36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 123
CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| ROYAL LASER TECH CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| UNDERWATER HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| CANADA'S OLYMPIC BASKETBALL TEAM
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1405
| SEBASTIEN LAREAU AND DANIEL NESTOR
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| SÉBASTIEN LAREAU
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| THE HOLOCAUST
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1410
| THE HOLOCAUST
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| MEMBER FOR COMPTON—STANSTEAD
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| FEDERAL ELECTION
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RIGHTS OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
1445
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1455
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| FIREARMS
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Disclosure of Documents
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1520
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1525
| The Speaker |
| House of Commons
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1530
1535
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. John Bryden |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1540
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-498. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-499 Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill S-5. First Reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| PETITIONS
|
| Epilepsy
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Pollutant Release
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1545
| Health
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| National Highways
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee: |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Justice and Human Rights. Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1550
| Election of Chairmen
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1555
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-14. Third reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1620
1625
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1705
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1710
| Division on motion deferred
|
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
1715
| Division on motion deferred
|
1720
1725
| MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-14. Third reading
|
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-409. Second reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. John Maloney |
1750
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1755
1800
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1805
1810
| Mr. John Duncan |
1815
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1820
1825
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1835
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Housing
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1840
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 123
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday, we will now sing
O Canada, and we will be led by the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take advantage of this opportunity to draw
attention to the 25th birthday of the Toronto International Film
Festival, which has just ended.
[English]
Canada has a long-standing tradition of celebrating homegrown
and international talents in filmmaking in all parts of this
country. In Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver, in cities
across the country, our film festivals not only celebrate cinema,
but bring the ides of the world to Canada and bring international
audiences to Canadian films.
Founded in 1976, the Toronto International Film Festival has
since become one of the most important film events in the world,
featuring 329 films from 56 countries this year. It is also the
largest showcase for Canadian films with 25 features and 40
shorts this year.
I would like to salute those who have made the festival the
success that it is, the organizers, the artists and creators
without whom there could be no festivals and the knowledgeable
and enthusiastic audiences.
Please join me in wishing a happy 25th birthday to the Toronto
International Film Festival.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my son has join the exodus of young
professionals from Canada. A 40% increase in salary and a 30%
decrease in income tax proved irresistible to him. I cannot
fault him for his actions.
He would have liked to have maintained some ties here but if he
does not sell his house and even close his bank account the
Canadian tax collectors will regard him as legitimate prey no
matter where he goes.
[Translation]
What the Prime Minister said, more or less, was “There is no
place here for smart people with ambition. Go elsewhere. You
are not welcome here”. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
adds “And don't come back.”
* * *
[English]
ROYAL LASER TECH CORPORATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to report that business
activity continues to boom in my riding. There are lots of good
news business stories in Brampton and Mississauga.
For instance, Royal Laser Tech Corporation recently completed
construction of a 136,000 square foot building at Airport Road
and Williams Parkway. It has invested $20 million in the
building and its equipment. The project currently employs between
50 and 60 people and that number is expected to rise up to 200
within the next year.
All this economic activity is due to the continued strength of
the Canadian economy. It has created hundreds of high paying
jobs for workers living in my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale and helps explain our very low
unemployment rate.
* * *
UNDERWATER HOCKEY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I advise you that Huron—Bruce is now
home to the new Canadian Underwater Hockey Champions. Indeed,
Mr. Speaker, you heard me correctly, “underwater hockey”. After
producing so many individuals that dominated the game on the ice,
Huron—Bruce is branching out to claim supremacy under the water.
From September 8 to 10, 12 players and 3 coaches from the
Kincardine Poolsharks travelled to Quebec City to compete in the
Canadian under 19 underwater hockey championships. After the 10
game round robin and best of three finals had concluded, this
Kincardine team was left undefeated in all three medal games.
I would like to congratulate head coach Terry Brown and team
captain Kyle Schilroth, along with all of the Poolsharks' coaches
and players. Once again Huron—Bruce managed to score the
winning goal.
* * *
CANADA'S OLYMPIC BASKETBALL TEAM
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
British Columbia's Steve Nash has led the Canadian basketball
team to the top of their section heading into the quarter-finals
at the Sydney 2000 Olympics. In their last game, Canada upset
the defending world champions, Yugoslavia, 83 to 75. Nash once
again was the catalyst in that game, scoring 26 points with 8
rebounds and 8 assists.
We congratulate Canada's Olympic basketball team on their
inspired performance at the Sydney Olympics as they approach a
first Olympic medal in basketball since the 1936 Berlin Olympics
where we won the silver medal.
* * *
1405
SEBASTIEN LAREAU AND DANIEL NESTOR
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and pride to I stand here
today to celebrate that Canada has won another gold medal at the
Olympics in Sydney, Australia.
Sebastien Lareau of Boucherville, Quebec and Daniel Nestor of
Toronto, Ontario, have performed the deed. They have become our
dragon slayers by defeating the Australian doubles Woodbridge and
Woodforde, the woodies.
This team of dedicated athletes who came together this year to
represent Canada at the Olympic games defeated the Australians in
very hard fought matches. Both are accomplished tennis players.
Daniel Nestor reached the finals at the world doubles
championships in 1998. Sebastien Lareau won the 1999 world
doubles championship, a gold at the Pan-Am games in 1999 and the
U.S. Open last year. After losing to this same pair of
Australians earlier this year at Wimbledon, they felt they had a
score to settle, and settle it they did.
I am sure members will join with me in congratulating these fine
gentlemen for this great victory and thank them for the honour
this gold medal brings to Canada.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today's news confirms that our record high
population is due to immigration.
Six years ago the government voted down one of the Canadian
Alliance's motions to test all immigrants for HIV. The
government has now had a change of heart. Ironically the number
of physicians needed to check for infectious disease has been
reduced over the last five years from 44 to 22. The auditor
general has been hounding the department for the past 10 years.
How can the minister even assure Canadians that her testing plan
will achieve results given the workload departmental physicians
currently face? Six years after our motion the government has
finally realized that Canadian health and safety must be a
priority of immigration policy.
The last time medical standards were looked at was in 1978.
Protecting the health of Canadians would be the first priority of
a Canadian Alliance government.
* * *
[Translation]
SÉBASTIEN LAREAU
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again, a young Quebecer of great promise has made a
name for himself at the Sydney Olympics.
Last night, while the rest of us were comfortably asleep in our
beds, a young man from Boucherville was sweating mightily as he
realized a dream, and a source of pride for the rest of us at the
same time.
Sébastien Lareau and his partner from Ontario, Daniel Nestor,
have just gone down in history. With their win in men's tennis
doubles, they have earned Canada's first Olympic medal in that
sport.
They did so with considerable panache, as they were victorious
in the finals over the reigning champions, the number one in
doubles in the world, and Australians to boot, Mark Woodforde and
Todd Woodbridge, dubbed “the Woodies”.
This is not the first major victory for Sébastien. About a year
ago, he won the U.S. Open. After many years of hard work, today
he is seeing the results. He is proud of the community he comes
from, and it is equally proud of him.
Congratulations and thank you, Sébastien, for this great Olympic
first and for all the other successes yet to come.
* * *
[English]
THE HOLOCAUST
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to pay tribute to 55 survivors of the Holocaust who are here on
Parliament Hill today, survivors of the worst genocide of the
20th century, and who alone understand that the unspeakable
horrors of the Holocaust are too terrible to be believed but not
too terrible to have happened.
I say to the survivors, and to those whom they represent here
today, “you are the true heroes of humanity. You have not only
witnessed and endured the worst of man's inhumanity to man, but
you somehow found in the wellsprings of your own humanity the
courage to go on, to rebuild your lives as you helped build your
communities here in Canada. You taught us the evils of racism
and bigotry, and the dangers of silence in the face of evil; of
the importance of remembrance and the remembrance to act; of the
reminder that every human being is a universe, and whoever saves
a single person it is as if they saved an entire universe”.
I ask all members to join me in this tribute to these heroes of
humanity, and to remember and act upon the injunction of “Never
Again”.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the evidence keeps building that an
election must be coming soon. The Liberals have suddenly decided
to reverse themselves on EI changes after years of ignoring
concerns from Atlantic Canada.
One change is to restore full EI payments to seasonal workers
who make about $50,000 a year and above. The Liberals have yet
to explain why more money should not instead go to seasonal
workers at the lowest end of the income scale.
1410
The Canadian Alliance is committed to a strong employment
insurance program. Members of the PC Party and the NDP choose to
deliberately misrepresent the issue for political purposes rather
than join the fight for their most needy constituents.
I urge the government and all members of the House to focus on
constructive debate on policy issues that matter to Canadians
even with election fever raging.
* * *
[Translation]
THE HOLOCAUST
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 27, 1945, the concentration camps in Poland and
elsewhere in Europe were liberated, and the world discovered the
full horror of the Nazi holocaust.
Today, the 55th anniversary, the Government of Canada and
national Jewish organizations are commemorating the event and
honouring 55 holocaust survivors. The ceremony will commemorate
the six million men and women and half a million children who did
not survive these terrible events.
We also remember the thousands of survivors, many of whom
emigrated to Canada and made such a contribution to our country's
economic, social and cultural growth.
I therefore invite my colleagues in this House to remember these
events and to pay tribute to the survivors and descendants of
these victims of the holocaust.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
from Seattle to Washington to Windsor to Melbourne and now to
Prague the movement against the current model of globalization
continues to grow.
Instead of trade deals that limit the power of governments to
serve their people, the protesters want a completely new approach
to globalization. They want agreements with binding and
enforceable standards to protect core labour standards, human
rights, the integrity of the environment and cultural diversity.
They want debt relief so that the poorest nations of the world
can even contemplate helping their citizens to survive. Most of
all, they want meaningful democracy. They want their elections
to matter. They want their policies to be made by elected
representatives and not unelected trade tribunals.
As long as governments, negotiators and, in this country, the
Liberals refuse to listen to their citizens and rethink the
current approach to globalization, the protests will continue.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR COMPTON—STANSTEAD
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a
surprise this morning for the people of Compton—Stanstead to
learn in Info-Vision that their Conservative elected member now
Liberal defector is still considering matters.
Has he already forgotten that his new leader in Ottawa said a
few weeks ago that his time for reflection was past and that he
was now very definitely a Liberal?
In the same breath, he says he has frequently disagreed with
Liberal policy but thinks that the Prime Minister's approach has
changed in the areas of finance and health. He said “If the
financial situation in Canada has greatly improved, it is thanks
to the work of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney”. He
is sorry to see that the public is showing so little enthusiasm
for the Conservative leader, who will no doubt be glad to hear
that.
The people of Compton—Stanstead will not be taken in by a
member who deceived them and who changes tack with the slightest
breeze. They will vote for Gaston Leroux, the Bloc Quebecois
candidate, an honest, reliable and coherent member.
* * *
[English]
FEDERAL ELECTION
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
rumours of a fall election call this past Sunday did not come to
fruition but the fall is not yet over.
Here are the top 10 reasons why the Prime Minister could call a
fall election: Tenth, it is too cold to golf; ninth, his wife
said he could; eighth, it is not the first time the Liberals have
called an election during a crisis—remember the 1997 Manitoba
flood; seventh, the Liberal nervous Nellies have to be shown who
really is the boss; sixth, only one word for this number,
surplus, so much money, so little time to spend, spend, spend;
fifth, three years with this Prime Minister just seems like a
long time; fourth, it falls nicely between water ski and downhill
ski season; third, the Liberals got away with broken promises the
last two times, three times are a charm; second, plain and
simple, the Minister of Finance; and first, the reason why the
Prime Minister could call an election this fall is that there are
no new ideas.
* * *
[Translation]
BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government will be holding consultations to determine
whether or not Canada should adopt the biosafety protocol, an
international treaty which will define the rules for the exchange
of genetically modified organisms.
1415
Canada opposed the adoption of this protocol at a meeting of
environment ministers held in Cartagena, Colombia, in 1999. In
his last annual report, the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development mentioned that Canada's position showed
more concern with trade than with the environment.
Seventy-five countries have now signed this protocol, but in
several respects Canada's position remains contradictory.
Protection of biodiversity, human health and the environment
should be a priority of this government.
I therefore urge the Minister of the Environment to show some
leadership and take action to ensure that Canada signs the
biosafety protocol as soon as possible.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have just learned through access
to information that on May 4 our Canadian high commissioner in
Sri Lanka sent a classified message to Ottawa warning that a
minister of the crown was about to attend a dinner for a Tamil
terrorist front organization.
The commissioner wrote “In view of the timing and sponsorship,
consideration must be given to the perception of attendance of a
minister of the Canadian government”. Why did the finance
minister ignore this warning and attend the meeting anyway?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this was a meeting of Tamils who had gathered together
to celebrate the Tamil new year.
These are Canadian citizens who were gathered to celebrate their
feast. I am pleased that I attended a meeting of Canadian Tamils
celebrating their feast.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, CSIS clearly lists the Tamil tigers
as one of the many groups with terrorist links that are active in
Canada. The United States state department lists FACT, which was
the sponsor of the dinner that the minister attended, as a front
organization for the Tamil tigers.
These facts were included in the warning that was sent from our
officials. Yet both the Minister for International Cooperation
and the Minister of Finance have claimed that FACT is an innocent
cultural organization. Why did two ministers of the crown ignore
the warnings of our own Canadian diplomats?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this was not a meeting of Tamil tigers. This was a
meeting of Tamil Canadians.
At the particular meeting a young woman stood up who had
recently graduated from high school and talked about what she
wanted to do in Canada, what she was going to do in university,
how she wanted to be a success, how important Canada was to her,
and how this was her country.
She said that she could not believe that people would condemn
her because of her Tamil race, because of something that was
happening somewhere else. It is too bad that the Leader of the
Opposition does not see that.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the high commissioner in Sri Lanka
expressed concern about the possible security threat that the
minister's attendance would have on Canadian mission staff and
their families.
Foreign Affairs recognized the threat. They wrote back saying
“Thank you for keeping us up to date on the threats on personal
security of Canadian mission staff and dependants”. They should
not try and hide behind these threats that we are just zeroing in
on a certain individual. We applaud this young woman who spoke
but we do not applaud the denial that the finance minister is
making. Why does the Prime Minister allow these—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a celebration of Canadian citizens. There
were representatives of the federal government and provincial
governments present. There were editors of newspapers present.
When people come to Canada from anywhere else in the world we
want them to be equal. What the Leader of the Opposition is
saying tells us a lot about his thinking—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is CSIS, our security force, not the official
opposition, which has said that the Federal Association of
Canadian Tamils, FACT, has connections to the Liberation of Tamil
Tigers Eelam.
I am holding in my hand an e-mail from the high commission in
Sri Lanka dated May 26, indicating that after the finance
minister had this dinner there was a front page picture in the
Sri Lanka newspaper saying “Canadian finance minister at the
Tamil tiger fundraiser held by the Federal Association of
Canadian Tamils”.
Despite warnings from our own officials, why did the finance
minister allow our officials to be put in danger—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the young woman at this dinner there were
doctors, there were lawyers, there were business people, there
were teachers, and there were educators who had come together to
celebrate their new year.
All of us on this side of the House have attended group
festivities and celebrations of people from other parts of the
world where there are also problems, but never once has it
occurred to any Canadian to simply make the allegation that
because in somebody's country there is a problem these people are
not Canadians but these people are terrorists.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if there is any shame then it is in this place in
that a minister of the crown ignored warnings from one of our
foreign embassies indicating, and I quote from a Sri Lankan
newspaper, his “Liberation Tiger sympathies” and his presence
at a “Liberation Tiger fundraiser” threatened the safety of
Canadian embassy employees”.
Why does he continue to ignore the fact people in Sri Lanka read
in a newspaper that he attended a Tamil tiger fundraiser and that
he has Tamil tiger sympathies? Is he not at all concerned about
the warnings that this would be a security threat to Canadian
embassy employees?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I am concerned about is the sense of values that is
being demonstrated by the official opposition.
Let us make it very clear, and I do not believe I am only
speaking for the government but I am speaking for all Canadians,
that there are not two kinds of citizenship in this country. When
people land upon our shores they are entitled to celebrate their
heritage and they are equal Canadians with all of us.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
an election is in the air and that is perhaps why the Minister of
Human Resources Development is getting ready to do something
about employment insurance.
We have been pointing out these problems for years, but people
had to take to the streets before she finally did something.
1425
Will the minister give her word that she intends to undertake an
overall reform of employment insurance and not just the
piecemeal, cosmetic adjustments now being offered in an attempt
to woo voters?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that we have
given notice of our intent to present amendments to the
Employment Insurance Act in the near future. I would ask him to
wait and see what that package looks like.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): A few days
ago, it was not necessary, Mr. Speaker, and now all of a sudden
it is.
The real and necessary changes which the minister must make to
employment insurance affect seasonal workers, of course, but they
also affect young people, women and the regions. What is needed
is an overall reform of unemployment insurance, and the
government has the money to act because it has helped itself to
$30 billion from the EI fund.
Will she address all the problems quickly before the election?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government stands firmly behind the
principles that motivated the 1996 employment insurance
amendments.
We believe in building a fairer employment insurance system. We
believe in building an employment insurance system that responds
to the changing dynamics of the new economy. We believe in
monitoring the impact of those amendments and making changes as
changes are warranted.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hidden agenda of the government's
latest employment insurance reform was to reduce the number of
recipients to 38%, with young people among the most heavily
penalized.
Can the minister tell us whether her piecemeal adjustments
include anything for young people, or will she continue to
exclude them as she has in the past?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that since the
government came to power in 1993 the unemployment levels for
young people in Canada have dropped significantly.
