members of the House, particularly those in the
opposition. On this issue, the House of Commons Procedure and
Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit, also specifies, on page 261,
and I quote:
It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian
of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an
institution.
It goes on to say:
Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges
accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as:
...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in
the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the
House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any
opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said
in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations
of their constituents.
Since you are the guardian of the privileges of this House and
of its members, I draw your attention to the consequences of
ruling out of order the amendments I submitted as a member
representing his fellow citizens.
With all due respect, I do not understand why I cannot discuss
these amendments. Because you ruled them as being out of order,
not only myself, but all the members of this House are prevented
from debating them.
This is an important and urgent matter, but you should take the
time to examine the situation and make an informed decision.
Your ruling will determine the freedom that the members of this
House will enjoy in the future. Neither I nor my colleagues want
to see this freedom of speech challenged only because my
amendments deal with Bill C-20.
To conclude, I would like to quote constitutional experts whom
our PC colleague quoted this morning, namely professors Brun and
Tremblay, who, in the fifth edition of their book on
constitutional law, wrote the following:
The safeguarding the rights of the opposition is one of the most
fundamental unwritten rules that the Speaker of the House must
advocate, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we need you to be the guardian of our privilege to
speak, to amend legislation, to introduce amendments that were
ruled out of order and should not have been.
* * *
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET OUT
IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
BILL C-20—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act to give
effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference,
as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the report stage of Bill C-20, an act to give effect
to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.
[English]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the
House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for
the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
1305
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Democracy, democracy.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will consider what the hon. member
had to say, I will think about it and I will come back to the
House on this when we begin debate on Bill C-20.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have Motion No.
12, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, now recorded as standing in the name
of the hon. member for Mercier.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
think we have seen the type of democracy this government has to
offer. After showing some openness a while ago, it is now
resorting to another gag order and refusing that a motion be
sponsored by another colleague, thus eliminating that motion
from the Order Paper.
I only wanted to ask, since we will now proceed with the debate
on the amendments to Bill C-20 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and
some other parties, if you intend to hand down your ruling on
the question of privilege raised by our colleague, the hon.
member for Rimouski—Mitis, concerning the way some of our
amendments were dealt with, before we begin debate.
The Speaker: To answer the specific question, I will certainly
make a ruling before we complete debate on Bill C-20. The House
will know my decision at that time. Let us proceed with debate.
But before, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis on a point of
order.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in the motions in Group No.
2, you have decided that the vote on Motion No. 48 would also
apply to Motion No. 49. However, in Group No. 3, even though the
content is exactly the same, you have decided that there would
be separate votes on Motions Nos. 70 and 71.
Why did you decide that the vote on Notion No. 70 would not
apply to Motion No. 71 but that the vote on Motion No. 48 would
apply to Motion No. 49?
The Speaker: As for the question raised by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, I will take the member's question into
consideration and rule on it in due course.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, further to some indications
from our colleagues opposite, I again ask for the unanimous
consent of the House so that Motion No. 12 standing in the name
of the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert now stand in the
name of the hon. member for Mercier.
1310
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by adding before
line 1 on page 1 the following:
“Whereas when the Quebec people were consulted by a referendum
in 1995, the winning choice was the one that obtained a majority
of the votes declared valid, that is, fifty percent of the votes
plus one vote;”
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1
to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 33 on page 2.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1
to 6 on page 1.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1
and 2 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 7
to 10 on page 1.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11
to 15 on page 1.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 16
to 24 on page 1.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
16 and 17 on page 1 with the following:
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 25
to 32 on page 1.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 33
to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 7 on page 2.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (for Mrs. Pierrette Venne) moved:
That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 21
to 30 on page 2.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for me to speak today at report stage to Bill C-20, an
act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
Secession Reference.
It is particularly important to me to speak to Motion No. 4,
which moves that Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by
deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 1, in other words by omitting:
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is
no right, under international law or under the Constitution of
Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of
Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada
unilaterally.
The reason it is so important for me to speak today is that this
bill, the so-called clarity bill, is not just nebulous, but
undemocratic, and I will demonstrate why.
First of all, Bill C-20 gives the House of Commons the power to
overturn an act of the National Assembly and the decision of the
people of Quebec. It gives the House of Commons the power to
consider the referendum question and, by resolution, set out its
determination on whether, in the House's view, the question is
clear—I am referring to clause 1, first paragraph—or whether,
again in the House's view, there has been a clear expression of
a will by a clear majority of the population of that province to
separate from Canada, as set out in clause 2, first paragraph.
Bill C-20 also gives the House of Commons the power to overturn a
motion by the National Assembly to adopt a referendum question,
as well as the power to overturn and to censure the result of a
referendum that does not have a majority that is clear, again in
the House's view.
1315
By extending such authority to the House of Commons, Bill C-20
reactivates what is referred to by constitutional specialists as
“the power of disallowance”, which fell into abeyance as
recognised by the supreme court itself in its August 20, 1998
reference. Such an attempt is totally inconsistent with the
independence of each level of government which represents one of
the basic principles of federalism.
This power of disallowance is extended to a chamber of the
Parliament of Canada where less than 25% of elected members are
Quebecers—members should keep this percentage in mind—which gives
to the rest of Canada a new form of veto on the political and
constitutional future of Quebec.
The power of the House of Commons is strengthened by the
obligation imposed on it by Bill C-20 to take into account the
views of many political players from the rest of Canada, who can
also jeopardise Quebec's freedom to choose its own destiny,
while if French is spoken to them they will not understand a
word of what is being said.
For this reason alone, Bill C-20 is undeniably undemocratic. It
should be withdrawn before 60% of the members of the House of
Commons coming from Quebec—at least 45 out of 75 members—vote
against this measure and deprive it of any legitimacy.
That was my first point and I will now discuss a second point.
Bill C-20 denies Quebec the freedom to choose its political
destiny and among other things to include in a referendum
question, if so it chooses, a offer of partnership with the rest
of Canada.
It is truly an attack on the freedom of choice of Quebecers, and
God knows that we know what we want.
By rejecting the partnership, thus limiting the constitutional
and political options for the future of Quebec, Bill C-20
purports to prevent Quebec from reaching out to the rest of
Canada and propose a form of partnership that would be entirely
compatible with the new status of a sovereign Quebec.
As numerous analysts indicated—and we have heard from a great
many of them—this is a scheme, a trick to force Quebecers to
chose between status quo and secession, to use the minister's
pet word.
There is nothing in the supreme court opinion justifying the
hard line taken by the minister and the government. For that
reason also, I repeat that Bill C-20 is clearly undemocratic.
My third reason is that Bill C-20 denies the universal rule of
the 50% plus one majority and the basic rule of the equality of
votes.
By refusing to recognize the 50% plus one rule and by drafting a
provision, namely clause (2)(b), which is itself the opposite of
clarity, the Liberal government ignores a rule which was very
widely accepted by political actors in the 1980, 1992 and 1995
referendums, and which they still consider valid. The 50% plus
one rule is a universally recognized rule, which has applied and
continue to apply to all referendums held under the auspices of
the United Nations.
Once again, the government relies on an opinion of the Supreme
Court of Canada to suggest that the 50% plus one rule is not
valid, when in fact nothing in that opinion supports such a
position, quite the contrary.
The fact that the court made reference to a qualitative majority
contradicts him and we will repeat this over and over again
during the next few days.
The refusal to abide by the 50% plus one rule is outright
discrimination against individuals and is contrary to the
principle of equality of votes. In the end, the winning option
is the one that has more weight than the other. For this very
obvious reason, Bill C-20 is clearly undemocratic.
I strongly wish our institution, the House of Commons, would
withdraw it because it goes against the imperative standard of
the equality of all citizens.
1320
Not only is Bill C-20 an unprecedented attack against Quebec
democracy, but the government also now seems determined to use
undemocratic methods to force its passage by the House of
Commons: review by a legislative committee instead of a standing
committee; hearings restricted to expert witnesses; refusal to
consult the public; and finally, Motion No. 8, which is nothing
more than a gag order.
The Prime Minister seems to want to show once again that his
government lacks transparency. It is not by refusing an open and
democratic debate on Bill C-20 that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs will convince people that all he wants
is truth and, above all, clarity.
At this point, I move:
That motion No. 5 be amended by adding, after the word “donné” in
the French version, the following:
And I sign the amendment, so as to prove that all is transparent
with us.
Bill C-20, proposed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and the Prime Minister to force on Quebecers referendum rules
that are contrary to the most basic principles of democracy, is
a departure from tradition and from respect for democratic
rules.
I remind hon. members that the federal government, which took
part in the 1992 and 1995 referendums, is now breaking with the
democratic tradition of Quebec and Canada.
Basically, we are asking for the freedom to have a responsible
government in Quebec, the freedom to make sure that the
Government of Quebec is recognized as responsible and
legitimate, the responsibility and the freedom to determine the
referendum question and to not be tied up by an untenable status
quo. This is called the freedom to have the country of our
choice.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard
a lot said in the last little while about democracy in the House.
There have been great protestations about what is taking place in
the House, how the government is moving and the kinds of tactics
that are being used in order to get the business of the House
done.
There is a reason to be concerned. The House has not been a
happy place in which to work or in which to have a legitimate
debate for some time now.
When considering that, we have to look at where that feeling
arises from.
1325
The government has spoken for a long time about the need to do
something to clarify the rules for secession. The Prime Minister
spoke about it during the 1995 referendum. I recall that he
repeatedly stood in the House and said that 50 plus one was not
enough. This did not come to the floor of the House this week or
last week; it is a position that has been held by the government
for a very long time. There was a discussion of this last summer
leading up to the renewal of the session. In the Speech from the
Throne there was an indication of the government's desire to do
this.
Each step of the way one of the parties opposite, rather than
seeing this as an opportunity to debate a fundamental question of
fundamental importance to the country, has said that it does not
matter what occurs in this Chamber. That party has said it does
not matter what is put down by the Government of Canada, that its
members will not involve themselves in the process and will do
everything they can to stop it. That has been stated over and
over again by members of the Bloc Quebecois.
At a certain point we are left to decide whether we want to let
one party hijack the House. It is unfortunate that the tools one
has to deal with are heavy handed. The tool to limit debate is
not one which anybody in the House likes to see used but it is a
necessary tool in the face of the activities, particularly in
this place, of the Bloc Quebecois.
Let us look at this. If we are talking about democracy, if we
are talking about legitimate debate on legitimate questions in
front of the House, let us look at what we are debating today. We
entering into debate on 411 amendments to Bill C-20. We are
debating 12 of those amendments and now a subamendment to one of
them. What are these earth shattering important amendments that
we are going to take up the time of the country to debate?