A lot of that had to do with the investments the government is
making right across the country, including in the province of
Quebec on behalf of young people, particularly youth at risk who
have not been able to find their place in our Canadian society.
We will continue to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister's policies on youth and
seasonal workers have been disastrous for the regions, which see
their future slipping away from them.
Is the minister going to come to the realization that her
government's record as far as employment insurance is concerned
has impoverished and emptied the regions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I point out that unemployment in
the country has come down significantly since the government took
office. As I have said on a number of occasions, I have been
listening to groups representing seasonal workers, for example,
and monitoring an assessment report gives us guidance.
As I have always said and as the government has committed, if
there are indications that we need to make our system more
efficient we will do that.
* * *
RIGHTS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as a Canadian woman I want the Prime Minister to know
that we are not here for his personal viewing pleasure. As women
in Canada make efforts to mobilize nationally and internationally
against issues that affect us, we are hurt by the Prime Minister,
not only by his policies but by his very own words.
Will the Prime Minister stand in the House today and apologize
for the degrading remarks made yesterday that have insulted all
Canadian women?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to. If
I have offended anybody I regret it, but the person in question
can defend herself. I am sure it was taken in the spirit that I
said these words when I was talking to the press that I meet
regularly.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, an apology is only one step in many. Will the Prime
Minister now commit to working with Canadian women and not
against them and bring in policies before an election that will
end discrimination against women?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an opportunity to say that my record with the
presence of women in public office has been excellent. I named a
woman Governor General. I named the first woman Chief Justice of
Canada. I named more women senators than men up to now.
The majority of the lieutenant governors in Canada are women,
and in the territories it is the same. I think that the hon.
member should get up and say that the government and the Prime
Minister have done much for women in public life.
* * *
1430
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Seventy-five per cent of
seasonal workers in New Brunswick earn less than $10,000 per
year. The Prime Minister knew that when he attacked those
seasonal workers with his employment insurance changes in 1996.
What has changed since then to cause him to swallow his policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we knew we needed reforms because we were faced with a
$42 billion deficit that his party had left us. We had to do
something and we made some reforms. When we make reforms,
sometimes we make changes. Eventually we see the results of them
and we adjust them. That is what a moderate government that is
flexible enough to adjust to the situation does. It is exactly
what we are doing with the changes in the EI laws. I think the
system has worked very well and the people will be very happy
with the changes the minister will introduce on Monday.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, he
picked on the poorest of the poor. There are Liberal values.
Will the Prime Minister promise the House that there will be a
full debate and a final vote on these employment insurance
changes before parliament is dissolved? If not, this is an empty
promise, as worthless as the Prime Minister's promise on the GST.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are willing to pass the bill in one day on Monday. We
are asking for the consent of the House of Commons to pass the
bill in one day. I hope we will have the support of hon.
members.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition is not saying that there were
not innocent people at that supper in Toronto on May 6. I know
there were many innocent people at that supper on May 6 in
Toronto, but my problem is that perhaps the finance minister was
not. He had warnings from departmental officials from many
departments that things were not wise for him to go there. CSIS
warned against it. The U.S. State Department warned against it.
Why did the minister ignore the warnings of his own officials?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, there were over 25
elected politicians there. There were representatives of the
Harris government. There were representatives of Toronto city
hall. There was the managing editor of the Toronto Sun as
well.
For the member's information, this minister and this government
do not take orders from the U.S. State Department.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, again I mention that it was his own high
commissioner in Sri Lanka who expressed concern about this.
The Prime Minister talks about values. The government brags
about values. I will tell hon. members what we value. The high
commissioner in Sri Lanka. The foreign affairs staff who did
amazing work with warnings. We value the CSIS experts who gave
red lights here and who were very concerned about it. When we
are talking about values, I would like to ask the finance
minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1435
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question my
colleagues, as we will hear the answer.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, we do value the high
commissioner and the advice that she had. We value the foreign
affairs staff who had very serious concerns about this. We value
the CSIS experts who certainly know what is going on here.
Why did the finance minister and his friends who went to that
supper ignore the value of those warnings?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out what they are doing that is
terrible. The member got up and said that there were some
innocent people there. She implied that there were some
criminals there or people who were not innocent. That is the way
to destroy people, when statements of that nature are made. She
said some were innocent but perhaps some were not innocent. This
is unacceptable. If the member has proof, she has a duty to tell
it to the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, Bloc Quebecois): Mr. Speaker,
women are being doubly penalized by the employment insurance
program put in place by this government.
First of all, it is harder for them to qualify and second, the
government has decided to tie the parental insurance program to
eligibility for employment insurance.
With a view to the coming election, will the Minister of Human
Resources Development announce that she is going to correct this
injustice toward women?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, as a
result of our expansion of parental benefits we also looked at
the circumstances facing women returning to the workplace having
had children. We made changes there. We continue to look at the
impact of the amendments made back in 1996. Where there is
evidence that we can have an improved system we will make
changes.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the
positive influence of the pre-election climate, could the
minister now announce that her government is going to listen to
reason and finally agree to transfer to Quebec the funds
earmarked for parental leave, as a broad consensus in Quebec
desires?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are extraordinarily proud on this side
of the House of the direction of the government and the doubling
of parental benefits that will come into effect at the end of
this year. We are going to do it within the context of the
employment insurance system without raising premiums and in fact,
by continuing as referenced in the budget to reduce premiums.
[Translation]
I would point out that the Institute for Research on Public
Policy has indicated that the government of Quebec ought to
consider the possibility of setting up a program in Quebec that
would be independent of and complementary to the Canadian
program.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, various reports indicate that FACT is a front for
the Tamil tigers. Would the minister agree, yes or no?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member of all of the members in the opposition
ought to understand that this was a celebration. It was a
celebration by Canadians who had come together to celebrate their
new year. That is the kind of people who were there. The Prime
Minister has asked if there are specific allegations against
people who were at that meeting then why does the member not say
who they are.
Let me simply say that the Leader of the Opposition says that he
is the new sheriff in town. It sounds to me like he is trying to
organize a lynch mob.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. My colleagues, perhaps you
could tone it down a bit. Today is Wednesday. Could you tone it
down just a bit now. It is going a bit far.
1440
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, earlier the CSIS director indicated that
organizations linked to terrorist activities were given tax free
status in Canada. The government, instead of stamping out
terrorists, has put terrorists on Canadian stamps.
When so many reports indicate that FACT is a front for the
terrorist Tamil tigers, will the minister explain and say
straightforward whether theirs are terrorist activities? Yes or
no?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that Canada
took the lead in negotiating an international convention on the
financing of terrorism and has signed that convention.
What it will do is set up proper legal procedures to determine
how we assess responsibility or blame. We do not use innuendo.
We do not use guilt by association. We do not use allegation. We
will set up proper legislation that will determine the procedures
for making that determination and not this kind of nonsense.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, do members
recall Placeteco, that corporation in which a friend of the Prime
Minister received $1.2 million from the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who swore up and down that she had given
out this subsidy on the basis of invoices presented?
We got the invoices in the end and we had a look at them. Today
I ask the minister how she can justify paying out $1.2 million to
a friend of the Prime Minister on the basis of invoices that were
dated between 12 and 15 months previously, that is even before he
decided to buy Placeteco?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know from reading
the same media reports that I read that this file is under
investigation. As such it is inappropriate for me to make
further comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, she has just
admitted that it is under investigation and that is excellent.
I would ask her, as the minister who paid out $420,000 in
subsidies on the strength of an invoice marked “replacement
invoice for missing invoices”—a subsidy in the amount of
$420,000 paid out on the basis of such an invoice—if she can
justify her remarks here in the House to the effect that she
properly administered people's money by giving out a subsidy on
the strength of real invoices.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, media reports have indicated that this
file is under investigation. As I said, I will not comment
further at this time.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Christopher Dawson was convicted of 15 counts of
sexual assault against minor boys. Christopher Dawson has been
one of the few designated in Canada as a dangerous sex offender.
I ask the solicitor general why did Christopher Dawson, a
dangerous sex offender, receive a passport while in the care and
custody of Correctional Service Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had any desire to
have an answer to a question like that, he would have given me
prior notice.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as if that would make a difference. As it happens,
I wrote the solicitor general and I have his response dated May 3
in my hand.
The solicitor general said in his letter that it was not against
the law to give a dangerous sex offender a passport and that it
was not his problem because it came from the foreign affairs
minister.
I would like to ask the foreign affairs minister why is it that
we gave a Canadian passport to a designated dangerous sex
offender while he was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary?
1445
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are proper international procedures. When we
have treaties and agreements with other countries in terms of
extradition matters, we have to carry them out according to the
rules that are set and the proper relations between countries.
That is simply the way that good relations are maintained with
other countries, something the opposition would not understand.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few
months ago, Human Resources Development Canada officials
encouraged the establishment of a co-operative in my riding.
A few weeks later they withdrew their support by mistake and
in so doing risked forcing the 21 workers of the Confection haut de
gamme industrielle de Québec co-operative into unemployment,
indeed into drawing social assistance.
Since I asked the minister about this last week and she assured
me that she would look into the file of these 21 workers, who are
watching and who risk losing their jobs, and given the urgency of
the situation, could the minister tell them what she has decided?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. Officials have carefully
reviewed this file and the record shows that the sponsor did not
wait for approval before proceeding with this project. In fact,
equipment and space were rented, employees were chosen and were
being trained as early as January 2000.
This would suggest that the Canada jobs fund is not applicable.
However, I would say, as we have said to the employer, that there
may be other programs that can support this undertaking in
recognition of the growing concern. They have yet to come
forward and ask to sit down and talk about these opportunities. I
suggest the hon. member encourage them to do so.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill made some remarks in
the House about seasonal workers, about 600,000 Canadians who are
affected by EI and seasonal employment, such as people in the
forestry, fisheries, agriculture and tourism sectors.
I know the hon. member may be able to live on about 50% of the
minimum wage or about $3 an hour in her good place in Calgary,
but I would ask the minister of HRDC to give her comments in
terms of seasonal workers and how our government hopes to help
them out in this very difficult situation.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two things I know for sure.
First, the member of parliament from the Miramichi understands
the realities facing seasonal workers and has made
representations on their behalf in a very effective way.
Second, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill is completely out of
touch with working Canadians, as evidenced by the question she
posed in the House two days ago.
I would say to the hon. member that his representations, along
with others made by groups representing seasonal workers across
the country and the employment insurance commission, are guiding
and directing our decisions that will be made public.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Richard Rushworth of White Rock knows
that the portability principle of the Canada Health Act is a
myth.
Currently in Ottawa to visit his son, Mr. Rushworth requires
dialysis three times a week but has been told that no public
facilities in Ottawa could accommodate him and that he would have
to use a private clinic. This would cost him almost $1,400 out
of his own pocket.
Why is the Minister of Health not defending the portability
principles of the Canada Health Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are. The recently concluded agreement with the provinces
includes a billion dollars in federal money, available now, to
allow the provinces to put dialysis machines, CT scanners and
MRIs in place wherever they are needed in Canada.
Let me say to the hon. member that the government believes the
best way to deal with the threat of privatization is to make our
public health care system as strong and as accessible as it can
possibly be. We have taken a giant step toward that objective.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a happy ending to
this story, with no thanks to the health minister.
Once it became known that this issue would be raised on the
floor of the House, there was suddenly room in a public Ottawa
hospital for this individual. Unfortunately it took political
intervention in order to deliver good quality health care to this
Canadian.
Since the minister is not defending the principles of
universality and portability in the Canada Health Act, just what
is he defending?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we saw just today reference to the fact that Premier Harris
intends to do everything he can to assist the Alliance
electorally.
Perhaps the hon. member will take up with the premier of Ontario
and the Ontario officials the need to provide in hospitals with
this new federal funding the kind of responsive accessible care
that Canadians need.
For our part the Government of Canada will continue to ensure
the system is properly funded so provinces are in a position to
provide the care that Canadians need.
* * *
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
people have spoken and the message coming in loud and clear is
that the funding for highways in the last budget amounts to
squat.
The coalition to renew Canada's infrastructure calls it a
disappointment. The Canadian Automobile Association has said
that the Liberal government shortchanged our highway system.
Investing in highways would save lives, help the economy and save
our health care system billions of dollars in preventable
injuries.
Will the government admit that it has failed to invest enough in
our crumbling highways? Will it tell us how much money it will
be bring to the table at next week's meetings of federal and
provincial highway ministers?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recall the member being here
when the budget was read this past February. We announced that a
major investment of $600 million would be allocated for highway
purposes in the country. Those negotiations are ongoing as we
speak.
If the hon. member has any real concern she should speak to the
premier of her province to make sure that those provincial
priorities are brought to the attention of the federal
government.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of
Finance.
The Liberal government has raked in hundreds of millions of
dollars in gas taxes from British Columbia drivers but has not
put one cent back into public transit. Now TransLink in the
lower mainland wants to hit B.C. drivers with a $75 levy for
every car they own.
When will the government finally listen to the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, to environmentalists and to the people
of British Columbia and use federal gas tax revenues to make a
major investment in public transit? It is good for clean air, it
is good for taxpayers, and it is good for commuters. When will
the government put it into transit?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave the answer
and the member should have heard it. The federal government has
made a major commitment to the provinces and territories. The
investment of $600 million is not peanuts.
I think they should be putting pressure on their provincial
counterparts to make sure that those provincial priorities are
brought forward to the table.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
have received notice that a bill to amend the existing Employment
Insurance Act will be introduced.
Why—this is my question as well as that of many other
Canadians—did the government take so long to become aware of the
difficulties it had created with the 1996 reform, for employers
as well as employees, Canadian workers?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed there is as part of the 1996
amendments a good requirement for the government, through
monitoring and assessment, to consider the amendments and make
sure they are doing what they are supposed to do.
There are already examples of where we have made changes, not
the least of which is expanding parental benefits and looking at
small weeks. This is part of an ongoing process.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin with a reminder to the Prime Minister that
seasonal workers are not for sale.
He said he wanted to have the bill fast tracked, that he was
going to amend the EI program. However, families have been
suffering for four years.
I have one question for the Prime Minister. Is he making fun of
the intelligence of seasonal workers?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been listening
to seasonal workers. We have been looking at the amendments,
seeing how they play out, and making sure they do what we
anticipated them to do.
If the hon. member will be patient, she will see in a package of
amendments some response to this review.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
few weeks ago we all heard the announcement by the Minister for
International Co-operation outlining the four new social
development priorities on which CIDA's budget will be focused:
health, nutrition, basic education, HIV/AIDS and children.
Will the minister tell us what she is planning to do for
children?
1455
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new social
development priorities have resulted in CIDA's first ever budget
for child protection, with $122 million earmarked over the next
five years for this priority.
We have even created a children's secretariat within CIDA.
In addition, by appointing General Roméo Dallaire special
adviser for the protection of war affected children, the minister
is assured of obtaining the best possible advice.
* * *
[English]
FIREARMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, fewer than one million firearms
owners have been licensed to date. There are likely two to four
million left. The current backlogs at the firearms centre
processing site are unmanageable. It will take years to
complete.
What will the minister do to prevent gun owners from becoming
instant made in Ottawa criminals on January 1? Her advertising
blitz on television is extremely misleading. Buying ammunition
is the least of their worries on January 1. How will the Prime
Minister deal with the biggest act of civil disobedience in
Canadian history?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has
it all wrong.
Canadians are complying by the tens of thousands with our new
firearms licensing and registry program. Let me reassure the
hon. member that well over one million law-abiding firearms
owners have been licensed in the past number of months. We are
receiving tens of thousands of licences on a weekly basis. We
are processing tens of thousands of licences.
Canadians want to comply with this law. It is too bad the
Canadian Alliance does not want to comply with it.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last June
during the summer recess when the minister tabled the invoices
about Placeteco she said “Here. This matter is now closed”.
But we just learned today that there is a police investigation
into this issue. It is once again in the Prime Minister's riding
and it involves people who are very close to him.
Could the minister tell us at what time this issue became the
subject of a police investigation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, questions about investigations should go
to the appropriate authorities. All I can do is confirm what I
know the hon. member knows. From reading media reports, the
indications are that this file is under investigation and as such
it is inappropriate for me to comment.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Merchant
mariners deserve full and prompt payment. Almost eight months
after announcing the package not even two-thirds of the claims
have been processed. Those who qualify have only received
partial payments.
Will the minister clearly make two commitments right now: first,
that all qualified merchant mariners receive their full second
payment and not just a portion of the funds to which they are
eligible and second, that all payments will be made this calendar
year, given that every month more merchant mariners die of old
age?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the deadline for applications was six
weeks ago. There were 14,000 applications received. We have two
shifts working 15 hours a day to process these applications.
Sixty per cent have been processed. The hon. member should be
standing and praising the government for the $50 million approved
for this initiative.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
proposed replacement program for the Sea King helicopters
disqualifies the Sikorsky S-92 and the EH Cormorant. This
replacement should be about saving lives, not about saving face.
Will the Prime Minister please do what is right and modify the
Sea King replacement contract to allow a full and fair tendering
process that gives all companies a fair chance to bid and be
considered?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We
are going through a consultation period right now so that any of
the proposed suppliers of helicopters can tell us if they think
there is anything wrong with the process.
1500
We are not into buying developmental or experimental aircraft.
If the S-92 happens to be certified at the time we are ready to
purchase aircraft, that is fine. It will qualify. We clearly
have said for a long period of time that we will buy off the
shelf helicopters because we believe that will give the best deal
to the taxpayers. It would take an awful lot more money to do
what their party would have put us through.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
raise what I believe to be a blatant breach of my parliamentary
privileges. Is it not contrary to the rules for the government to
give to the media copies of a bill before that bill has been
introduced in the House of Commons?