Motion No. 1 is “That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting the
title”. This is the quality of the debate the Bloc wants to put
on the floor of the House. Motion No. 3 deletes lines 1 to 37 on
page 1 and lines 1 to 33 on page 2 of the bill.
Let me read some of the lines that members of the Bloc would
have us delete. “Whereas any proposal relating to the break-up
of a democratic state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of
fundamental importance to all of its citizens”. That is what
they want us to delete, but there is more. “Whereas the
government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its
population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to
formulate the wording of its referendum question”. That is what
they want us to delete.
At the same time we hear them arguing fiercely that the
Government of Quebec has the right to ask any question that it
wishes. When I read “Whereas the government of any province of
Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any
issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum
question”, it seems to meet the test that the Bloc would have us
consider. Yet Motion No. 3 calls upon us to delete that from the
preamble of the bill.
Just in case people have not understood that, Motion No. 7 is a
very narrowly drawn motion. Motion No. 7 says “That Bill C-20,
in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 15 on page
1”. What are lines 11 to 15 on page 1? “Whereas the government
of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population
by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the
wording of its referendum question”.
1330
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that, if one side
wants to be heard, it should also listen to what the other side
has to say. We should agree to at least be able to hear what is
said in debate.
Once again, during the debate on Bill C-20, I would like to hear
what is being said in debate, as I am sure the vast majority of
members in the House do.
Today's debate is now over.
[English]
As it is 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On debate, with six
minutes left, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to carry on with my speech regarding the private
member's motion put forward by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The motion, as stated, calls for the government to undertake a
study for the implementation of the recommendations of the
Richard inquiry on the Westray mine. It is a very worthwhile and
timely motion. We were very pleased when it was brought before
the House because all Canadians were horrified when 26 miners
were killed in the Westray mine through what I believe to be
criminal negligence and through what the chief justice found to
be criminal negligence.
Canadians were even more horrified when they realized that the
crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia would have to drop or stay the
charges against the Westray mine because under the current
Criminal Code of Canada there was no way to make those charges
stick. That certainly is what caught in the craw of most
Canadians. There was no way to deal with the grief of the actual
deaths of the 26 miners.
It was incredibly frustrating to see that the crown prosecutors
of Nova Scotia did not have the tools to do the job to bring to
justice the people who caused the deaths of the 26 miners through
what I call criminal negligence, through what Justice Richard
called criminal negligence, and I would go further, to what I
call murder. I am not afraid to call death caused by criminal
negligence murder. I am pleased to do so. It goes beyond
manslaughter. In circumstances where those in control of an
enterprise have been made aware over and over again that what is
being done is dangerous, that workers' lives are being put at
risk and yet they continue to do so until somebody dies is
murder.
I am very pleased to join in the debate on the motion. I would
hope that the government members would see fit to support the
motion because it is worded and crafted in a way that is very
easy to agree with even for those who do not feel as strongly
about the subject as I do.
All the motion calls for is the government to begin to study how
we could implement the recommendations of Judge Richard,
specifically recommendation No. 73 which calls for amendments to
Canadian legislation to contemplate the concept of corporate
murder. That is essentially what it is calling for, the concept
of corporate manslaughter and corporate murder and to make
changes and amendments to any legislation, such as the Workplace
Safety and Health Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal
Code of Canada, to ensure that people, from the CEO right down to
the boards of directors, the foremen, the managers and the
frontline workers, can all be held criminally accountable when
they cause death due to criminal negligence.
I think it is a very worthwhile motion. In fact, the leader of
our party, the member for Halifax, has introduced a private
member's bill that actually goes further than the private
member's motion from the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It states exactly what changes
to those pieces of legislation are necessary to make corporate
accountability a reality in matters of workplace safety and
health.
1335
I come from the building trade, the construction industry. I am
no stranger to seeing people injured and killed on job sites. It
was my job, as the job steward, to pick up the tools of my fallen
comrades and take them back to their families and wives and tell
them the unhappy news that there had been an injury on the job. I
picked up their tools so they would not lay in the mud.
I am all too familiar with it. I am familiar with it to the
point where I can say right now that there is no production
schedule in the world that justifies injuring, butchering,
maiming, poisoning or killing Canadian workers. I feel very
strongly about that. I think we have made that point clearly.
I would ask members on the other side that if they will not
consider the obvious moral and ethical issues around clean, safe
and healthy workplaces, to please consider the economics of
clean, safe and healthy workplaces.
In the province that I come from, we lose approximately 50,000
person days a year due to strikes and lockouts and labour and
work stoppages. In that same period of time, we lose 550,000
person days per year due to injuries and accidents.
The economics are clear. If we are concerned about Canadian
productivity, the onus should be on all of us to clean up the
workplaces and minimize lost time due to injuries and accidents.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough certainly
raises that issue for us when he asks us to debate the very
important issue he raises with his motion on the Westray mines.
When I said earlier that some people call it murder when a death
is caused due to criminal negligence, I asked the House to
consider what happens when someone drinks a bottle of whiskey,
hops in a car, runs someone over and kills them. That is
criminal. That is murder. That is not just a traffic violation.
The person is guilty of murder if he or she is convicted under
the Criminal Code of Canada. It is not just a workplace safety
and health issue when someone is killed due to criminal
negligence on the job, it is murder.
In my own riding, I am sad to say, a couple of months ago the
owner of a scrapyard hired a 17 year old kid. He gave him a
cutting torch and told him to cut an oil drum in half. The kid
blew himself to kingdom come. That guy murdered the 17 year old
kid and we will fight for legislation which will contemplate the
concept of corporate murder and corporate accountability.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I must protest. The member is abusing the rights and privileges
he enjoys in the House by using the word murder in the context of
a terrible tragedy, in which indeed there may have been
negligence, but it is before various tribunals. If he really has
the courage to use that term, then he should use it outside the
House not inside the House because he has protection, Mr.
Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington has had the opportunity to put his thoughts
on this on the record. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is of
course afforded the same privilege.
Whether we agree with either the tone or context of any member's
debate is what debate is all about.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise for the second hour of debate on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to discuss Motion No.
79, a motion introduced by my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
I would like to explain what happened on that dreadful morning
in May 1992. It may help members gain a better understanding of
what provoked the motion.
On May 9, 1992, at 5.20 a.m., a violent explosion ripped under
the tiny community of Plymouth, just east of the town of
Stellarton, Nova Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of
the Westray coal mines, instantly killing the 26 miners working
there at the time.
Motion No. 79, formerly Motion No. 455, was introduced by my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to ensure that
something like this never happens again.
Workplace safety must be the norm across the country, no matter
what profession one chooses, whether working in a coal mine, a
fish plant or on an assembly line. Every Canadian has the right
to feel safe at work and every corporate executive must take the
initiative to ensure those standards are met.
1340
Motion No. 79 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
Recommendation 73 in the report of the inquiry commissioner,
Justice Peter K. Richard, reads as follows:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should institute a study of accountability of corporate
executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of
the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada
such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that
corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable
for workplace safety.
Recommendation 73 does not endorse any particular legislative
action by parliament. However, I will proceed by stressing that
Motion No. 79 wishes to address the concerns referred to by
Justice Peter Richard in his report, with an emphasis on the
personal liability of key corporate officials.
The proposal to create a new criminal offence for corporate
officials for failing to maintain safe workplaces would, by
definition, require adding new provisions to the criminal code.
This could be done by adding new sections to the criminal code
under subsection 467.5 and 467.6.
Subsection 467.6 would extend personal criminal liability for
the corporate failure to every officer or director of the
corporation who knew or ought to have known, based on their
experience, qualifications and duties, about the unsafe
conditions in question.
Another way to address the matter would be to amend the criminal
code provisions which define criminal negligence, section 219,
and culpable homicide, section 222, in a way which specifically
addresses death or bodily harm caused by a failure to maintain
workplace safety on the part of a director or executive of a
corporation. The drawback to this approach is that it does not
deal with situations where death or injuries do not result. As
well, if one wished to strengthen the accountability of officials
for workplace safety violations of their corporations, one could
amend subsection 149.2 of the criminal code to include additional
circumstances in which their liability could be triggered.
As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, many corporate
officials in today's marketplace have developed a cavalier
attitude toward fair labour practices and workplace safety. This
approach cannot be condoned in any capacity. As Canadians, we
are all entitled to wake up and go to our place of work, wherever
that may take us, and know that our well-being as individuals is
protected and that workplace safety is reinforced and upheld on a
daily basis. However, in many situations the almighty dollar
overshadows the secure working environment to which we are all
entitled.
Of course the bottom line of any business is to make a profit.
At the end of the day that is a very normal mindset for anyone
who operates a business large or small. If there is no profit at
the end of the day, there will be no business shortly thereafter.
In short, profitability equals sustainability.
However, we must not let employers allow profits to take
precedence over workplace safety. This mindset is precisely what
sets the tone for workplace tragedies and creates unsafe working
conditions. Businesses must ensure that their employees are
adequately supervised and consistently updated on safe work
practices. Sadly, in the past, we have all witnessed individuals
doing jobs they were not properly trained how to perform.
It is essential that companies take the time to train employees
so that additional risk is limited for employees and those around
them who are in the workplace doing their everyday job.
Management must also ensure that their employees have an
appreciation of any special dangers inherent at the job site. In
the case of the Westray coal mine, many of the tradesmen were
prone to perform unsafe tasks or to take dangerous shortcuts in
their work, never once being told any different by management. In
fact, in many cases there is no question that management was well
aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices
were not being performed.
1345
As stated in Chief Justice Richard's report:
There was no question that Westray management knew that the
levels of methane underground at the coal mine were hazardous.
Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, such
conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from the affected
area, and that is the primary reason, management in this instance
chose to ignore that fact.
In this situation, as in all situations, the open door policy of
management could have helped prevent the deaths of the 26 coal
miners that devastating morning.
No employee ever wants to feel as if his or her safety concerns
are falling on deaf ears. A collaborative effort among upper,
middle and lower management must be invoked to create an
environment that is hazardous free for every employee across the
country. Of course, accidents happen, but measures must be in
place to minimize the risk of death or injury. No single
environment is 100% danger free, but in most cases the risk of
danger can be significantly less with a bit of common sense.
Referring to the Westray coal mine tragedy, the inquiry was set
out to investigate the following: the occurrence of the
explosion that resulted in the loss of life; was the occurrence
preventable; whether any neglect caused or contributed to the
explosion in any way; and was the mine in compliance with
applicable statutes, regulations, orders, rules or directions.
These questions which were investigated at the time of the
inquiry are many of the same questions that should be reviewed
with business executives on a daily basis to ensure that they are
operating a safe company. As well, it would be a good
opportunity to ensure that businesses are in compliance with
current regulations.