I believe that my rights as a member of parliament have been
violated by the Minister of Human Resources Development and
the member for Brant, since she is responsible for her department's
actions. The minister should be blamed for her contempt of the
rules of parliament in that regard.
Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a
motion with the journals branch and gave a 48 hour notice,
pursuant to Standing Order 54(1), to the effect that she would be
introducing a bill entitled an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act.
As members know, a bill is deemed secret and cannot be made
public before having been given first reading in the House of
Commons. However, within hours, and in some cases barely a few
minutes after the motion was presented, the media received copies
of the bill from an official or unofficial government
representative.
1505
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have copies of over a dozen news articles with me
that appeared across the country today and that I am prepared to
table in the House. In fact, yesterday afternoon one reporter
read on live television the details of what will be contained in
this legislation.
These media reports are not just that the government intends to
introduce this legislation. Rather, they contain very specific
details about what will be in it, such as, to quote an article in
today's Ottawa Citizen, the details that the legislation
will:
Raise from $39,000 to $48,000 the income level at which benefits
are clawed back from repeat EI users.
Eliminate entirely the intensity rule, under which a frequent
user's benefits dropped by one percentage point for every 20
weeks of benefits claimed, from a maximum of 55 per cent of
insurable earnings to a minimum of 50 per cent.
This is not a unique problem in this or previous parliaments. In
fact, several times in this parliament you have
heard cases of privilege involving the leaking of information not
yet tabled in the House to the media. It happens with committee
reports, with the budget and with legislation.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of your ruling of March
28, 2000, in which you found a prima facie case of privilege in
the matter raised by the hon. member for London North Centre
concerning the premature disclosure of a committee report to the
media by the hon. member for Lakeland.
Occasionally, draft copies of legislation are circulated among
party critics as a courtesy in advance of tabling in the House of
Commons. As NDP critic for employment insurance, I attempted to
obtain a draft copy of the legislation, but it was denied to me
by the government House leader on the basis that it was secret
until tabled in the House of Commons. The minister herself also
denied me a copy of that same legislation.
[Translation]
This bill is very important for my constituents. I have been
working hard on this issue since I was elected to this place. I
do not need to remind the House that my private member's Motion
M-222, asking that the government take immediate action to
restore employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers, was
unanimously approved by the House on May 9.
[English]
In conclusion, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, chapter 2(24):
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed
by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High
Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually,
without which they could not discharge their functions and which
exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
This practice of leaking information to the media before it is
made available to members should not be tolerated. This House
cannot function and members cannot discharge their duties if
persons outside this place are accorded privileges not enjoyed by
all members of this House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say to the hon.
member that I totally agree with him that it is inappropriate for
this information to find itself in the newspaper. That is the
first proposition.
It is true that he approached me personally yesterday and asked
me to get an advance copy of the bill, to which I responded that
a bill of course is cabinet secret until introduced in the House
and therefore it would be a breach of the cabinet secrecy to
offer him a copy of the bill unless it had been so decided by a
decision of cabinet.
Later yesterday afternoon the hon. member in question came back
to me again and made the allegation that the bill was now in the
possession of the media or that at least the contents of the bill
were known to the media.
1510
It is quite obvious that he was correct at least in terms of the
content of the bill, because the bill was in the media before I,
as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, had a
copy myself. I am not amused by this any more than the hon.
member is.
I am stating the obvious here. This is not something that I
participated in and hopefully no one else in the House
participated in this. I am quite confident that no one who sits
in the House participated in this.
Be that as it may, the material, I must admit, found itself in
the hands of the media. It is almost 24 hours before the bill is
to be introduced and some elements of the contents have been
alleged to be in the media. Tomorrow of course we will be able
to compare the accuracy of the information in question.
Certainly one does not have to be a genius to understand that
there is a significant portion of it that is accurate.
First of all, in regard to the notice I signed, it is not
respective ministers who sign all the notices of motion, it is I
as government House leader. The notice I tabled yesterday of
course describes a little of what the bill does, at least in its
title form. I had of course also given notice to the opposition
House leaders of the fact that there was to be such a bill. I
actually gave notice at approximately 3.15 yesterday afternoon,
and the table would know this, of the introduction of this bill,
which is to take place no earlier than tomorrow. It could take
place later but it will not. It is still our intention to
introduce it tomorrow.
In summation, I want to indicate to the House that I do not
believe there was any deliberate attempt on the part of any
member of the House for this information to find itself in the
media, however regrettable that may be.
On the issue of whether or not this constitutes a question of
privilege based on the principle of a committee report, I do not
think it does. The issue of a committee report is a report of a
committee of the House being available to someone other than a
member of the House before the House has knowledge of it. That
is the principle behind it. I am sure all hon. members are quite
familiar with it. This is not an issue of a report from the
House. The government could issue a draft bill when the House is
not even sitting; that is perfectly legal.
However, I made a commitment yesterday that this issue was
cabinet confidential, which it was, and I am personally insulted
at the fact that this document was made public before it was made
available to the House, particularly when I personally refused to
give it to a member of the House prior to its introduction. It
is my duty to refuse prior to a bill's introduction in any case.
I feel just as much aggrieved as the hon. member. I know the
member has a very particular interest in the subject and has
worked very hard on this issue. I appreciate that. We are all
in agreement when something like this happens. The fact that I
may feel personally offended and the hon. member, having an
interest in the issue, might be similarly offended, if not more,
is of course of interest to all of us, but it is not the same in
that it does not meet the threshold of the parallel of a
committee report and I do not believe it is a case of privilege.
That said, I will do everything I can as a minister to ensure
that bills that are to be introduced in the House and are not
scheduled to be announced elsewhere before they reach the House
are not announced before the House sees them first.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the words of the government House leader
that he is aggrieved by what has apparently gone on here. There
is a problem with being aggrieved, even agreeing with the
member's statement that a document that should have been tabled
first in the House found its way to the media instead. Once
again members of the House are being treated as second class
recipients of information instead of being the first to get the
information.
1515
The problem with just being aggrieved and even agreeing that it
is a bad thing is that nothing is ever done. From the words I
heard from the government House leader, nothing will be done. He
might be offended. He might think it is a bad deal. He might
wish it never happened, but because nothing is ever done, because
neither the government House leader nor the Chair ever says “I
have had it up to here with this systematic misuse and abuse of
the House”, it will happen again.
I urge the Speaker to take this question very seriously. The
trouble is we all cluck our tongues and say “Yes, we should know
first in the House and then in the media”. However, because
nothing happens, it is like a policeman standing on the sidelines
with a sign saying “Please go slower”, and there goes another
one speeding. We have to intervene. Failing to do that means
just stay tuned because there will be more.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe I am involved in the point
of privilege of my colleague. Without a doubt, here we are in a
matter that is very much in the news, coming to the conclusion
that there has been a leak somehow.
The government House leader regrets that this has happened, but
I do not feel that regrets are enough. If there is a true desire
to remedy the situation, if we want to ensure that nothing
similar occurs later on, there must be an investigation and it
must be clearly determined whether the Minister of Human
Resources Development or any other member of the government or of
the House—although it cannot have been anyone from outside the
government—was or was not responsible for a leak to the public.
As a result, the journalists knew before we did, thus preventing
intervention in the House at the appropriate time.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to add a few comments to what has already been said by the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and by other members who have
intervened.
I urge the Chair to take this question very seriously. It may
be, as the government House leader argued, that the former
judgment by the Chair with respect to the premature release of
committee reports is not identical to what we are protesting
here, but it is all in the same vein. It all shows a similar
contempt for the House of Commons.
All these things, whether they are committee reports that are
released before they are tabled in the House, or government
legislation that is leaked to the media before it is tabled in
the House, or anything in the same vein, it all erodes the
ability of members of the House individually and collectively to
do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, you should regard it in the same
spirit in which you regarded the release of committee reports
before they were tabled in the House.
The government House leader says he feels badly, and I believe
him, but some responsibility has to be taken somewhere. That is
the point. If nobody on the government side is to take
responsibility then it is up to the Chair to assign
responsibility for this, because clearly somebody somewhere in
the Department of Human Resources Development gave it to the
media. I do not think anyone could claim anything else. This is
what happened.
I would make the argument that this is a parliamentary
democracy. We have responsible government. The buck stops
somewhere, and in this case the buck does not stop with the
government House leader. I believe he was a victim of the
Machiavellian machinations of his own colleagues in this case.
The fact is that somebody has to take responsibility, and in my
judgment it is the Minister of Human Resources Development who
should be held responsible. It is her department. She should be
in here explaining what happened and why heads are rolling or why
she is resigning or whatever the case may be. It is her
department or her ministry that has demonstrated this kind of
contempt for parliament through the deliberate leak, unless
somebody wants to get up and actually ask us to believe this was
somehow an accident. We are asked to believe an awful lot of
things around here, but that would be a big one.
The fact of the matter is that this is a deliberate strategy on
the part of government members time after time after time, so
that they get the lead on the story, so that their spin, so to
speak, on the story is out there before other members of
parliament and other parties get to comment.
1520
It may be something they can sit in the back room and grin
about, saying “Aren't we smart? Didn't we outsmart the
opposition that time? Didn't we slip one by them? Didn't we get
them one more time?” Every one of those little strategies and
tactics is another nail in the coffin of parliamentary democracy,
one more time eroding the power of the House of Commons, one more
time eroding the perception by Canadians that this is the place
where information is revealed.
This is the place where public policy is announced, not in the
back rooms where somebody slips somebody from the media a brown
envelope, or across the way in the press gallery, or wherever it
is of the many places. Sometimes from hundreds of miles away
ministers of the crown decide to make public policy
announcements. All of this tends toward the deterioration in the
public mind of the importance of parliament.
I would urge you to do whatever is in your power, Mr. Speaker,
to chastise, assign responsibility, refer it to a committee, or
whatever you see within your power to do, because someone has to
do something about it. We are doing what we can on the floor by
appealing to you.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this
question of privilege. I would very much attach my comments to
those of the previous speakers on this side of the House,
particularly the last speaker who you know and all members know
has a long history in this institution.
He pointed out very clearly that an attempt has to be made by
the Chair and all members to stop the practice of floating trial
balloons prior to the proper tabling of legislation in the House.
There is a long record of this occurring. In the short time I
have been in this place we have seen it happen time and time
again.
I would suggest as well there is very much an elevated sense of
anticipation of a possible election, which adds to the political
climate and the timeliness of having this information out there
earlier. As the whip for the New Democratic Party has pointed
out, he made direct appeals to the government, and rightfully so,
to have an opportunity to review the legislation as the critic in
this regard, as did members of our party. We were denied.
Again I would suggest it is cold comfort to have the outrage and
the feigned indignation of the government House leader standing
here and saying “It is a terrible thing. I do not know how it
happened. We are very upset about it on this side of the House
too, but c'est la vie”.
I ask the Chair to keep in mind that in this instance there is a
very important factor. The evidence is not in. This matter
should not be decided today by you, Mr. Speaker. There was a
time, and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona will certainly
recall, when it was very clear that if a leak such as this
occurred there would be direct ministerial accountability, which
adds to the democracy in this place, which adds to accountability
and responsibility on the part of government. That seems to no
longer exist under this administration.
There is but one source from which this information could have
been leaked, and that is the government that drafted the
legislation. Obviously there has to be some form of
accountability on the part of the department, on the part of the
government, and on the part of the government House leader.
The evidence is not in. We do not know the source of the leak.
Yet we do not even hear the slightest indication from the
government that it is willing to even make inquiries. Has there
been an inquiry? Have the police been involved in how this
information was leaked?
This type of information is of equal importance to a budget
leak. I would suggest we cannot diminish the importance of what
has just happened in this place. Again I marry myself to the
remarks that have been made by other members of the opposition.
It is incumbent upon the Chair to enforce some semblance of
accountability when this type of information winds up in the
hands of the media prior to the people who have been
democratically elected having an opportunity to review this type
of important legislation.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with due diligence in this
matter, not to react quickly to the request and the question of
privilege that has been raised, and to make inquiries on what
type of investigation has been made to discover the source of the
leak.
This cannot continue. As has been pointed out, it continually
diminishes and completely casts a pall over the importance of
this place and the government if information is to be allowed to
be leaked out in an unfettered way prior to any kind of
examination in the House of Commons. I know you will proceed
with this charge very diligently, and I would urge you to do so
post-haste.
1525
The Speaker: Members will recall that this issue was
raised a number of time in the last session of parliament. As I
recall, one of the members of the then Reform Party, now Canadian
Alliance, admitted in the House that he did it to test the rules,
and we had a debate here.
I have heard from the House leaders on the particular matter and
I have been urged to take it seriously. I do. I had hoped that
after we had the last discussion on this matter that we as
parliamentarians would be able to keep our own house in order.
I direct my question to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. Is
the hon. member alleging that the Minister of Human Resources
Development leaked this paper herself? Is that what the hon.
member is alleging?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, yes.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst can
speak for himself. I was addressing him.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can speak for myself.
[Translation]
The answer is yes. In the present context, in today's context of
uncertainty as to whether there will be an election or not, our
battle against employment insurance and my travels across the
country have led to a bill that will change the rules of
employment insurance.
As a member of parliament, I personally requested a copy of the
bill. I respect the government's decision that I cannot have
one, but then I turn around and find the media discussing it.
I say yes, the minister was aware.
The Speaker: The hon. member's response is yes. He said
that the minister is responsible for leaking this information to
the media.
[English]
The very least we can do is this. We have an allegation
specifically against a minister, and I would like to hear what
the minister has to say about the particular point. When she is
in the House and I am here, I will direct that. Until I hear
from her, I will hold in abeyance whatever decision I might be
taking. I will let it sit right there. I think I have heard
enough.
[Translation]
I trust hon. members are taking this seriously.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
I will let this sit until a bit later. We will take our time
and get to the bottom of it. I will listen to another question
of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your giving me the opportunity to speak to this
matter. I am speaking to a matter of privilege raised by the
hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
I realize it is somewhat unusual to be speaking this long after
the original point was raised, but I am deeply interested in the
matter. In a way it relates to some of the discussions that just
took place on the previous matter of privilege.
1530
I will not go through the history of it as that has already been
put on record and the government has had a chance to speak to it,
but I want to raise what I believe is one of those generic,
organic understandings we have of what our democracy is all
about.
Eugene Forsey, when he was called upon to describe it for the
new online system here, talked about a responsible government
with a cabinet responsible to the House of Commons and a House of
Commons responsible to the people. That is how we describe it
too. That is what we teach children in school. That is how we
understand it to be, that this is the place where citizen's
rights are acted out.
I will contrast that with a comment contained within a report
commissioned by the Privy Council Office that describes the
Canadian House of Parliament as weak in most of its roles because
of special Canadian factors that make the Canadian parliament
especially weak, even in comparison with other parliaments based
on the British Westminster parliamentary cabinet model.
I reference it in that way because for me one of the things that
allows us to play our role as representatives of citizens and
that allows citizens to hold their government responsible to them
is their ability to access accurate information about the
operations of government. It seems to be a very fundamental
issue.
We rely upon an impartial public service to serve the members of
the House equitably and to provide information to them that is,
dare I say, policy neutral, not designed to spin or shape the
attitudes of members but to give them the facts upon which we can
come to a decision.
The member has brought forward information relating to a private
member's bill. It is information that related to this side of
the House because it was information that was supplied to members
on this side of the House about why they should not vote in
favour of his particular bill.
There are two specific points. In that information and in a
document supplied to cabinet someone within the public service
wrote that the privy commissioner believes Bill C-206 is a
serious threat to the privacy of Canadians. The member, being
somewhat surprised at this, wrote to the privacy commissioner and
asked: “Is serious threat to privacy an evaluation that can be
directly attributed to you?”. The privacy commissioner wrote
back and said “No, neither my staff nor I have ever used that
term”.
We have information supplied to cabinet and information supplied
to members of the House because the same allegation is made in
the documentation provided to members of House. It would seem to
be at odds with the very person it is attributed to.
This is a chamber for debate and we are debating all the time.
The information used in debates may be called into question by
any one of us at any point in time, but there is a different bar
to which I believe the public service needs to be held. It is
incumbent upon them to supply us with information that is not
just kind of accurate but that fairly represents the situation
with which they are confronted or to which they are asked to
respond.
The second point is that they also reference in this information
a comment by the privacy commissioner in his annual report
because he did have concerns about the bill. While they
highlight that, what is interesting is that they forget to
highlight that he had concerns about several government bills
that were passed by the House and received royal assent.
What we have seen over the years is an erosion of the rights of
members of the House. They are not our rights. They are the
rights of Canadian citizens that we exercise on their behalf.
I have just a final point. In this documentation and in other
things that have been written about access to information and
privacy legislation there is the indication that the government
has a process for this right now that it is being conducted by
the public service in house. I think that is wrong. The review
and the design of that legislation should be such that it is done
by an all cabinet committee and in public. It is wrong to do
that in the privacy of back offices because it relates to
reference of the rules that we play by here.
I urge you to look at this issue very carefully, Mr. Speaker, as
I am sure you will. I urge you to take it one step beyond the
narrow focus you would put on the interpretation of the points
raised by the member and to look at the position that every
member of the House is in when we try to carry out the functions
we are here to carry out, which is to hold the government to
account.
1535
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Winnipeg
South on this important issue. I have a couple of points that I
would ask the Chair to consider. One is that public servants are
asked on behalf of ministers to make judgments often. They
prepare briefing books and they make judgment calls all the time.
I do not find that unusual.
What I do agree with is the observation of the member for
Winnipeg South that the powers of individual parliamentarians and
the respect that parliamentarians are held in are continually
eroded. The erosion of these rights is ongoing.