As representatives of the federal government we have to ensure
that accountability is upheld in this country so that situations
such as Westray and others do not ever again repeat themselves.
The devastation of the Westray explosion will be felt for many,
many years in the tiny community of Stellarton and, indeed, all
of Nova Scotia.
Today, on behalf of every individual affected by this horrible
tragedy, I ask members to lend their assistance to this motion
and give it their strongest consideration and support.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding, which is adjacent to Hamilton, there is a
bronze sculpture that was created a few years ago which caused a
lot of controversy in my riding. It is to commemorate those who
have died in the workplace. What it is comprised of is a huge
slab. A workman is holding on to the edge of the slab backward
and he is headless. It is very, very dramatic. Many people in
the Hamilton community were almost offended by this piece of
sculpture, and yet it makes its point enormously eloquently.
I should say that Hamilton is an industrial town. It has two
major steel corporations and a number of heavy industries. I
hate to say it, but industrial accidents are not an infrequent
occurrence. Fortunately they are much rarer than they used to be
20, 30 or 40 years ago, but they still occur.
The problem with industrial accidents is that it is very
difficult to determine if negligence occurred. Sometimes it may
not be negligence at all. It may be that the firm has done
everything it thought was correct, but still the accidents occur.
The problem is, where do we draw the line between no negligence,
negligence and wilful negligence. This motion is directed toward
the idea of wilful negligence.
For a number of years during my youth I was a police reporter at
the local newspaper. I had the occasion to be on the scene of a
number of industrial accidents. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing more horrible than to see somebody who has been
absolutely crushed to a pulp by some sort of machine, or has been
pulled into a machine, or some young person who suffocated as a
result of going into a chamber in which the air was exhausted.
These things do occur and they are dreadful tragedies. When one
has any kind of experience with that one can certainly appreciate
and sympathize with the very strong feelings of the relatives of
those at Westray who lost their lives.
1350
The difficulty I have with the motion is twofold. One is this
concept of where one draws the line between criminal negligence
as already defined in the criminal code and some other area of
wilful negligence that is not defined in the code. I am not
certain you can do that very easily, Mr. Speaker. I am just not
certain at all.
The other point I would like to make is the problem that the
motion also uses the words “corporate executives”. The motion
is directed against this idea that corporations, in their haste
to make profit, are the ones that are most likely to be negligent
to the point of risking their workers in a criminal way.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Right on. You have it.
Mr. John Bryden: That may be where the frustration occurs
with the Westray instance, but I have to point out to the member
opposite who is remarking that it would be more precise to use
the word businessman or entrepreneur because, in my experience as
a police reporter covering industrial accidents, I can tell the
member opposite that I saw more death associated with small
business than I did with large corporations. The reality is that
the large corporations, by and large, have the means to make sure
that workplace safety provisions are in place. But the small
entrepreneurs often fail in this regard.
I will give an example. Not very long ago we had a fatal
accident with a student employee in a bakery who was operating a
machine that kneads dough. If I understand this motion
correctly, it is that the person who is in charge of that small
bakery should be subject to some sort of criminal code provision,
rather than the Ontario labour code provisions that are already
applicable.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you could reduce it even further. You
could take this problem of industrial safety to the farm.
I live in a small community in Ontario in the countryside and we
have had several accidents within my memory where people have
been drawn into a combine or where people have climbed down into
a silo and have died as a result of the gases that are heavier
than air and form a pool at the bottom of the silo. Should these
farmers be subject to criminal code provisions because they
allowed an accident to occur on their farm, which may indeed have
actually happened to their very family? It might have been a son
who died or a farmhand who died.
While I have enormous sympathy for the frustration felt by the
people who lost loved ones at Westray, it seems to me that the
proper direction of the anger and the reform should be to bring
in better provincial laws regarding workplace safety. It is
perfectly possible to have provincial laws that have severe
penalties if employers do not provide adequate safety for the
workers.
But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point to all members
who are interested in this issue that you cannot make a
distinction between corporate Canada and then leave out every
other type of employer. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to apply
the criminal code or any other law you must apply it universally.
I see a member opposite nodding. I see some sympathy there.
Yes, by all means, if we can improve the law federally, perhaps
not through the criminal code, so that it enforces cross-Canada
standards of workplace safety, whether it is on the farm, whether
it is in a small enterprise or in a large corporation, I would
say yes, absolutely, and amend the motion to that effect, except
there is one reality check here and that is the problem that
unfortunately workplace safety is primarily a provincial
responsibility. Certainly we who are MPs from Ontario find that
it is almost impossible to make any kind of meaningful dialogue
with the provincial government on any issue. I certainly do not
think the provincial government would accept any kind of
standards brought in by the national government on workplace
safety, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if it were possible I
would dearly love to do it.
1355
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to talk about an important subject that is dear to
my heart. I will try to easy, since it is a question that is
very dear to many hearts.
The reason all of this is so dear to my heart goes back to the
accident at the Westray Mine on May 9, 1922. We lost friends in
this tragedy, 26 miners. Talking about this here in the House is
a very emotional thing for me, because I myself am a former
miner.
I worked for more than 15 years in the depths of a mine, I
remember that, in 1976, in the mine where I was working, we
buried six miners in 18 months. It is really not easy to accept
the death of a colleague in one's workplace.
For example, one of those guys drove to work with me every day.
One morning we came in together and by nighttime, he was gone.
I would like to congratulate the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for introducing this bill in the
House. It reminds me of another bill, introduced by the leader
of the NDP, which has not been drawn yet and which is intended
to show Canadians that it is absolutely unacceptable in Canada
that a corporation, whether small, medium or large, would not
have a license to hire workers and then be found guilty of
criminal negligence causing the death of a worker.
This is what Motion No. 79 is asking members to support. We need
a bill to forbid an employer to obtain a licence to hire workers
and then do what it pleases.
If I recall correctly what happened in the Westray disaster, the
federal government should assume its responsibilities, because
it is partly to be blamed for what happened. I will explain.
If my memory serves me right, workers from the Westray mine went
to the employment insurance office and asked if they would be
penalized if they quit their job. They were told that if they
quit their job, it would not be justified. The same thing
happened in others mines in my riding.
Last year, a fellow named Stéphane quit his job because it was
unsafe, but the employment insurance commission denied him
benefits.
He appealed and lost his appeal. He then had to appear before an
adjudicator and won at long last.
Another similar case occurred when a worker refused to perform
an unsafe task with a truck. The truck had faulty brakes, and
when he quit his job the federal government turned down his
application for employment insurance benefits, stating that
safety was not sufficient grounds to quit one's job. He appealed
to the employment insurance commission in Bathurst, and the
commission denied him benefits. He then appeared before an
adjudicator and won his case. The same thing happened at the
Westray mine.
Workers from the Westray mine appeared before the employment
insurance commission, asking to quit their jobs because of
safety concerns.
I want to inform the House that the steelworkers' union had been
approached to establish a local union at the Westray mine
because it was unsafe.
Today the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington is changing his
mind to protect companies, to protect the big bosses.
1400
I think he does not represent Canadians or workers of this
country. Today, if I get behind the wheel of my car after I had
three or four drinks and I kill someone, I would be guilty and I
would go to jail.
When a corporate executive can blackmail his employees by
telling them “If you do not work, you will lose your jobs” and
when the federal government condones that by refusing to pay
employment insurance benefits to those who want to leave their
jobs, I say that those who made those decisions and the
ministers who decided to impose such restrictions on workers
should go to jail too.
[English]
It is too bad we have to plead with the government to pass a law
that any person in charge of a company should not have a licence
to run an industry unsafely and jeopardize the lives of workers
in a mine or any workplace. That is what happened at Westray
mine. Those people claimed it was an unsafe workplace. When they
wanted to take the president of the company to court to be put in
front of a judge, they were refused because there was no law to
do it. We are asking the Government of Canada to set an example
and show every province that no one will have a licence to have a
place of work which jeopardizes the safety of the workers because
it is totally unacceptable.
I worked underground for 15 years. In 1976 within a period of
18 months, we buried six workers. We buried one after the other
for 18 months. It was no fun having to bury our friends and
colleagues. Remember how members of the House reacted when we
lost one of our colleagues a few years ago and another colleague
last year. Hon. members know how they felt. The member who flew
on a jet to Windsor knows how he felt. I can tell him how I felt
when we lost our miners underground at Brunswick mine.
I know how the people at Westray felt when they lost 26 of their
miners. I know how hurt they were. The government can help them
by putting a law in place so that a court of law will judge
whether or not the person was negligent. We are asking for that
basic principle, that those who are negligent are judged in a
court of law.
Why is the culprit, the vice-president of the company, getting
away with all of this? It is totally unacceptable and it should
never be tolerated in Canada. That is why I am asking the
government to rethink what is going on, to rethink its position
on the motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Let us put a committee together to look at some rules and
regulations that will take care of this.
If a miner or a worker is negligent and does something to kill
somebody else, he will go in front of a judge. Why do the people
in charge of a company have the licence to get away with that?
We are not asking for something that is out of the ordinary. We
are asking for justice. We are asking for justice for our
workers, the women and men who are forced by negligent people to
work in an unsafe place. We see it every day. We cannot hide
behind facts when culprits get people to work in unsafe places.
We cannot hide behind facts. The culprits should go before a
court and be judged like any other Canadian.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to spend a few minutes on the private member's
motion that is before us today. The motion is that that this
House should be called upon to amend the criminal code or other
appropriate federal statutes to be in accordance with
recommendation no. 73 of the province of Nova Scotia's public
inquiry into the Westray mine disaster.
1405
This motion is certainly supportable because of the aspect of
accountability for negligence. It makes good sense that people
should not be asked to work in obviously unsafe conditions. If
there is a requirement to work in an unsafe area, then the
employee should have the right to refuse that work. If an
employee is injured or killed in an unsafe work area and the
employer could be shown to be negligent, I agree that he or she
should be held accountable.
We have been waiting for some time for amendments to part II of
the labour code which would deal with health and safety. I
believe there will be provisions in that code which will come
very close to achieving these ends. We have indicated that we
will be supporting that legislation when it comes to the House.
The spirit and intent of the motion is to hold employers
accountable for providing a safe workplace. I know that Mr.
Speaker has been an employer for a good many years and has always
striven to provide a safe workplace for his employees. No doubt
his employees are his number one consideration. This is only
reasonable.
We have to be very cautious and strike a balance. It is up to
the employer to provide a safe workplace. There also should be a
recommendation or at least an onus on the employee not to use the
clause frivolously and only to protest about bona fide unsafe
working conditions.