The hon. member should take this up with his caucus. The
Liberal Party has been in control of this place for the last
seven years. I agree there has been a steadily ongoing erosion
of the rights and privileges of members of parliament, the esteem
that the public would hold us in, and the things that Canadians
expect of us. All those things have been eroded. To bring it
forth here is good, I appreciate it, but he should also take it
up with the Liberal caucus which has been in charge while all
this has been happening.
Lastly I would wonder if the member for Winnipeg South would
table the documents from which he quoted. He read snippets from
them which I thought were interesting. Perhaps if he could table
those documents it would help all of us to make an evaluation. It
would help you, Mr. Speaker, and it would help all
parliamentarians to make an evaluation of whether or not it truly
was a question of privilege. We would like to see all the
documents to get that information.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that the pertinent
documents had been tabled at the time I made the original
interventions, with the exception of one additional document, a
letter from the privacy commissioner to me that I would like to
submit to you for your consideration.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have consent of the
House to submit this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I have heard all of the argument on this
question of privilege. I will now take all the information under
advisement and will come back to the House if necessary.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present the most recent report of the Canada-Taiwan
Parliamentary Friendship Group.
This is a report of a visit made by members of the House to
Taiwan earlier this summer. It was a visit which involved urban
and rural parts of Taiwan. It was a visit which followed their
recent, most successful, highly democratic elections that
resulted in the first change in the governing party in that
country's history.
Speaking on behalf of members of parliament, we want to thank
the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taiwan and wish the
new government the very best in its mandate.
* * *
1540
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-498, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing a bill
I consider entirely original, since it concerns a practice that
has been in effect in Quebec for a number of years.
The aim of this bill is to ensure that pregnant or nursing women
employed in the federal government, therefore under our
jurisdiction here in the House, are afforded proper protection
similar to the unique precautionary cessation of work practice we
have already in Quebec.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-499, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a collective
agreement).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this second
bill, which will prohibit the use of the so-called orphan clauses
in the various collective agreements under federal jurisdiction.
These clauses cause discrimination between those newly arrived
on the labour market, especially young people, and those already
there.
My bill will put an end to these injustices, and accordingly
people hired after or before a given date will enjoy the same
salary and benefits as those already working.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) moved that
Bill S-5, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate), be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
EPILEPSY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area on
behalf of the 300,000 Canadian children, adults and seniors with
epilepsy in their families.
They point out that Canada's participation in the World Health
Organization's global campaign is helping to bring epilepsy out
of the shadows. They also point out that epilepsy is the most
common brain disorder in every country of the world including
Canada. It is also the most neglected.
It is seldom publicly discussed and epilepsy remains surrounded
by myths. The petitioners call upon parliament to help launch a
national campaign to raise public awareness of epilepsy and first
aid procedures.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is also from citizens of the Peterborough area on
behalf of those with terminal kidney disease. The petition was
developed by Ken Sharp of Peterborough.
The petitioners point out that those on kidney dialysis and
those successfully transplanted recognize the importance of the
bioartificial kidney as a technique which potentially will help
all those with kidney disease in the future.
The petitioners call upon parliament to work and support
research toward the bioartificial kidney which will eventually
eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for
those suffering from kidney disease.
[Translation]
POLLUTANT RELEASE
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present, on behalf of over 400 constituents in my
riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry and on behalf of the Comité ZIP
Haut-Saint-Laurent, which is under the leadership of Marthe
Théoret and Claire Lachance, a petition to the effect that the
release from the PCB incinerator in Cornwall is a threat to
property owners along Lake Saint-François and therefore to the
St. Lawrence Seaway, because of the prevailing winds blowing
toward the south shore of the river in Quebec.
1545
The petitioners are asking parliament to take all necessary
measures to have the federal Department of the Environment
conduct an environmental evaluation of the project and restore
funding for the Saint-Anicet weather station so that pollutants
that may be released from the Cornwall incinerator can be
measured.
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 and present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents of the Kamloops region of British Columbia.
The petitioners have a long preamble to their petition. They
are calling upon parliament to stop for profit hospitals and
restore federal funding for health care, to increase the federal
government's share of health care funding to 25% immediately and
to implement a national home care program and a national program
for prescription drugs.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by
petitioners from a number of communities in central British
Columbia pointing out the benefits of a national highway system.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to use some of
the money collected from gasoline taxes to build, maintain and
improve Canada's highway network.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my last petition is very lengthy and was
signed by petitioners from Kamloops and a number of communities
nearby. They point out their concerns regarding section 608(3)
of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to
amend the criminal code in order to prevent persons convicted of
serious crimes from being released from custody pending the
hearing of their appeal except in very exceptional circumstances.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 105 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. John Duncan:
How much federal money was spent supporting the production of
the 1999 National Film Board film L'Erreur Boréale or Forest
Alert and in particular, how much federal money went to the
organizations listed in the credits of this film as supporting
this film financially: (a) Telefilm Canada; (b) Government of
Canada—Canadian film or video production tax credit program;
(c) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; and (d) National Film
Board?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): L'erreur Boréale was co-produced by
the Corporation de développement et de production ACPAV Inc. and
the National Film Board of Canada.
The following federal contributions were provided:
(a) Telefilm Canada: $87,790 to manage the Canadian Television
Fund's equity investment program. The Canadian Television Fund is
a partnership between Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada and the
private sector.
(b) Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit program.
Information on a specific production is confidential under
section 241 of the Income Tax Act; however, under the rules of
the program, the credit is equal to 25% of the admissible salary
and wage costs incurred after 1994 and cannot exceed 12% of the
net production costs.
(c) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: $32,500.
(d) National Film Board of Canada: $162,000 as co-producer.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 104.
.[Text]
<*Question No. 104—Mr. Dennis Gruending:
With respect to the shipment of MOX, mixed oxide, fuel samples
from the United States and Russia to the Chalk River facilities
of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., AECL: (a) what is the total
amount of fuel in kilograms and the total plutonium content
in grams that AECL plans to receive in each shipment; (b) on
what dates will those shipments arrive in Canada and at what
points of entry; and (c) on what date, by whcich route and by
what modes of transportation will each shipment be moved from the
point of entry to the Chalk River facilities?
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer to
Starred Question No. 104 be printed in Hansard as if read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Derek Lee: (a) United States: the total quantity of
plutonium was 119 g. mixed in 4.7 kg of MOX fuel.
Russia: the total quantity of Russian fuel for the Parallex test
program is 15 kg and the total plutonium contained in this fuel
is approximately 530 g.
(b) United States: The MOX fuel test sample arrived in Canada on
January 14, 2000 at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Russia: It is proposed that the Russian MOX shipment be shipped
by air to a Department of National Defence air base in either
Trenton, Ontario or Bagotville, Quebec. A new emergency response
assistance plan ERAP, was submitted to Transport Canada on July 28,
2000.
The timing of the Russian MOX fuel test shipment will not be
publicly disclosed for security reasons in accordance with the
Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This policy is consistent with
international practice and follows International Atomic Energy
Agency recommendations. However, before the shipment is made,
emergency response and security workers will be briefed
appropriately.
(c) United States: The MOX fuel test sample from the U.S. arrived
on January 14, 2000 by truck at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and was
flown from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario to AECL's Chalk River
laboratories, Ontario.
Russia: Under a new emergency response assistance plan ERAP, it
is proposed that the Russian MOX shipment be shipped by air to a
Department of National Defence air base in either Trenton,
Ontario or Bagotville, Quebec.
The timing and transport route of the Russian MOX fuel test
shipment will not be publicly disclosed for security reasons in
accordance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This policy
is consistent with international practice and follows
International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations. However,
before the shipment is made, emergency response and security
workers will be briefed appropriately.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-16, in the
name of the hon. member for North Vancouver and Nos. P-25 and
P-26 in the name of the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac are
acceptable to the government, with the reservations stated in the
replies and the documents are tabled immediately.
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and
correspondence, on or after November 1, 1997, particularly from
the Department of Justice and the Office of the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, regarding Section 31 of the
Elections Act and the Communist Party of Canada.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, briefings, e-mails, memos
and correspondence involving the resignation of Erhard Buchholz
as President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Lands Company
Limited.
That a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before the House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, briefings,
e-mails, memos and correspondence relating to Order in Council
1999-2029/00 approving termination benefits payable to Erhard
Buchholz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Lands
Company Limited.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect to Motions Nos. P-16,
P-25 and P-26, subject to the reservations or conditions
expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of
the House that they be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There are several items on which there
have been consultations and on which you would find consent in the
House to deal with at this time.
Following consultations among the House leaders, I move that the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights be concurred in. This is a report requesting a 30 sitting
day extension for the consideration of Bill C-244.
1550
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ELECTION OF CHAIRMEN
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you would also find consent for the following motion. I
move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 106(1), the following
standing committees be permitted to meet on Thursday, September
28, 2000 for the purposes of Standing Order 106(2): Finance,
Justice and Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, there are six items involving
private members' business where there will be substitution of
movers of motions. The motion would read:
That Private Members' Business item M-210 in the name of Mr.
Brison now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Mr.
Clark;
That Private Members' Business item C-469 in the name of Mr.
Jordan now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Mrs.
Jennings;
That Private Members' Business item C-438 in the name of Ms.
Redman now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Ms.
Torsney;
That Private Members' Business item C-230 in the name of Ms.
Bulte now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Ms.
Carroll;
That Private Members' Business item M-418 in the name of Mr.
Szabo now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Mr.
Calder;
And, that Private Members' Business item C-457 in the name of
Ms. Leung be withdrawn on the order paper and the order for
consideration thereof discharged.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to make it clear that there have not been previous
consultations. However, I wonder if I could add another item to
the list. It is simply this. Tomorrow night's private members'
hour is a motion in my name. Could we agree that the vote be
held over until next week at the choice of the House leaders or
the whips and that the motion be deemed put as a part of the
package before us on private members' business?
The Deputy Speaker: The point has been made. Could we
deal with the motion before the House first, and then perhaps the
hon. member could ask for consent—I sense there is a general
consensus—rather than clutter this motion with two things,
because this deals with items currently on the order paper and
the other deals with a vote tomorrow. I am not trying to
jeopardize the hon. member's chances but I sense there is consent
for that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I know there were
consultations on Motion M-210, substituting Mr. Clark for Mr. Brison
because of the byelection. As far as I know, that was the only
consultation that took place. That one I have no problem with
because we have talked about it. The other ones, I take it, are
because of some changes in the parliamentary secretaries, but I
have not seen that list. Perhaps if the hon. member could send
that list around we could have a look at it.
The Deputy Speaker: Could the Chair suggest that the
parliamentary secretary consult with a couple of opposition
members here, get agreement on the list and the suggestion by the
hon. member from Kamloops and come back to the House in a few
minutes? Perhaps we could then clear it all up. Would that be
possible?
Is there another motion the parliamentary secretary wishes to
put at this time?
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is indeed another item of business and I would be asking for
consent to table a report.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the
honour to present its 38th report. The committee recommends,
pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the list of members
and associate members for standing committees of the House be as
follows, and they are listed in the report.
I would ask for unanimous consent to table the report and
unanimous consent for concurrence in the report.
1555
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker,
I have no objection to giving my consent for the adoption of
this report.
I just want to draw to your attention, and to the attention of
my colleagues, that things seem to have been done in reverse
order, in the sense that we are now adopting the list of members
for the various committees a few minutes after having authorized
these committees to meet without having to comply with the 48
hour notice requirement.
There is a bit of a problem here. That being said, I have no
objection to giving my consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
parliamentary secretary to present his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given
that some colleagues would wish to review the list of the
reshuffling of names on the private member's business items, I
would simply move one item. I move:
That Private Members' Business item number M-210 in the name of
Mr. Brison now stand instead on the order paper in the name of
Mr. Clark.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, to be fair, there have been limited
consultations. This is also a kind of consultation.
Tomorrow night is the third hour for consideration of Motion No.
259, which is in my name. There is no reason we could not
proceed with the vote at that time, but I thought members would
likely prefer to have it deferred until maybe Tuesday of next
week. My suggestion would be that we agree to consider the vote
to be put and that the vote be held next Tuesday if that is
acceptable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that tomorrow evening at
6.15 p.m., the question be deemed to have been put on the hon.
members motion, a division deemed demanded and deferred until
Tuesday at the conclusion of the time provided for government
orders?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker,
as the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has
pointed out, consultations have been rather limited.
I wonder whether he would agree to have the vote deferred until
Monday rather than Tuesday, because I think that on Tuesday, if
the agenda goes as announced, we should be starting the vote at
report stage of Bill C-3, which means we will be launching into
a marathon of almost 3,000 votes.
We should perhaps save ourselves an extra vote on Tuesday on the
motion by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
by voting on it the day before instead.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we do this on
Monday?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, there have been no
discussion in this regard. We will be happy to discuss it and
consider it but we are not prepared to agree to it at this point
in time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-14, an act
respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the
settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and
respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province
of Manitoba, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to support Bill C-14, the Manitoba claims settlement
implementation act.
Bill C-14 has been thoroughly studied before the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and has
been found to be a solid piece of legislation that will move
Canada forward in meeting its obligations to Manitoba first
nations.
1600
As hon. members have heard in the House and in committee, the
Norway House Cree nation in particular will benefit from Bill
C-14. Part 1 of the bill will affirm in law certain elements of
the Norway House master implementation agreement which is now
being implemented to bring about resolution of matters arising
out of the northern flood agreement. Part 2 of Bill C-14 will
also benefit Norway House, both as a treaty land entitlement band
and by facilitating implementation of the reserve expansion
commitments in the first nations master implementation agreement.
Let me expand briefly on these two elements of the bill, after
which I will comment on the strong messages of support that we
have received for this legislation, heard primarily during the
time that the committees had their meetings a while back.
There is nothing really new in part 1 of Bill C-14. Parliament
has already approved similar legislation for three other northern
flood agreement bands: the Split Lake Cree, the York Factory and
the Nelson House first nations.
What we are being asked to affirm in law is simply that
compensation moneys and fee simple lands provided to Norway House
under its master implementation agreement can be managed by the
community in conjunction with the corporate trustee and outside
the cumbersome restrictions currently in the Indian Act.
Important safeguards are there. They are in place to ensure
that the decisions made by the first nation council and the
trustee are transparent, communicated to the community and are in
its best interests.
Part 1 also gives effect in law to a locally administered and
more effective approach to claims resolution than currently
exists in the northern flood agreement itself. This new
community based approach will deal with the vast majority of
claims arising out of both the NFA and the Norway House master
implementation agreement.
I ask hon. members to keep in mind that the Norway House master
implementation agreement has been signed by the parties and that
the implementation of the provisions of that agreement is
currently under way. However, there is a commitment in the
document and in the agreement to facilitate certain of its
provisions through legislation and the government is determined
to fulfil that commitment.
Giving the people of Norway House increased control over fee
simple lands and compensation money provided to them under the
MIA is an important step on the road to economic self-sufficiency
and increased accountability. It will help enhance community
confidence and community pride. In fact, it is already doing so.
Fred Muskego, a band councillor at Norway House, spoke about
some of the benefits that have flowed under the master
implementation agreement when he appeared before the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in March
1999. I would like to quote briefly from his remarks to that
committee: “We have addressed our recreational problems we have
on the reserve. We have a state of the art multiplex that was
built because of the MIA. We have recreation programs for the
young people, and even some of the older people benefit from
them. We have had some housing come out of the MIA. We have
programs for our alcohol problems and social problems. We have
just put some money into the building of a church, a funeral home
and meeting halls. Out of these MIA proposals we have created
about 105 jobs”.
The items listed by the councillor are not the end of it. I
understand that settlement proceeds have been used for a
recreation complex which includes facilities for bowling, curling
and skating, as well as a community hall and restaurant. I am
also advised that in addition to the new homes and churches
mentioned by the councillor, new projects approved by the
community using settlement funds include day care, road
improvements and other infrastructure improvement projects.
The first nation has also acquired a fishing lodge, and in
partnership with industry has acquired interests in mining
exploration. The first nation has also purchased some 500,000
pounds of fishing quota on Lake Winnipeg, thus beginning to
re-establish a role in the fishery of Lake Winnipeg, a status
which was eroded with the original flooding.
Economic development jobs, community infrastructure and social
initiatives; these are all solid proof of actual advantages for
people who require them and people to whom we have obligations,
people who deserve their economic self-sufficiency. They are
proof that a proper balance of resources, accountability and
local decision making can bring about positive and lasting change
in first nations communities and more important in first nations
lives.
1605
The settlement moneys under the master implementation agreement
are being put to good use and wise use by the community itself.
It makes the decisions.
Passing Bill C-14 will allow for all of the settlement proceeds
to be managed in this way by that community. Without the bill,
some of the proceeds would fall to be administered under the
Indian Act requiring the involvement of the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
I alluded earlier to the fact that part 1 of the bill will also
give effect to a locally administered process for resolving
claims that arise under the Norway House master implementation
agreement. That local process has been operating for about two
and a half years now. It is proving to be a workable alternative
to the cumbersome process that was in place under the northern
flood agreement. Passing Bill C-14 will ensure that the local
claims process continues to serve the individual claimants of
Norway House.
Part 2 of Bill C-14 does introduce some new concepts that
parliament has not seen in other legislation, concepts that
should nevertheless be supported by all members of the House.
The goal of part 2 is to facilitate the transfer of lands to
reserve status in order that Canada's land related obligations
arising from claim settlement agreements across Manitoba can be
fulfilled in a timely manner.
I believe that all members understand that a key component of a
sound economic future for first nations is their land base. This
legislation will improve the process by which new reserves are
created pursuant to claim settlement agreements.