I have appreciated the opportunity to say a few words to the
motion. I am certain that when Bill C-12, the amendments to the
Canada Labour Code, comes before the House we will have a lot
more to say.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Our leader, the member for
Halifax, has already put in place a private member's bill which
has not yet been drawn.
Although Judge Richard's recommendations came down on December
18, 1997, sadly we have not seen the government come up with any
answers to his recommendations. Nothing.
There was no doubt in anybody's mind whatsoever what happened at
Westray. There was negligence on behalf of the corporate
executives and the owners of Curragh Resources, namely Clifford
Frame. There was no question, but what was missing was the law
to hold them accountable.
At one time we did not have laws that strongly enforced impaired
driving charges. At one time we did not have laws which brought
criminals to justice when they raped women. At one time we did
not have laws in place in regard to spousal abuse. At one time
we did not have laws in place for child molesters. But what did
we do to improve those situations? We brought in laws.
A government with any degree of conscience, leadership or vision
would have come forth with a motion or bill to address this
issue. It should not be left to the members of the opposition,
but thank God members on this side have seen fit to address the
issue because the government has not.
We heard a lot about what happened at Westray. Canadians
nationwide were appalled. They could not believe that when
workers go into their workplace they give up the right to be
treated equally. They give up the right to be treated as human
beings, as any other Canadian citizen, if someone's negligence
and outright disregard causes their death.
1410
Workers in this country are not treated fairly, not on this
issue nor on other issues. It does not happen. They give up
that right. Why are those rights not there? It is to protect
corporations. Why do we have worker's compensation legislation
in Canada? It is not to protect the workers. It is to protect
the corporations from being sued by their workers if there is
negligence and they become injured on the job.
There were supposed to be no-fault insurance plans to protect
the corporations but what has happened? Workers do not have the
same rights. They cannot sue their employer for outright
negligence. What is even worse, we now find out that even if
there are numerous deaths as a result of that negligence there
are no laws that can bring those executives to task.
This is not about whimsical approaches. This is not about a one
time instance where something happened and the worker died. This
was chronic negligence. This was repetitious disregard for
health and safety legislation. This was as a result not just of
the company but of the conflict of interest of provincial
governments and federal governments because they had been
involved in making sure that project took place, that the mine
operated.
How can we expect justice when there was provincial and federal
government involvement in that whole Westray Project? How can we
ask for justice?
Let us not let the lives of those 26 miners and the hardship and
grieving of their families go for naught. Let us at least see
one inkling of good come from that disaster. Let us see the
criminal laws in this country change to bring those negligent
employers—I do not care whether they are large employers or
small employers—if they have been negligent, let them be taken
to task before the courts of this country and be held
accountable.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise with
pleasure this afternoon to participate in this debate. I will
take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing this motion
forward and for working so hard to make this Westray motion
votable.
My colleague continues to shed light on the important matter of
workplace safety as a result of the Westray mine disaster in May
1992. I and indeed the entire caucus of the PC party support the
motion fully.
I wish to read Motion No. 79 to the House. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
As well, I think that it is important for me to read
Recommendation 73 of the Westray inquiry. It reads:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should institute a study—
Recommendation 73 clearly calls on the Government of Canada
through the justice department to institute a study to ensure the
accountability of corporate executives. The criminal code must
be amended to ensure that corporate executives and directors are
held properly accountable for workplace safety.
Let me inform members of the House what brought this motion to
life. On May 9, 1992, an explosion occurred at the Westray mine
killing 26 workers. It was a horrible tragedy, one that was felt
throughout the province of Nova Scotia and indeed the country.
Many Nova Scotians acted in heroic fashion that deadly day back
in May 1992.
1415
The devastation on that Mother's Day nearly eight years ago has
left a long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners
in the province of Nova Scotia. The explosion at the Westray
coal mine sent a very chilling message to the people. The
message was that haste and financial gain often put people's
lives in danger.
The death of the 26 coal miners was foreign and unexpected to a
peaceful community like Plymouth. The families of these miners
were left having to come to grips with how such a tragedy could
have occurred. That is why it is incumbent upon us as
legislators to ensure that there is a safe working environment
for all workers engaged in labour activity.
Days after the Westray mine explosion, on May 15, the Government
of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to head a
commission of inquiry established under the Public Inquiries Act.
The commission had a very broad mandate so as to shed light on
the explosion and all related circumstances. The commission's
work thus began immediately to prepare the public hearings set to
begin on October 19, 1992.
The final tabling of this report occurred five years later in
November 1997. The report entitled The Westray Story: A
Predictable Path to Disaster contained 74 recommendations. It
concluded that this tragedy could have been avoided if minimal
occupational safety standards had been met. Allow me to take a
moment to read from Justice Richard's report:
The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions, omissions,
mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity,
neglect—viewed in context, these seemingly isolated incidents
constitute a mindset or operating philosophy that appears to
favour expediency over intelligent planning and that trivializes
safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a
certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety
conscious workers as the wimps in the organization. To its
discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence
or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that
safe mining is good business.
There are ways to prevent such tragedies. There are ways to
eliminate criminal actions by corporations, and this is what the
motion seeks to address. There are ways it can be done by
amending the criminal code, some of which were proposed by
Justice Richard. One proposal would be to create a new criminal
offence that would impose criminal liability on directors or
others responsible for failing to ensure that corporations
maintain an appropriate standard of occupational health and
safety in the workplace. This is precisely what this motion
would address.