As I alluded to earlier, these agreements include treaty land
entitlements and certain elements of the master implementation
agreements signed by four of the five northern flood agreement
first nations. As a first step in speeding up reserve expansions
for all Manitoba first nations that have negotiated claim
settlement agreements or that will do so in the near future, we
need to get beyond the cumbersome process of obtaining an order
in council to add lands to reserves. Canada already agreed to
effect these reserve expansions when it signed the settlement
agreements.
We need to improve the way third party interests on those lands
are accommodated. The first nations have begun selecting their
new lands. Many of these lands have been selected for their
economic development potential in areas such as forestry, mining,
tourism, commercial buildings and farming.
There will continue to be further land selection activity of
this kind under these agreements in the coming years. Under the
treaty land entitlement framework agreement which benefits 20
Manitoba first nations, up to 450,000 hectares are to be set
apart as reserve land over the next three to five years. Seven
other first nations have treaty land entitlement claims that
could involve up to another 62,000 hectares of land.
As my hon. colleagues have stated, the timely provision of these
entitlement lands is needed to support claims implementation and
the evolution of a vibrant on reserve economy. The business
ventures on existing and future land selections under these
agreements will require the co-operation and partnership of third
parties.
We need to give these first nations the flexibility to
aggressively seek out lands that have economic development
interests or potential while ensuring that the rights of existing
landowners and title holders can be accommodated.
This is what part 2 of the legislation is all about. It
contains a number of provisions that will achieve these goals,
and they are very laudatory goals.
For example, part 2 will empower the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development to set apart as reserves any of the land
selected by Manitoba first nations under a claim settlement
agreement, eliminating the need for an order in council.
Part 2 of the bill will also allow for the finalization of
agreements with third parties in a timely manner, which provides
certainty and protection to all. It establishes more effective
mechanisms for accommodating third party interests identified in
the reserve creation process.
Specifically part 2 will allow Manitoba first nations to strike
deals on third party interests as soon as a parcel of land is
identified for reserve status. This will enable the first nations
to accommodate different kinds of third party interests before
land is officially added to a reserve, or to negotiate new rights
that will come into effect upon reserve creation.
This latter aspect, negotiating new third party interests in
addition to negotiating replacements of existing interests, is
particularly noteworthy. As a result of this provision we will
see first nations pursue emerging economic opportunities on their
chosen lands immediately rather than experience the freeze on
development which now occurs pending resolution of the land's
status.
1610
Part 2 of Bill C-14 is not creating any new entitlements for
first nations or imposing any new obligations on governments or
landowners. It is simply making an existing process work better
so that we speed up the implementation of the claims and
facilitate first nations' use of their lands and resources to
generate social and economic benefits for their community.
I have already quoted from the remarks made by Fred Muskego, a
band councillor for Norway House Cree nation. He appeared before
the committee on March 11, 1999. He expressed full support for
Bill C-14, noting from his firsthand experience that the northern
flood agreement was difficult to implement and that virtually
every claim resulting from the agreement had been challenged and
usually ended up in court.
He stated very clearly on behalf of the entire council and
community that Bill C-14 is in the “best interests” of the
Norway House people. Why? Because the MIA makes the Norway House
Cree the masters of their own destiny. It lets the community
decide how to spend its compensation moneys and makes the
political leadership accountable. Canadians want that and so do
the first nations. In his words, the MIA is an “avenue for the
future of our children”.
Manitoba Hydro, which is a party to the northern flood agreement
and the master implementation agreement, was also represented
before the committee. Mr. Bettner, associate corporate counsel
for the utility, had this to say:
From Manitoba Hydro's perspective, the [master implementation]
agreement and this legislation provide a number of positive
benefits for all parties. First and foremost, it provides the
parties with the opportunity to build a new and effective
relationship by resolving issues which have, over the years,
resulted in anger, mistrust, uncertainty, adversarial
arbitration, and delays in delivering the compensation and
benefits spoken to in the northern flood agreement. It provides
certainty for the past, the present and the future.
Those are strong words from a key partner in the process. I
remind hon. members that Manitoba Hydro has accepted additional
responsibilities as a result of the master implementation
agreement. The utility is eager to move forward even with those
additional responsibilities in the partnership because it knows a
new millennium and a new way is before us.
It does not end there. Mr. Bettner also spoke in favour of part
2 of Bill C-14, noting that it would allow Canada and the first
nations to move and more effectively accommodate existing and
potential third party interests in land. He said before the
committee:
Part 2 provides a relatively seamless framework for developers or
other land users and will hopefully forestall the loss of
opportunities where the need to resolve land use issues is an
early and paramount consideration. Part 2 will be a benefit to
Manitoba Hydro in its ongoing dealings with first nations...in
that it will provide the ability to resolve the ongoing land
interests in a timely manner.
Gord Hannon of the Manitoba Department of Justice also stated
full provincial support for both parts of Bill C-14. Mr. Hannon
told the committee that a wide range of stakeholders were
consulted on the treaty land entitlement framework agreement
supported by part 2 of the legislation. These included the
mining and forestry industry, Manitoba Hydro and municipal
governments. Mr. Hannon said:
It is fair to say that there has been a high level of general
consultation in Manitoba and, I hope and believe, a high level of
understanding of the objectives in the framework agreement.
I could go on at length about the many benefits of this bill and
the support it has received in committee. We have heard the
arguments and there are always arguments pro and con. The bill
has been studied from all angles. The validity of the Norway
House master implementation agreement has even been confirmed by
a court of law. Now it is time to move forward.
By emulating proven federal legislation and by introducing
useful new mechanisms, Bill C-14 will help Manitoba claim
settlements accomplish their objectives quickly and effectively.
If hon. members support the goals of this government set out in
“Gathering Strength”, goals of honouring treaty land
entitlements, of supporting strong communities and people, of
building the capacity for economic self-sufficiency and of
renewing Canada's relationship with aboriginal people, then I
urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-14 so that it can be sent
to the other place.
1615
In closing, I would like to say that the time I have spent as
chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development has been a most proud and useful time. I
have learned more than I could ever give.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address this bill again. I want
to speak on both parts of this bill.
I notice the insertion of the word “right” in the bill, which
does not mean much in light of recent supreme court decisions.
It was probably requested by Warren Allmand who is a former
minister of Indian affairs with this government.
I would like to speak about the process because process matters.
The government seems to be under the impression that the end
justifies the means, that the government can simply pass
legislation to give legislative credibility to its actions and
that it can hold a referendum after the fact to almost give
credibility to a process that was quite flawed.
We had a lot of people in from Norway House and other parts of
Canada who had connections with Norway House and who were really
unhappy with the process that they went through. The result may
have been inevitable but we had a lot of control over the process
and it was not necessary to make a lot of people unhappy. Too
much information was given to those people in too little time and
it was not given to them in a language that they understood very
well. They finally received a translation, if I remember
correctly.
There were incentives given to vote for the legislation rather
than voting for it based on its own merit. There was a denial of
the use of public broadcasting facilities located in the town.
Many people mentioned that they were not happy with that. That
has created a great deal of bitterness in the community that will
take years and years to deal with.
We talk about the honour of the crown a great deal when we talk
about Indian affairs. In this case, the honour of the crown was
somewhat tarnished by a process that these people had precious
little control over.
In 1977, which was 23 years ago, the government signed an
open-ended flood agreement that this act was meant to replace.
These people have waited 23 years for a resolution to what they
felt was their right. How did successive governments behave?
They took a generation to deal with these issues. Older people
are probably long since gone from the community for whatever
reason. Young people grew up not knowing what they had had. A
situation like this is unacceptable.
The Liberal government has a record of making big open-ended
promises like the NFA which is very poorly defined. Then comes
the reality check. Then comes the time when people across Canada
or the people in the communities say that this is not deliverable
or that the government has not delivered what it was supposed to
deliver. It gets cut back, defined down and eventually gets to
where it should have been right off the bat. That is not
acceptable.
When the Canadian Alliance proposes that land claims, treaties
and other agreements should be affordable, that the process
should be transparent and that it should be capable of being
delivered, the government attacks. The minister resorts to
attacks on our party or personal attacks on the person who makes
the criticism of the process. That is either myself or members
of my party, my colleagues, who are under attack simply because
we are quite realistic about dealing with these things.
We can think about a lot of things. In the Marshall decision,
the minister made some really irresponsible comments about
lumber, oil and gas after the Marshall decision came down. What
was the result if it? Burnt Church, which is the current crisis.
We had the Lubicon building a sort of pretend reserve here to
air their complaints and to publicize what they felt had gone
wrong. I do not know what the total answer is to the Lubicon,
but I know that a number of years ago the leader of the
opposition at the time, who is now our Prime Minister, made a big
promise. It was a promise he could not keep and probably had no
intention of keeping.
1620
Who did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
blame yesterday? It was the Alberta government. If the Prime
Minister, who was official opposition leader at the time, did not
bother to consult with other governments to find out what their
stand was, that is hardly an excuse for the position of the
Alberta government.
To reflect on that type of action is ridiculous and it means
that the honour of the crown was again tarnished. It means
making promises that cannot be kept or that there is no intention
of keeping. In the Lubicon, to say that I did not know is
ridiculous. They had telephones as far back as 1993. That is
some news for the Prime Minister in case he was not aware of
that. In Burnt Church big promises were made but there was no
delivery.
There is a lack of policy and a lack of progress in delivering
what little the Liberals have. When they fail, bad manners is no
excuse for action. The crown has other responsibilities but one
of the words we never hear when we hear about those things is
honour of the crown. Metaphorically speaking, people are always
wrapping themselves in the flag.
However, let us talk about the honour of the crown. Does the
crown not have an obligation to have honour ascribed to itself by
fighting for freedom of speech and making sure that that happens?
The people of the Cross Lake community were denied a voice on
their own public radio system to broadcast their concerns with
what was coming down. Whether they were right or wrong, they had
a right to a voice and to be heard.
Does honour of the crown not require that the government to
protect the weakest people in our country, our children? I refer
to the Sharpe decision where the government sat on its hands for
close to a year and did nothing about it. The decision allowed
child pornography to be in the hands of pedophiles. Does the
honour of the crown not require a strong defence force to protect
its territories and its people? Where did the honour of the
crown go on that issue?
We are always hearing about health care. The government cutback
health care funding then bragged that it brought it back to where
it almost used to be. Where was the honour of the crown? Where
was the obligation to the people of Canada?
How about reasonable tax levels? Is the honour of the crown not
impugned when tax levels are so bad that people are leaving the
country, moving out from underneath the so-called protection of
the crown and moving to other tax jurisdictions? How about
responsible government that listens to the people? How about a
working justice system that makes our streets safe through a
parole system that works to protect people? How about a case
that I am very strong on, a right to life for the unborn? I do
not believe that the honour of the crown is much protected in
many of these areas.
I would like to tell the government that I want to see it start
talking about honour of the crown in many more areas than simply
Indian affairs. The honour of the crown can be protected when
land claim negotiations have respect for existing private
property rights. Affordable and conclusive settlements would
also protect the honour of the crown and would state where the
government, particularly the Alliance government when it is
elected, stood. It would be open and honest and would not raise
expectations beyond all reason to then cut them back for 20 or 30
years until finally people gave up or were driven to desperation.
We will see that all stakeholders are involved in negotiations.
That is an honourable thing to do. We will protect the
democratic rights and freedoms of individual aboriginals on
reserves, including private property rights so that people are
not driven off the reserves due to lack of housing, lack of money
or no private property rights, and where people can protect their
families.
I remind the government that the honour of the crown requires
that this government look after all citizens of this country.
1625
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today at third reading of Bill C-14, an act respecting
an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation. This is a bill
that concerns the Norway House Cree but, like any bill having to
do with aboriginals, there are implications in other areas, even
in the immediate region to which this agreement will apply.
This part of northern Manitoba has undergone many ecological
changes as a result of the introduction of dams, and the
harnessing of major waterways in the region. Other aboriginal
communities have been affected by these changes.
The reason I mention this is because later on I intend to give
the background to the northern flood agreement. I think it
important to name the communities which already have agreements:
York Factory, Nelson House, and Split Lake. For these
communities there were bills to give legal effect to the
agreement.
We now have the agreement with Norway House and that would leave
Cross Lake, which would signal the completion of this
hydroelectric project, with its disastrous impact on the
environment.
I should not restrict my criticism to Hydro Manitoba because
many detractors, some of them in English Canada, have pointed a
finger at the James Bay agreement. They told us that the
ecological impact of the bill and the James Bay agreement in
northern Quebec is terrible.
Having studied the files on Norway House and the other
communities I have mentioned, I can respond to these detractors
that we in Quebec have no need to feel guilty about what has
happened in northern Quebec, when we compare it to the situation
in northern Manitoba.
In northern Manitoba, the Churchill River was re-routed to empty
into the Nelson, in order to have a stronger flow. A whole
string of dams and other structures was built in order to
harness the current to generate hydroelectric power.
The impact in northern Manitoba was greater, judging by the
figures we have before us: 2,134 square kilometres of land
affected, 67 of those within the reserves.
I would, moreover, remind hon. members that this bill also
covers the aspect of the expansion of Manitoba's reserves, in
order to save the honour of the crown and to be able to tell the
aboriginal people “We flooded part of your land, but we are
going to compensate you for it. For every acre flooded we'll
give you four elsewhere”. This is more or less what the bill we
are looking at today does.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois expressed the opinion on second
reading that it might be worthwhile making this into two bills,
one dealing with compensation and the other with the creation of
reserves.
This has been an ecological disaster and has had a direct
negative impact on the aboriginal peoples' traditional way of
life, including their hunting and fishing. Also affected was
their full enjoyment of their natural environment, something
that is very important to them.
1630
When we consider the flooding that occurred in northern
Manitoba, and are somewhat familiar with the aboriginal issue,
we realize this has had a major impact on their way of life.
Everyone knows that flooding affects the forests and that, after
a while, this will give rise to considerable mercury in the
waterways. This necessarily creates a fishing problem, members
will agree. In this regard, I must say that we are no better
than anyone else; in northern Quebec, we had mercury poisoning
too, but not to the same degree as in northern Manitoba.
Native commercial and recreational areas were also harmed, areas
that they had traditionally occupied.
Archaeologists are saying that the Cree, the nation affected,
could have lived in this part of northern Manitoba for 10,000
years. This means long before the Europeans arrived in North
America.
Therefore, these people had a way of life, of fishing, of
hunting and of enjoying themselves. All of this has upset the
traditional ways of doing things. There are therefore fewer
fish for the reasons I have just given. Many fish did not
survive the flooding because of the high levels of mercury and
those that did contained mercury and, accordingly, the native
people were denied their traditional subsistence fishing
practice, which is extremely important to them.
Drinking water was also contaminated because, as I said earlier,
about 67 square kilometres of land in these reserves were
flooded. Artesian wells were contaminated and aboriginals
experienced a lot of problems. In fact, the agreement signed at
the time includes provisions stating that the government must
provide drinking water to aboriginals, since they could no
longer use the water found on their reserve.
It also became more risky to travel by boat because of the lower
water level. It goes without saying that if we divert a river
into a bigger one, the level of water in the first river will
necessarily be lower, since the water is diverted into a bigger
river. This also had an impact on the ice level.
As we can see, when man plays with nature, it can sometimes be
dangerous.
Unfortunately, the first victims of that situation are the
residents of Norway House and those living in the five
communities to which I referred earlier. This even had an impact
on Lake Winnipeg's water level. The result was that some
reserves found themselves with a lot less water around their
territory. This had a major impact on people living in northern
Manitoba, particularly aboriginals.
The reason we are here today dealing with this bill—and I believe
the Canadian Alliance member mentioned it earlier—is because it
has been almost 23 years since the Manitoba northern flood
agreement was signed.
I say it was signed, but that is not entirely accurate. At a
certain point, the government agreed to let these five
communities sit down and say “Listen, the bill before us will
certainly have an impact on each of our communities and it would
perhaps be a good idea to organize a round table so that, if we
decide to move, we will do so together so that we can take into
account the impact this bill will have on each of us in our
individual reserves”. This was the strategy for a number of
years.
With its policies on funding during negotiations, the government
agreed to give money to the parties to the agreement so that
they could work on their negotiations with the government.
1635
The government realized that it was creating a sort of common
front. People were working well together and at a certain point
the government said it no longer wished to fund the northern
flood agreement.
The reason is very simple. The government simply wanted to
break down this common front. It began to work on each of the
communities. The first was Split Lake, I think. I recall that
one of the first speeches I gave here in the House, during the
last parliament, concerned Split Lake.
The government said “We are prepared to come to an agreement
with you.
This is how we want to settle the matter”. Finally, it
introduced a bill to give force of law to the agreement it had
entered into with the people of Split Lake.
This is where things started to get a bit touchy, because some
aboriginal communities said “There is an agreement with Split
Lake, but not with us. Not that we absolutely insist on an
agreement right away, but if work is begun that will have an
impact on Split Lake and they get compensation from you, just
think of the impact your project will have on us, to whom you
are not yet giving any compensation”.
This is how the government managed to destroy the common front
of the five communities. It is a pity, because basically the
government tried to settle with one community as cheaply as
possible and now it wants to apply the same scenario to the
others.
There is, moreover, one agreement that has not been dealt with,
and that is the one with Cross Lake. I have just been listening
to the words of the former chair of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, who was saying that she had
heard many witnesses voice the opinion that it was very
important for the bill concerning Norway House to be passed.
Indeed it is, but there were others who came before the
committee and said that some changes had to be made. In fact, I
tried to introduce some of those in the form of motions and
amendments yesterday. Unfortunately the House rejected them.
I will return to this point later, since I had just 10 minutes
for all my motions of yesterday. I feel that the matter of
rights is extremely important. It is, moreover, one of the
reasons the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support this
bill, because the importance of these rights is not recognized
formally.
The community in Cross Lake, in fact, was the last native
community to be covered by a bill. The bill concerning Norway
House is currently before us.
The government does not know when the Cross Lake people will
arrive. They certainly appeared before the committee, though.
I was there. They said “Listen, this makes no sense. There were
incredible gaps in the bill. We do not agree to your settling
with these people and then leaving us on the sideline”. That is
the government's strategy. That was the strategy from the
outset. They break a common front, try to settle for as little
as possible and, if the last group demands too much, they are
told “Listen, we are not going to settle with you, you are
asking too much”.
In my opinion they are not the ones asking too much.
Perhaps the government took advantage of an opportunity, of its
divide and conquer strategy, to arrange to isolate the people.
Today, they have a hard time resisting on their own.
Yesterday, I unfortunately did not get very far in my speech,
because I had only 10 minutes, and the motions were grouped
together. I think it important, however, to take a few minutes
on the question of rights.
The Cree of Quebec and the natives in Cross Lake came to tell us
that it was important to have the bill provide somewhere that
the ancestral and general rights of native people are not
threatened by this bill and the agreement referred to.
Naturally, there are a number of people who said “We can
consider this a treaty and therefore it is covered by section 35
of the Constitution of Canada, by the Constitution Act, 1982”.
I read an excellent article by Mel Smith, which explained how
inclusion of section 35 within the Canadian constitution was
negotiated. It is an absolutely incredible story.
1640
It took place over the telephone. There has been pressure to add
the term “existing” to “treaty” in section 35 of the Canadian
constitution.
Now, some people are telling us that this is covered under
section 35 of the Canadian constitution, but, according to
Mr. Smith and several experts, we still do not understand the
full scope of section 35. It was not enough to say that it is
covered under section 35 and that there is no need to be
concerned.
At the time, we endorsed the view of aboriginal people who told
us “If, as you say, it is already covered under section 35 of
the constitution, then why do you not add the term right to
the bill? You yourself are saying that it does not change
anything”. Yesterday, the government rejected the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to that effect. It is important
to explain why we insisted on the issue of rights.
As I said yesterday at the beginning of my speech, when we tell
someone “I have a right to do this”, it is certainly because
there is a legal basis and some legislation somewhere. If there
is legislation, some may say that it is flawed, that it does not
go far enough, that there are grey areas. These people are free
to appeal. This is regularly the case with aboriginal issues.
I would be curious to know how many cases involving aboriginals
are now held up before the courts.
Some laws give rights to aboriginals, but the Supreme Court of
Canada has certainly gone the furthest with respect to
aboriginal rights.
Yesterday, I spoke about a number of decisions and their impact.
I described the evolution of aboriginal rights. I often
criticized the government's failure to act. In my view, it is
clinging to an outdated piece of legislation, the Indian Act,
which is over 120 years old. It is trying to tell us that it
will sort out the aboriginal issue today with a piece of
legislation that has been around for 120 years.
I am not a legal counsel, but this must be one of the few
instances when the government has decided to enforce such an
ancient statute. It is ridiculous. This must be one of the
only areas where this is being done.
I do not think, in the case of the economy where the banks
and takeovers are concerned or any other sector that lawmakers
are called upon to discuss, it would be acceptable for them to
say that, in the context of the year 2000, the third millennium,
they are going to continue to operate with statutes that go back
120 years. It is preposterous. Naturally aboriginals are
forced to turn to the courts for justice.
That is why it is important for them to talk about rights. That
is why things are getting out of hand, as they are in Burnt
Church right now. That is why aboriginals believe that it is
important for the word right to appear in bills like this one.
It is so that they will not be told that they have given up their
ancestral rights.
There have been precedents, people who have paved the way in the
courts for aboriginals.
I think it important that we look at this, because it has an
impact on the bill before us.
Yesterday, I paid tribute to Frank Calder, a Nisga'a. In my
opinion he really paved the way in the courts for aboriginals.
In 1973, the supreme court finally recognized the existence of
aboriginal title. Before that, it had never existed. The
federal and provincial governments believed that it was their
prerogative to pass laws and that there was no special law for
aboriginals—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I have to
interrupt the hon. member. It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest, Health; the hon. member for
Vancouver East, Housing.
1645
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the Calder
decision, in which aboriginal title was recognized and for the
first time it was said that “Yes, there is occupation,
possession and use of ancestral lands, there is aboriginal
title”. That is what the supreme court decided in 1973.
On the other hand, counsel for the Crown said “There cannot be
aboriginal title because the royal proclamation of 1763
contained specific provisions”. There are specific provisions
in the treaties and in the Indian Act.
The supreme court refuted those arguments and, in the Calder
decision, stated that there was aboriginal right and aboriginal
title without explaining what that title was. It merely stated
that there was one. That had to wait for the Guérin decision,
in which the supreme court stated in 1984 that land entitlement
was special because of its inalienable character, that the
government had a fiduciary obligation toward the aboriginal
people, and that the honour of the crown was at stake. This was
stated in several supreme court judgments.
My Alliance colleague has just said the same: the honour of the
crown is at stake each time a treaty is signed, and each time
legislation is passed in the House.
One important step had been taken. It was stated not only that
there was aboriginal title, but also that this was inalienable
in character and that the government ought to commit to
defending the aboriginal people because of its fiduciary role.
Hon. members will understand that the government is often
uncomfortable with its role of trustee, as in the case of Burnt
Church.
In this case, we have a government that is the trustee of the
native people and that must defend them. However, it runs over
the canoes of the natives with its boats. This is hard to
reconcile. The government is certainly going to say the
resource has to be protected and so on. There is no proof,
however, that the resource is being threatened at Burnt Church.
I can understand the natives in Burnt Church who are told when
they fish “You are entitled to put 50 lobster traps in the
water, but the white community next door is entitled to put in
50,000. For you, it is 50”.
Some people are starting to say “Listen, we are not responsible
for declining stocks of fish and lobster in Miramichi Bay”. I
understand the natives, and the government is still stuck on its
role as trustee.
In 1988 it was the Paul decision. It held that the aboriginal
title was sui generis, that is
the only one of its kind. This was another step forward. The
native title, and it is starting to be defined, is not only
inalienable; it is unique. Previously there were naturally
decisions recognizing that natives were here first and that they
had specific rights because they were the first inhabitants.
Then came the Gladstone decision. It went even further. It
provided that, when the government wants to impose a restriction
on a native right, it must justify doing so clearly. Obviously
in the case of Burnt Church, the government cites resource
protection.
This claim is not fully justified, however.
The government is not providing a specific study to show what
size of catch is feasible during and after the fishing season.
The government is not saying. The decision in Gladstone went
even further.
1650
This is why I can understand the aboriginals in Burnt Church. It
would have been important to define the notion of right in the
bill before us, but the government decided otherwise.
There was also the Delgamuukw decision in 1997, which went even
further. Previous decisions always dealt with hunting and
fishing issues. That ruling goes further by stating that the
territory itself is included, that aboriginals who can prove
long term occupation are entitled to more than hunting and
fishing privileges. They have the power to decide on activities
and to regulate them, including economic activities. This is
where it goes a little further.
Meanwhile what is the government doing? It does not do
anything. Yet the score, so to speak, is 50 to 0 for aboriginals in
supreme court rulings. The definition of title continues to
evolve.
The Delgamuukw decision goes beyond hunting and fishing. It
states that aboriginals have the power to regulate things over
their own territory. This includes forestry, mining and several
other activities over their territory. Delgamuukw is yet another
step.
The Delgamuukw decision brought about something rather
disconcerting for white people. When white people reach an
agreement they sign a contract such as a lease or some kind of
convention, but the Delgamuukw decision provides that the oral
tradition will have the same weight as historical documents.
This goes quite far.
There are certain conditions: “Aboriginals must prove that
they have occupied the entire territory in question before the
arrival of the British”. In the case of the Cree, with their
10,000 years of history, and the Micmac with their 10,000, I do
not think this should be hard to do.
“The occupation must have physically taken place and have been
substantially maintained”. A number of court decisions have
said this. I do not think it is difficult to prove. The Micmac
are in eastern Canada and the Cree in the north. Archaeologists
and the best experts will tell you that they were there before
us. They had a political system, an economy, agreements with
their neighbours. I think that it is fairly simple to show that
they occupied the lands, and that the occupation took place
physically.
“The group in question must have exclusive jurisdiction and
control of the land”. This is akin to sovereignty, control of
one's land. There is no doubt that the Cree have always
controlled their land, and that the Micmac have always
controlled theirs, before the arrival of the British and even of
the Europeans.
Members will understand the importance to them of having the
word “right” in the bill. Unfortunately the Liberal Party has
decided otherwise and dismissed it.
I am going to speak a bit about consultation because I see this
as an incredible oversight in the bill. As members know, this
agreement was to have the approval of the community proper.
What happened was incredible. The government said “Here is the
agreement”. It agreed with the band council on the referendum
question and that was what they asked.
Contrary to the government's expectations, they lost the
referendum. The people said no because on the issue of
ancestral rights it was not enough. The government changed its
tack and said “I declare the referendum null and void”. People
wondered why it voided the referendum. It was because it had
lost by five votes. The government said “It is because people
who live off the reserve were registered as natives and voted.
We do not think they should have voted”.
They held a second referendum. They told the people before they
voted “We have a cheque for $1,000 waiting for each native
person in the community”, if they vote favourably, of course.
1655
When someone waves a personalized cheque at a person who is one
of the poorest in Canada, just before the Christmas holidays on
top of it, and says “If you vote, you will have this cheque”, it
seems to me that there is a bit of a problem there.
Members will understand that this is why we had a bit of a hard
time when the Liberal Party said that our referendums in Quebec
are not always democratic because of the way we hold them. I do
not think we have anything to learn from the federal government
with examples like this.
That is the problem.
People appeared before the committee to tell us that it was not
right that everyone was promised $1,000 if the outcome of the
referendum was in favour of the agreement. It is like buying
the results of a referendum.
The Bloc Quebecois will have to object to this, because I think
that the government did not do its job. The money has probably
already been paid. The compensation has probably already gone
to people and been spent, but we must not keep being held
hostage and told that this is an implementation act, that it has
been decided and signed several years ago, and that, now, a bill
is needed to give it force of law.
The government should go back to the drawing boards. If it was
wrong, it can pay what it paid before.
And if there is a different outcome in a few years with the
Norway House agreement in an unbiased and properly held
referendum, then the government can pay again.
The government is responsible for the terrible mess. Not just
the ecological mess I mentioned earlier, but the democratic mess
as well. It is responsible for consultations which consisted of
promising people things and offering them a cheque for voting in
favour. This is one of the primary reasons we cannot support
this bill.
The issue of rights is a key one for us. It was very important
to have it included in the bill. The government left it out and
the members of the ruling party were all too quick yesterday to
cast their vote showing that they thought it was not important.
But it was indeed important for aboriginals.
Perhaps not those of Norway House, because they were told that
when it got passed there would be compensation. However, the
others in the vicinity, for example the people in Cross Lake,
which is next to them, will feel the impact of the decisions on
this. They are being backed into a corner, because they are
being told that the others have settled. That has an impact.
If the democratic process that has been used is flawed, then
things need to be started over again.
The government has decided to reject the entire matter of
rights. We are not obliged to agree, now that there is something
missing from the bill.
If the word right had been included, it would not have cost
the federal government anything. If, as the government says, it
is protected under clause 35, I do not see why the term right
could not have been added. That would have not cost it
anything. But there is a whole other matter, the fact that it
does not want to recognize aboriginal rights.
It does not want to recognize them, even if the courts have
recently said that there are ancestral rights, and that there
are specific rights connected to the fact that they were the
first inhabitants of this continent.
We will not reject the bill merely because of the matter
of rights, but because the consultation process was very badly
handled. I want the federal government, the Liberal government,
to know that they need not lecture us on democracy when we hold
our own referendum, and hold it properly.
The federal government made some promises at the time, saying
“If you vote no, it is as if you were telling us yes, in favour
of renewed federalism”. We have seen what happened as a result.
I do not think it has anything to teach us about democracy.
Our referendums and our elections are always carried out
properly. If people are told “You are going to get $1,000 if
it passes” there is a problem.
For these two fundamental reasons, we will have to vote
against Bill C-14.
1700
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do
want to say I am pleased that we are finally at this point in
Bill C-14 of coming before the House. Hopefully we will see it
passed. I do not think there is any question that there have
been problems in the whole process. I must say I am pleased that
it is here today. Hopefully before the House puts itself to rest
for this parliament, we will be able to see the bill passed.
I will take this opportunity to talk about the bill but also to
comment on why we are here today. Canada's first nations people
were robbed for generations of the natural process of cultural
and social change. They were robbed of economic opportunities
because of government policies. They were forced to give up
their treaty rights to make a living and even forced to give up
their treaty rights in order to fight for this country in the
world wars, the Korean War and other conflicts Canada was
involved in.
I wonder how many Canadians know our true history. How many
Canadians know that when these first nations soldiers came back
they were not given the same rewards as other Canadian soldiers?
They were not allowed to vote. They had lost their treaty
rights. I wonder, do we share this shameful part of our history
with the rest of the world?
On many occasions the government has had the opportunity to
right the injustices toward aboriginal people, but no, aboriginal
people must fight for every single right they have, and most
often in the courts.
This bill before us is no different. We should not be under any
false impressions as to why this bill is before us today. In
1977 the federal government signed an open-ended flood agreement
with first nations negatively affected by the diversion of water
for hydro development in Manitoba. This agreement was to have
meant great economic success for the first nations involved; it
was their chance for future economic progress.
For the record, Mr. Warren Allmand, the Indian affairs minister
at the time, was part of the negotiation of the northern flood
agreement. When he appeared before the standing committee on
this bill he commented that he saw this bill as a modern day
treaty. For those who are under any impression about how the
negotiators felt about this bill, they should know that it was
seen as a modern day treaty.
The reason we are here today with this new bill before us is
that in the northern flood agreement the Government of Canada
once again failed to follow through on an agreement they made. It
was an agreement that would have meant benefits to the first
nations involved, but year after year they kept the first nations
people in the courts, fighting for everything in that agreement.
For those who think, well, too bad, if it is not a given they
should have to go out there and fight and prove that is what the
agreement meant, let me remind the House, all Canadians and all
those public service workers how pay equity was a right in this
country and how for 15 years women in this country had to fight
for the right to pay equity with the government, which did not
want to follow through on the agreement.
Just in case some people think it is only the aboriginal people
out there who have a beef on the issue of the government
following through on the agreement, it is not. I want those
people to recognize that this is not just an aboriginal issue. It
is an issue of the fact of the government not following through
on agreements that it should be following through on.
As a result of not following through on the northern flood
agreement, yes, some first nations agreed to changes, because
they knew if they were ever going to have any chance whatsoever
they had better not rely on the federal Liberal government. They
had to do something else. They were fighting for survival. One
after the other renegotiated so that they would have that
opportunity.
Over the years we often hear of big corporations doing that to
the small guy. If the corporations just keep them in the courts
long enough they will never be able to afford to fight.
Ultimately the big guy wins out in the end. It is no different
here. The first nations people were backed into a corner and in
order to survive they had to renegotiate. Let us not be under
any false impression of why they are here.
From the perspective of the bill, the Norway House First Nation
has the right to make that decision. They have done that. They
have agreed that the bill will give them an opportunity.
Under no circumstances whatsoever do they intend that this bill
should give up any of their treaty or inherent rights, none
whatsoever.
1705
I do find it unconscionable that the government was not willing
to ensure this within the bill, to put it in words that in no
way, shape or form would the bill affect the treaty or inherent
rights of the first nations.
However, the government tells us that it will not. The Norway
House first nation is willing to accept that and, because the
bill affects them, for that reason we should support it. I am
not going to be someone who tells them what they should be doing.
They have had that happen for too long.
There has been consultation. The process was not perfect; I do
not think there is any question about it. We have heard comments
about referendums not being held properly and about situations
where people may have been paid off. All those questions came to
light in the committee hearings.
It was felt that the issues were dealt with, but the bottom line
was that the first nation approved this. The chief and council
who were representative of that first nation were re-elected, for
the most part. I think that is an indication that the community
supported the process. Therefore we should be supporting it
because it applies foremost to the Norway House first nation.
However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is
another first nation out there, the Cross Lake first nation. They
are not giving in. Quite frankly, they have every right not to
give in. The original agreement was signed. Negotiators to that
agreement acknowledged that it was seen as a modern-day treaty.
They believe that this first agreement, the northern flood
agreement, in itself is what is best for the Cross Lake first
nation.
They deserve to not have to go to the courts time and time
again. They deserve to have the opportunity to have it settled
once and for all. I would hope that the Liberal government will
not force another first nation into the situation we see
throughout the country. I would hope that we do not have to see
violence being the answer in order for rights to be upheld.
While the government supports the bill, I would ask that it also
support the rights of the other first nations to make their
decisions, that it seriously negotiate a settlement on the
northern flood agreement with the Cross Lake first nation and not
play the big bad corporate government, holding off until Cross
Lake first nation is forced into starvation, forced into
receivership, forced into not being able to have houses or pay
for the wonderful hydro project that was supposed to make
everything better for them. They cannot even afford the hydro.
The rates are higher in northern Manitoba because they do not
have as dense a population. They pay higher rates than other
areas. It makes one wonder why they are not out there jumping
screaming and praising the whole process.