In Nova Scotia mining is regulated by three pieces of
legislation: the mineral resources act, the occupational health
and safety act, and the coal mines regulation act. Mr. Justice
Richard reviewed all these provincial acts and concluded that
their main purpose was to ensure the safety of all workers.
Unfortunately we have seen many examples of occupational safety
in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line,
especially in the mining industry where the very nature of the
work involves a great deal of risk. It is the duty of company
officers to ensure that the work is done in the safest possible
conditions.
We want to ensure that individuals inside and outside corporate
Canada are dealt with equally and fairly under the law.
Executives will not be able to hide behind their job titles in
the commission of their duties.
Corporate Canada understandably has two related functions: to
make a profit and to create jobs. Profit is a good thing but a
balance has to be struck between making a profit and the cost
that is sometimes incurred by the behaviour of some companies.
There must be a balance between making a profit and the means by
which to get there.
Section 220 of the criminal code refers specifically to criminal
negligence causing death. Similarly section 234 refers to
manslaughter. There may be the need as well to introduce
amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of
culpability, or perhaps even go so far as to make specific
references to executives, directors or persons in management
positions.
1420
It is my hope that the devastation of the Westray disaster will
not be forgotten. Just as important, the recommendations of the
inquiry cannot be forgotten either. The fundamental and basic
responsibilities for the safe operation of an underground coal
mine, and indeed any industrial undertaking, rest very much with
the owners and managers.
Westray management starting with the CEO was required by law,
and certainly by good business practices and good conscience, to
design and operate a mine safely. The significance of that
failure cannot be overstated. Simply because others were also
abdicating their responsibilities is not an answer. Shared
responsibility can be said to be implicit in the recommendations
that came from Mr. Justice Richard's report.
Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or
illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity.
If companies have not already done so, they should do everything
within their power to implement safe, ethical work practices.
Ethics such as these should be studied and followed everywhere in
places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not
the case, actions must be taken to demonstrate the importance and
the seriousness of the issue.
Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics
and have an open, approachable attitude toward their employees.
No one ever wants to feel the effects that were felt in Plymouth
with the Westray mine.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion and thank
my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take a few minutes to speak to the issue we are addressing
today, the Westray mine disaster.
The federal government seems to forget such disasters quickly.
This is something that should leave a mark, that we should not
forget and, if possible, that should not happen again.
The inquiry into the Westray mine accident showed that there was
negligence, that part II of the labour code was not complied
with. A review of part II of the labour code has been tabled,
but we sense that this is not part of the government's
priorities at this time.
It has been almost 10 years that this part of the labour code
has not been reviewed. This is something that should be reviewed
regularly, not every 10 years. Ten years is much too long; there
are too many adjustments and changes to be made.
In this part of the labour code, many things are written, but
are not done. It says we should do this and that. Also, fines
for non-compliance are ridiculously low. Employers take advantage
of this, particularly big companies such as the ones operating
the mine. They do not comply with the code and, in any case, do
not care about these ridiculous fines. They can afford to pay
them.
This is a crucial point and I think it should be entirely
reviewed.
Powers should also be given to these industries' employees. They
should be able to lodge complaints. Currently, under the labour
code, in respect of occupational health and safety, officials
are sent by the government to inspect sites and mines.
1425
It is interesting to note that the new labour code provides for
the establishment of committees made up of inspectors, employees
and employer representatives, who will ensure compliance with
the occupational health code.
How it will be done is another story because the way the bill is
drafted, it seems very complicated. However, we will discuss
this in committee and make amendments if necessary. We must
correct what is wrong with respect to occupational health and
safety.
I also noted other significant errors in this document. Fines
are imposed, but nothing is said about the way they will be
collected.
Inspectors do not deal with that. Very often, the government
does not do its job. It makes tough laws, but does not provide
the people required to enforce those laws.
It is all fine and well to have a very tough and very clear
piece of legislation. It looks good, but we need the human and
financial resources to enforce it. It is not a job for the
police, but for the experts in labour code issues who inspect
these sites. We must never ever see such a tragedy again.
If I look at what is being done in Quebec, our labour code and
our legislation are a lot tougher than those of the federal
government. That is why our miners are much better protected.
There are legal procedures for them to make formal complaints or
take group action against the employer if he does not do his job
and does not see to the safety and security of his workers.
We could take as an example what is being done in Quebec and
elsewhere where there are laws protecting employees, people
working in the mines, and their families. It is hard enough on
these people's health to work in a mine. We know how they suffer
from chronic diseases and other problems, how quickly these men
and women age because they work underground in an environment
that is not necessarily healthy. We must make sure they have
what they need, all the necessary tools and equipment to protect
them physically in the workplace.
If we cannot give this to miners, to people who work very hard
all their life for these companies, we are not worth much.
We have some work to do in this area. The labour code is not the
only solution. There are many other options. Legal proceedings
for instance. I know that often, and this is another problem,
when one tries to sue big companies, mine owners, the final
outcome is far from certain. Obviously small miners, or the
families affected by these events, cannot afford to take on big
companies like that, to hire lawyers and pay court fees.
I believe justice must be done. Those who are really to blame,
who were negligent, must pay for their mistakes. Such a tragedy
should never ever be allowed to happen again, both for the sake
of the families and the children involved, and for all those
concerned.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
[English]
It being 2.29 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday,
March 13, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.29 p.m.)