As much as I will be supporting the bill, I think Canadian
people need to know we are in this situation because once again
the Liberal government has failed to follow through on an
agreement with first nations people. It is time it changed that
approach or this country will never ever be out of turmoil.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement
with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters
arising from the flooding of lands, and respecting the
establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.
We would like to have detailed commentary on the bill. However,
due to time constraints, we realize that the passage of the bill
is a lot more important to the principles involved than having
our few words on the record. We will be brief to make sure that
the bill can be passed in a timely manner.
The legislation speaks to two issues: the Norway House Cree
Nation's master implementation agreement resulting from the
flooded lands, and the reserve establishment, particularly in
reference to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework
agreement of 1997.
1710
First, however, we are hardly impressed by the combination of
these issues that the legislation represents. The two main
issues addressed in this bill are far too important to have them
lumped together. We certainly realize that the issues are
related, but these issues should be addressed separately in order
to provide each bill with the attention it deserves.
Legislation is not necessary for the implementation of this
agreement since it is already going ahead. Instead, this
legislation is another step toward implementing the terms of the
northern flood agreement and the federal government's obligations
under the agreement with regard to the first nations that have
signed implementation agreements.
One advantage of this legislation should be the opportunity to
move away from the the dispute resolution process to a more
conciliatory form of negotiation and discussion. This is
something we would all welcome.
I would like to address the second part of this legislation,
establishing reserves in the province of Manitoba. Part 2 of
this legislation is expected to assist in establishing reserves
where an obligation exists in a current or future agreement to
set aside land for this purpose. Part 2 appears to be beneficial
to the first nations by allowing them to take advantage of
conditions on a timely basis and speeding up the process of
reserve creation. Because of that, as I mentioned, there are a
number of intricate terms we would have liked to explore,
happenings of the past that we would like to rehash.
Again because of time constraints, and although it would have
been great to get all of that on the record, in doing so we would
compromise the possibility of getting the legislation put
through.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion for third reading of Bill C-14. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote stands
deferred until 5.30 p.m. this day.
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from November 24, 1999, consideration of Bill
C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group
No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are resuming
debate on this bill and the floor is open.
An hon. member: Call the question.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 also applies to Motions
Nos. 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to 48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and
60.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just for clarification we are on Bill C-8. Do we have provision
for debate on these amendments that are being put forward?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A few moments ago I
called for debate and no one rose. Since no one rose on debate,
we put the question for this group. We still have to do the yeas
and nays.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, for further clarification,
will you have to repeat for the next grouping the request for
whether there is debate or not?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes. When we go
into the next group there will be an opportunity for debate.
We have already put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All of those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion is deferred.
As the House knows, Group No. 1 went through rather quickly.
Some of the movers and seconders of motions in Group No. 2 are
not in the House. Could there be a motion from the floor to have
the motions in Group No. 2 deemed moved and seconded? Is there
such a motion?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to move such a motion?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
find ourselves in a very awkward situation and I need your help
to see how we can go about this.
According to the order of business, to agreements made by the
parties and the way we usually work here, Bill C-8 and the
amendments thereto were not supposed to be brought before the
House today.
1720
We are now faced with the following problem. We come here to
pass legislation with full knowledge of the facts. Our speakers
are usually well prepared to take part in the debates. In a
democracy, the most basic rules of courtesy and decency require
the government to advise us of the bills it wishes to put before
the House. Never, in any parliament, would a government call a
bill at the very last minute without advising anyone as is
being done here right now.
Since we only have 10 minutes left for government orders, could
we not agree to say that it is 5.30 p.m. Then, when the House
leader asks to bring this bill back before the House, we can
have a very objective and effective debate, gladly and with good
humour.
An hon. member: With great glee.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: We could resume consideration of the bill
in the light of a strong debate. That is what I am asking for.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As usual, the hon.
House leader of the Bloc has suggested a very gentle means to get
the Chair out of a bit of a problem. The House leader is quite
correct. The House operates in a fashion that provides for
fairness between all parties. The Chair thanks the hon. member
very much for the suggestion.
Does the House give unanimous consent to the suggestion of the House
leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the clock be seen as 5.30 p.m.?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I just want to clarify something further to what the House
leader of the Bloc said. That is that we understood this bill
would be coming forward on October 5 and we have now found out
that the bill will be coming forward tomorrow. Now, at about 22
minutes after five, is the government planning on bringing report
stage of this bill in for the second and third groupings?
It would look like perhaps this Chamber does not know how to run
the country when it is putting bills in here at the last moment.
I see that the government House leader is here. Maybe he could
enlighten us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Actually, it is not
so much a reflection on the Chamber as it is on the chair
occupant who also is faced with the same dilemma.
The House leader of the Bloc has suggested a very elegant means
to get us through this, but obviously the government House leader
should have an opportunity to respond.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will forget the comments
that were made by the last speaker, which is probably the best
most of us could do at any time, and I will refer to the other
comments that were made that were more enlightening, not that any
of them could be less enlightening than the one that we just
heard. I would agree to call it 5.30 and to end this debate for
today.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point
of order.
The House leader has announced that I am not the House leader
and I certainly do know my place.
I would like to ask, if by the good graces of this Chamber, we
call it 5.30 now, six minutes early, when might we see Bill C-8
come again, because I think it is important enough that it needs
to be discussed now. I do not think we are prepared to give
unanimous consent to just send it off into the proverbial night.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Actually, we will
not get into this. We have a suggestion on the floor to see the
clock as 5.30 p.m. and that is what we will address.
Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1725
MANITOBA CLAIM SETTLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an
act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for
the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and
respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province
of Manitoba, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-14.
Call in the members.
1730
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to
seek unanimous consent of the House, that the House would give
its consent to pass Bill C-14, the Manitoba claim settlements
implementation act, at third reading, on division.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved that Bill C-409, an act to provide for the
expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective
within five years of coming into force, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has been a year and a half since we
debated this bill and it seems the only way I can get three hours
of debate on this common sense piece of legislation is by doing
it one hour at a time.
I must once again deplore the fact that all private members'
bills selected in the draw are not automatically declared votable
items in this House. I have been working on this bill, the
firearms law sunset act, since 1994. I first introduced a sunset
clause as an amendment to Bill C-68 during the debate in the
spring of 1995. This bill was first introduced in the House as
Bill C-351 on September 28, 1995, then Bill C-357 on December 2,
1996 and again as Bill C-278 on December 7, 1997.
It is most disappointing to put so much effort into a piece of
legislation to have it die again and again after just one hour of
debate and no vote. This is a situation that must be rectified
if we are ever going to have a chance of our constituents'
legislative initiatives being given their rightful consideration
in this House.
Every time there is a shooting, either here or in the United
States, there is a clamour from the Liberal anti-gun crowd for
more gun control laws. This despite the auditor general's
warnings in his 1993 report that there was no statistical
evidence to prove the previous set of gun control laws
implemented by the Progressive Conservative government was
working.
What we need, what the people really want and what the Canadian
Alliance Party promises to deliver is effective gun control laws.
As we have seen with Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, tougher does
not equal effective because it is only tougher on law-abiding
responsible gun owners and totally ineffective at controlling the
criminal use of guns.
Bill C-409 would rectify the government oversight by
implementing a process that would ensure that only gun law
provisions that were proven to be effective by the auditor
general would remain the law of the land. People arguing against
this bill will have to argue that they support gun control laws
even if they do not work, no matter how much they cost and no
matter that other measures might work better.
I am not arguing that gun control laws are unnecessary, only
that police time and resources should be spent on measures that
get the best bang for our tax dollars. That is exactly what Bill
C-409 is designed to do.
The bill provides a five year sunset provision on all gun
control measures, which means the measure would be automatically
repealed unless the auditor general reported that it had been a
successful and cost-effective measure to increase public safety
and reduce violent crime involving the use of firearms.
The auditor general's report would have to be considered by a
committee representing broad interests in the firearms community
and the committee report would be presented to and concurred in
by the House or the sunset provision would take effective
automatically at the end of five years.
1735
The bill also provides safeguards to allow parliament the time
necessary to make amendments to allow ineffective gun control
measures to expire without affecting parts of the legislation
that are effective at fighting firearms crimes.
The bill is the total opposite of the ill-conceived Bill C-68,
the Firearms Act, passed into law on December 5, 1995 and
prematurely brought into force on December 1, 1998.
Let us look at what the auditor general would have uncovered if
he had been conducting operational and financial audits of Bill
C-68 since it was brought into force. The auditor general would
chastise the government for ignoring his 1993 recommendations by
proceeding with the implementation of even more costly and
complex gun control laws without first evaluating whether
previous gun law control laws were working effectively.
The auditor general would report that the justice department's
polls on public support for the gun registry were biased because
they failed to reveal to respondents the estimated cost and
impact the legislation would have.
The auditor general would have found that despite spending half
a billion dollars on gun registry, biker gangs, bank robbers,
homicidal and suicidal maniacs are still having no trouble
getting their hands on firearms through the black market.
The auditor general would have found that despite spending half
a billion on the gun registry there has been no reduction in the
number of firearms being smuggled into the country.
The auditor general would have also reported that the gun
registry has had no effect whatsoever in reducing criminal use of
firearms. The number of armed robberies, the number of homicides
or the number of suicides are not being reduced by this.
The auditor general would have found that despite the fact that
1,700 bureaucrats are working on the gun registry, there are
fewer police on our streets today than were on our streets 30
years ago when measured by the number of criminal incidents per
officer. Statistics Canada put it very simply. In 1962 there
were 20 criminal incidents per police officer. In 1997 there
were 46 criminal incidents per police officer.
The auditor general would have found out that the Department of
Justice's multimillion dollar television ads are grossly
misleading because the ads say the only consequence for
unlicensed gun owners will be that they will not be able to buy
ammunition. The truth is that unlicensed gun owners will become
instant made in Ottawa criminals at the end of December and could
be put into jail for up to five years. We must think about that.
That is very misleading.
The auditor general would have found out that as of September 2,
2000 the Department of Justice had only issued 286,000 firearms
licences in the last 21 months, that is 13,630 per month, and
that there was a backlog of 339,000 licence applications. He
would have also noted that it would take the Department of
Justice more than 25 months to get rid of this backlog and 12
more years to process the licences from the remaining 2 million
gun owners, which is the government's estimate. They have not
even applied yet.
The auditor general would include in his report the justice
minister's 1995 promise to parliament that the firearms registry
would cost only $85 million to implement and run a deficit of
only $2.2 million over five years. The auditor general would
then report that the actual cost over the five years was $325
million and the deficit was not $2.2 million but $310 million.
That is almost 150 times as much.
The auditor general would go on to report that his sources in
the justice department have provided documents that show the
firearms registry budget for this fiscal year alone has already
exceeded $260 million and will top $300 million before the end of
March 2001, this year alone.
The auditor general would remind parliament that the justice
minister promised user fees would cover the entire cost of the
program, but as of August 11, 2000 the government had collected
only $17,139,000 in user fees and owed refunds of approximately
$1,234,000.
1740
The auditor general would discount the Department of Justice
statistics about the number of firearms licences refused and
revoked and the legal gun sales blocked. He would write that
these results have been achieved because of better background
checks and information management and had absolutely nothing to
do with the registration of guns.
He would also confirm earlier findings by the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada that a large percentage of the blocked
sales were as a result of incorrect information on 3.5 million
Canadians in the RCMP infamous FIP, firearms interest police
databank. That is serious and is a violation of our rights as
individual Canadians.
The auditor general's report would make the following key points
with respect to blocked gun sales. That is one of the
government's claims for success.
First, the government has had the means to achieve these kinds
of results for the past 20 years with the old FAC, firearms
acquisition certificate program.
Second, there would be no need to create a half billion dollar
gun registry for rifles and shotguns to achieve these results.
Third, the auditor general would point out that all these
hundreds of millions have blocked only the legal sale of
firearms. Absolutely nothing has been done to stop anyone from
buying firearms on the black market. That is where the real
problem is.
The auditor general would report that the gun registry is
riddled with errors and is absolutely no help to the police in
fighting against real criminals.
Obviously this bill needs more time to be fully explained and
debated by the members of the House. At this point I would like
to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have another hour
of debate on this bill at future time.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to have another hour of debate at
some future time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I am really
disappointed in that. We have a common sense piece of
legislation that asks the government to review the laws that it
put in place way back in 1995 to see if they are effective. What
I hear the Liberal members saying is that they do not want to
review their laws. They do not want to check to see whether they
are effective. They are willing to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars on something that will produce no cost effective
measurable benefits.
That is what we are talking about here. I pointed out all of
the things that the auditor general would have reviewed and would
have found in his study on it. What Liberal members are saying
in effect is that they will put through laws whether they are
effective or not. They will not use those resources to put more
police on the street. They will spend it putting a piece of
paper beside every gun in the country whether it makes sense or
not. That is what I hear them saying. I hope all Canadians will
take note that the Liberal government is willing to take money
away from other areas where it could be used very effectively and
plough it into this. It will not review it.
We have 60,000 people a year who die as a result of cancer. We
spend about $16 million a year on research in that area. We have
spent close to $300 million this year alone on a gun registry
that has no measurable benefit, will not save lives or do
anything that will help Canadians. If we were to put that money
into cancer research, just think what that would accomplish.
That is the choice the government has made. It is not willing
to let the auditor general review the legislation to see if it is
effective. It is not willing to see whether that money would be
more effective in health care or in putting more police on the
street than in a very bureaucratic, useless gun registry that by
the way and in conclusion is one huge boondoggle. The mess that
is in Miramichi right now, the backlogs and the problems that are
being faced by gun owners are horrific.
If members could read my e-mails for just one or two days, they
too would realize that we have to review this and we should allow
the auditor general to do that.
1745
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-409 proposes that we repeal the Firearms Act and indeed
all gun control legislation in Canada without giving it a
reasonable time to work.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville would propose sunsetting a
complex piece of legislation and an important public safety
initiative just one year after it is fully implemented. In this
scheme it would be impossible to accurately measure the
comprehensive benefits of the firearms program. For this reason
the Minister of Justice is firmly opposed to Bill C-409.
The Department of Justice already has a plan to evaluate the
program's success in achieving its objectives. Bill C-409
ignores the public safety accomplishments that have already been
achieved by the Firearms Act even before implementation is
complete.
Canadians can already see the positive impact of Bill C-68 and
continue to strongly support the government's position. The hon.
member knows that more than 80% of Canadians support gun control
and that the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously found the
Firearms Act to be both constitutional and directed to enhancing
public safety. It is perplexing that the member for
Yorkton—Melville chooses to ignore the foregoing.
I would like to talk about what the Firearms Act has already
done for public safety. The Minister of Justice is confident
that within a reasonable time after the new firearms law has been
fully implemented its effectiveness will be even more
demonstrable. However, the short timeframe proposed in Bill
C-409 is simply unworkable.
For the first time ever the new law requires instant background
checks before any firearms transfer can proceed. As of the
beginning of September of this year, over 4,352 potentially
dangerous gun sales were sent to further investigations. These
cases included people with past or recent histories of violence,
break and enter, theft, drug involvement, or people who were
trying to acquire guns they were not licensed to purchase.
Background checks are an important step in ensuring that
potentially dangerous individuals do not have access to firearms.
This is the kind of situation the new system was designed to
control. Every member of the House should share the goal of
keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous
individuals.
Almost one million Canadians have complied with the licensing
requirements. To date more than 898 licence applications have
been refused for public safety concerns. Additionally, 1,217
licences have been revoked for individuals deemed no longer
eligible to hold a licence.
As a result of the new system's capacity to more effectively
check police and court records, the number of licence revocations
is close to 20 times higher than the total of the previous five
years. In light of such information, even the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville cannot deny the value of the gun control
provisions. It is through results such as this that the Canadian
public knows the new gun control program will make their homes
and their communities as a whole much safer.
The choices laid out today are clear. If Bill C-409 were to
become law and all Canadian gun laws were sunsetted, Canada would
be left with no licensing, no registration, nothing. The
adoption of Bill C-409 would put lives at risk, and that is
unacceptable.
[Translation]
At a time when the rest of the world, in search of a better way
to control firearms, turns to Canada as a world leader, the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville wants Canada to revoke the gun
control legislation.
[English]
The government, unlike members opposite, is committed to
promoting a culture of safety and making Canada safer. We have
listened to the Canadian public. Again and again Canadians tell
us they support our firearms program. Indeed a majority of
Canadians surveyed in a poll released by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville on the day of the tragic events at Columbine
high school felt that, if I may quote, “ensuring that all rifles
and shotguns are registered” is a priority.
Let us talk about specific parts of the bill. The hon. member
would have the auditor general and his office evaluate a complex
piece of legislation and a major public safety program. To meet
the bill's timelines an evaluation would have to end before all
the benefits of our program could be measured.
However I agree with the need to evaluate laws. We heard months
of testimony on gun control. We listened to what Canadians told
us. We made sure the law would be effective. We built in an
assessment program. We continue to streamline and improve the
program and will continue to ensure the program meets the public
safety objectives Canadians expect.
1750
The fact remains, however, that when any new law comes into
force we need to allow a certain amount of time before we can
assess its impact and effectiveness. Individuals need to adjust
to new requirements. Law enforcement agencies need to adjust to
new responsibilities. The judiciary needs time to consider the
law's meaning and intent as cases are presented. It takes more
time than the hon. member's proposal would allow.
The Firearms Act is no different. To assess its effect on
public safety, on the incidence of violent crime, and on cost
effectiveness, we have to allow time for the act to be fully
implemented.
The hon. member should know that when the former Minister of
Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs he spoke about the evaluation process. He stated
that the Department of Justice would be monitoring experience
with registration, licensing to determine what improvements could
be made and making that information available to parliament and
to the public.
The evaluation plan calls for assessments of the extent to which
the operational elements of the Firearms Act, part III of the
criminal code, and their associate programs have been implemented
and whether their objectives are being achieved.
Let me repeat again. Bill C-409 is not realistic in its
timeframes, and the Minister of Justice is opposed to it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I commend
the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing the bill
forward and for his tireless pursuit of this issue. I know he
has put a great deal of effort and passion into bringing the bill
before the Canadian people and getting some of the facts on the
record, which are extremely important.
Let us be clear. Bill C-68 and the gun registry are not about
effective gun control. They are an ineffective, discriminatory,
expensive attempt to sell the public on something they do not
achieve, and that is public safety.
I was very dismayed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice misstate the Supreme Court of Canada's
interpretation of the gun challenge. At no time did it endorse
the particular legislation as having anything to do with public
safety. What it said is the government has the right to
legislate in that area. That is a subtle but extremely important
difference.
Bill C-409 speaks about bringing some degree of accountability
to the venture the government has undertaken. What it calls for
is an expiry or a sunset clause that would negate the legislation
after five years if it was not cost effective. That is all the
hon. member is trying to do. He is trying to bring about some
element of accountability and cost effective examination or
measure to increase public safety vis-à-vis a connection between
legislation and a reduction in violence.
The legislation was first brought forward in the heat and
passion of and in the fallout from a terrible incident in
Montreal. The massacre at l'École Polytechnique is a black mark
on Canadian history and will always be there, to the horror of
Canadians. However the legislative response that was drafted in
the wake of that tragedy is not proportionate. It does not
respond to that type of incident. That horrible crime was
perpetrated by a mentally ill person who used a gun that was
illegal in the first place. The legislation has nothing to do
with that. It would have had no bearing on and would not have
prevented such a tragedy.
The Conservative Party has always supported sensible gun control
measures. The legislation is not about gun control. It is about
bureaucratic red tape. It is an intrusive piece of legislation.
I apologize for using the word target, but it targets the wrong
people. Criminals are not participating and never will
participate in this type of registry. It targets duck hunters,
target shooters, Olympic shooters, farmers, fishermen, and
average Canadians who use a rifle for pest control or leisure.
The legislation is not about public safety. It is about
criminalizing individuals who were participating in, enjoying and
getting some degree of security out of a legitimate and rightful
pursuit in their communities. All of a sudden, if they refuse to
participate, they will be criminalized.
1755
One of the intangible results of the government's pursuit of the
legislation will be felt in the criminal justice system in the
frustration that will be felt by average citizens when called
upon to do jury duty. They will sit in the jury box and look
with cynicism and antagonism toward the crown and the police who
are prosecuting people for a reasonable and lawful pursuit. This
is one of those intangible factors that is again lost on the
government and is obviously lost on the Minister of Justice.
I will not recount the statistics and the figures with respect
to the money and the number of bureaucrats and government
employees who have been caught up in the pursuit of the giant
propaganda effort that is taking place on the part of the
government, but they are staggering.
This now infamous Bill C-68, better known as the Firearms Act,
has been implemented by the government and sold to the public on
a false premise. The public has been sold a bill of goods
literally that this would somehow impact on violent crime and
that it would somehow save lives and prevent violence. Where is
any evidence that this will somehow protect or save lives? It
does not exist. This legislative response is completely off
base, off target. It was arrogantly, ineffectively and
wastefully put in place to distract from the real issues.
Police across the country are desperately in need of resources.
They are desperately in need of support from the government, from
the solicitor general and from the Department of Justice, and
they are not getting it. They tell us that resources are scarce
and that they are using priority choices to decide where the
money goes, yet they are pumping millions of dollars into the
legislation while there is not enough money for overtime, for
equipment or for training.
Police officers are being forced to do without. They are being
forced to deal with the ever complicated and ever increasing
presence of organized crime and high tech crime. There is no
question that, on a rational basis and looking at this in terms
of priorities, the money would be better spent elsewhere.
I would like to put on record some of the recent statistics from
Australia and Great Britain where they have pursued this type of
registry in advance of the Canadian example. Great Britain and
Australia have both had disastrous results as a fallout from gun
registry. In Australia the gun ban that took place in 1996
resulted in armed robberies increasing by 70% between 1996 and
1998. Unarmed robberies went up by 20% and attempted murders by
300%. Unlawful entry with intent to break and enter involving
property rose by 30,000 cases in Australia.
A study from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the armed
criminal, a survey of incarcerated felons, included in its
results that 91% of those surveyed agreed that smart criminals
would try to find out if a potential victim were armed before
they decided to act. Of those surveyed, 82% agreed that the gun
laws only affect law-abiding citizens and therefore would enable
criminals to know that most likely those they would prey on would
be unarmed.
Gun registration has already failed terribly in the United
Kingdom, as its overall violent crime rate increased 2.2%, with a
19% overall increase in muggings since 1998.
A recent policy conference of the Progressive Conservative Party
in Quebec City reaffirmed its opposition to this specific part of
the gun registry. We have to be clear on this. This pertains to
the registry of long guns. The opposition has clearly stated its
position.
We will always hear the government drone on about the opposition
being opposed to gun control. That is not the case. We have had
gun control in the country since the 1950s with respect to
pistols, certain rifles and shotguns that were already deemed of
an unlawful nature. That is not the subject of this debate. We
are talking about shotguns and rifles that have been in use and
have been in the possession of Canadians for hundreds of years,
since the country began.
1800
In 1993 the Liberals proceeded with legislation on the unproven
premise that a mandatory firearm registry would lead to a
reduction in firearm related crime. One of the false premises
was to inflate the statistics. For example, if a weapon was
found at the scene of a crime or alleged crime, just present, not
used or involved in the particular allegation of criminal
activity, it would somehow be included as a firearms related
crime. It was completely duplicitous and misleading.
In the first instance, long guns are rarely the weapon of
choice, I would suggest, in premeditated criminal activity. The
Liberal government has aimed this law at a segment of the
population that already acts responsibly and complies with
reasonable, previously existing gun control measures. So again,
there is a false premise.
Gun registration will not prevent or even reduce most forms of
violent crime. It creates a false impression that having a
little sticker or laser imprint on a gun will somehow prevent it
from being used in a dangerous or unlawful fashion. It is a
completely false premise. That little imprint or sticker will no
more prevent that gun from firing than putting a bullet in the
chamber; it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The government
has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that gun related crime
will be reduced as a result of this legislation.
As mentioned earlier, Australia and Great Britain have already
proven that this type of legislation actually leads to an
increase in violent crime. The promises made by the former
minister of justice that it would cost only $85 million have
already been disproved. We now know, as the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville quoted extensively, the costs that relate to
this. We are now nearing the half billion dollar mark with
respect to the implementation of this legislation.
The reality is that this legislation has already cost Canadians
over $134 million and not a single gun has been registered to the
extent that it is in a system that is up and operating. The
system has yet to be in effect. I would suggest that the
infrastructure in place at present could be used to enhance CPIC,
to enhance the DNA data bank registry, to incorporate a system of
registering sex offenders in the country. That is the type of
registry that we need, registering the criminals and not the
guns. This is where the effort should be and where the
legislation should be pointed, not at registering an inanimate
object and indicating to the public that somehow this will affect
crime and somehow protect Canadians. It is a false premise.
I indicate clearly that we support the initiative that has been
taken by my hon. friend and hope that Canadians will somehow
grasp what is taking place in the country and reflect that in
their vote in the coming election, because this legislation will
not change until the government changes.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the
debate on Bill C-409, an act to provide for the expiry of gun
control legislation that is not proven effective within five
years of coming into force.
I am pleased to speak about this particularly because it is such
an obstacle and a hindrance to the need for using guns in a
legitimate way in a rural area such as the one I live in, in
Cariboo—Chilcotin.
I am sure that members here and many people in the city do not
realize the need for a gun and the cost of not having a gun for
some people. I can tell many stories about people who have run
into difficulty with wild animals. I can tell the story of a man
who was without a gun and was killed and eaten by a bear. I can
talk about parents who fear for their children who walk to school
because in winter there are cougars patrolling the roads for cats
and dogs and whatever else might satisfy their appetites.
As I speak about this I want to have a practical attitude to
what I say, but I want to begin by complimenting the author of
the bill, the member for Yorkton—Melville. He and his staff
have worked tirelessly for over five years to inform Canadians
about the bad law and the enormous waste encompassed in Bill
C-68. I would like the member to know that his contribution in
calling the government to account on this duplicitous legislation
is appreciated by so many people in my riding and indeed by all
of rural British Columbia.
1805
I note that in the Ottawa Sun, Peter Worthington, editor
emeritus, said yesterday of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville
that not much gets by him and that he sends out statistical
findings “much as Johnny Appleseed was reputed to throw apple
seeds into the wind and hope they would take root”. He says
that the member's website is a “treasure trove of facts and
arguments” why the federal government's gun controls, started in
the mid-70s and refined by the then gauche justice minister in
1995, are “a costly, emotional and pointless boondoggle”. I
could go on and on.
It has now been five years since the passage of the infamous
Bill C-68. Each week we have seen increasing evidence that the
new gun registry is only a white elephant, a large, cumbersome,
costly structure that will do nothing to reduce crime. In fact,
it will do quite the opposite, as has already been reported by
the statistics coming from Australia and Great Britain.
Why? Because hundreds of millions of dollars are misspent as a
result of Bill C-68 and when these dollars are misspent they
cannot be spent where they need to be spent. Once a dollar is
gone, it is not there for use somewhere else.
One might say the same thing about the people involved in this.
When I realized that about 400 RCMP officers alone are involved,
I realized that when they are registering guns these people
cannot be taking part in the activities that we normally expect
policemen to be doing. If these hundreds of millions of dollars
were spent on new equipment for the RCMP or for hiring additional
law enforcement officers, it would make a difference. The
taxpayer would get something back for the dollars invested. This
costly boondoggle, this gun registry, returns nothing and never
will.
We know ministers and government are unwilling to admit their
error unless they are apologizing for something someone else did
some time earlier. They are particularly unwilling to admit
their error when money, hundreds of millions of dollars, has been
wasted. Today we have before us the solution, the opportunity
for the minister and the government to save face and the
opportunity for the opposition to demonstrate the value of
intelligence, hard work and perseverance via a private member's
bill.
The happy solution is in the bill before us today, Bill C-409.
The bill would provide for a five year sunset provision on all
gun legislation unless the auditor general finds that the
legislation has been a successful and cost effective measure to
increase public safety and reduce violent crime. This makes
perfect sense to me.
I know something about what the auditor general does because I
sit on the public accounts committee and meet regularly with his
staff and with other members of that committee looking at
government programs and departments. The criteria that the
Auditor General of Canada uses are, first, value for money spent,
and second, if the money being spent is being used for what it
was intended for, if the programs are doing what they were
intended to do.
If he were to look at the bill and find that, wonder of wonders,
it is money well spent, good value, the program is doing exactly
what it was intended to do and crime and accident rates are down,
this would be a great bill and it would not be withdrawn.
On the other hand, if he found that it was the tremendous
boondoggle that it has been turning out to be, if in fact it was
not doing what it was intended to do, the auditor general would
be able to submit his report and under the provisions of the bill
the sunset clause would kick in and it would be withdrawn. There
would be no loss of face because it would be the auditor general
who would point out quite clearly that this has not been a bill
that has done what it was intended to do.
The attractiveness of sunset legislation is that it forces
bureaucracies to work to ensure that the regulations and measures
pertaining to the legislation are cost effective. If it is, the
legislation can be renewed. If not, the legislation is
automatically appealed and everyone is better off.
My view is that the new gun registry will fail in any cost
benefit or cost effectiveness test.
1810
If I and other Canadians are correct, the legislation will be
repealed eventually and the waste of money will cease. If we are
wrong, we will sing the praises of the government for its
foresight.
Bill C-409 would be good legislation. I appeal to all members
of the House to look at the legislation. At least give it an
honest and fair look in a non-partisan way. See its merit and
support it.
As I have a couple of minutes left, I would also like to bring
to the attention of the House the serious problem that our
Liberal justice ministers have created for millions of legitimate
gun owners across Canada.
December 31 of this year is the deadline for obtaining the new
possession only licence, or the possession and acquisition
licence. That is only two months away. Those who do not have a
valid possession licence at that time will be in violation of the
law despite repeated attempts to comply.
There are people I have asked for support who say they cannot
because they are Liberals, but they have come to me as their
member of parliament to ask for support. What do they want?
They want help to get through the bureaucratic process of getting
their firearms registered and their licensing completed.
One person told me that he was sitting at supper one evening
when he got a call from a lady. She said “You sent an
application in with all those guns you want registered. We need
to know the length of the stock. We need to have the numbers
verified that are on it. We need to know if the stock has been
changed on another gun. We need to know the length of the barrel
on this gun. We need to know why there is no model number on
this gun”. He looked and he said “In that instance there is no
model on the gun”. She said “We know that. We know that gun
never did have a model”. When he laughed, she said “Are you
laughing at me?” He said “No, I am just laughing at the
process we are going through”. She said “I do not think I can
talk to you any longer,” and she hung up on him.
This same man has received calls in the evening and on Sundays
to get his registrations completed. It is a terrible
bureaucratic mess. And he still does not have his guns
registered. That is the problem Canadians are facing. I have
written to the justice minister and asked her to solve the
problem for this man and others but I have had no response. To
the best of my knowledge neither have they.
My constituents are reporting long delays in their dealings with
the firearms centre in Miramichi, difficulty in getting through
on the toll free lines and failure to get answers to their
questions. We understand that at the current rate of processing
it will take several years to complete the registry and provide
some assurance that the information is complete and accurate.
The government should not be placing citizens in a position of
breaking the law when compliance is not possible because of
bureaucratic complexity and delay. I would ask the minister to
come to her senses, extend the deadline for these licences by at
least 12 months, and take seriously the provisions of Bill C-409.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about Bill C-409
put forward by the member for Yorkton—Melville, which is an act
to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that has not
proven effective within five years of coming into force.
I am going to read some policy. We believe there should be
severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We
are committed to keeping guns out the hands of violent criminals
as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We will
replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms
control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of
Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. This policy was
approved in January at the national convention and was adopted on
March 25.
When I became a member of parliament in 1993 firearms
regulations were in place from the previous administration which
were to come into effect on January 1, 1994.
For long guns, that included very specific storage provisions. I
took those responsibilities very seriously and, prior to arriving
here on January 1, 1994, I had my firearms in safe storage within
my residence. I was happy to do that.
1815
There is a prevalent opinion among most firearm owners that
there are a lot of acceptable and appropriate ways to regulate
but by any objective test the registry that has been put into
effect by Bill C-68 is a boondoggle and would not meet any
objective test.
Legislation and government operations are held accountable in
two ways. The first way is through the provision of information
to the public and the other is accountability through such
devices as the auditor general. In the federal arena it operates
through access to information requests, through the auditor
general and through this place, if we can access what we need to
access.
In the case of the Canadian Firearms Centre, what we have in
this legislation is one individual, the member for
Yorkton—Melville, who has his hands full trying, through access to
information, to access very necessary information to hold this
whole exercise accountable. He is fighting all the resources of
the government.
We have a minister who brought this legislation in, the current
Minister of Health. We have the current Minister of Justice and
all the apparatus of the Liberal government that is more than
prepared to use its propaganda, its public relations and its
pressure tactics on police organizations and the provinces when
it is thought they are getting out of line. We only have to look
at the example in New Brunswick. There are 250 jobs at stake at
the firearms centre in Miramichi. According to a briefing note
from the Department of Justice, pressure has been put on the
centre to go along with this registry or employees might be in
danger of losing their jobs.
We have had a non-controversial handgun registry in effect since
1934 at a cost of $2.5 million a year and requires only 30
employees. We now have well over 1,000 employees and $300
million in costs this year alone. The system is not cost
effective. There is no minister who wants to be in charge when
the final accounting for the firearms registry boondoggle comes
due.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville for his bill, Bill C-409. I am surprised,
after having been here for seven years, that he is still
sufficiently naive to believe that anybody over there cares or
ever will care whether their laws are cost effective or not, but
I give him A for trying.
The legislation that we are trying to get a sunset clause,
namely Bill C-68, was based, as I recall very clearly, on public
hysteria, prejudice, political expediency and on spurious, dare I
even say duplicitous cost estimates; $85 million indeed.
We said at the time that this was ridiculous. We have been
proven right in spades.
1820
The government has already spent more than four times that
amount of money and it is nowhere with the program. It has
managed to corral I think 800,000, or maybe even by this time a
million, gun owners who have come forward to apply for their
licences or who have received their licences, either a POL or a
PAL, but there are at least, by the government's own estimates,
another 2 million owners out there. Many people think there may
be as many as 4 million. The government has 1,700 people trying
to process paper in Miramichi. It is an impossible situation.
This is the old story of rolling the rock up the mountainside
and it keeps rolling back down. They will never get this done in
time for the deadline and when that deadline passes we will have
at least a couple of million Canadians who will be deemed, under
the provisions of Bill C-68, to be instant criminals. This is an
absurdity.
I have only been here for seven years. I suppose I am a bit of
a greenhorn in this place, but I do not know of any single piece
of legislation that has created the degree of public anger,
mistrust and pure bloody minded rage at government that this
legislation has caused.
It has been on the books now for five years. To this day I
cannot walk down the street in the town of Swift Current,
Saskatchewan, where I have my office, without somebody accosting
me and asking me what we are going to do about this loony
legislation. It never dies. This is an area that is suffering
from a lot of other real major problems, but this is the burr
under the saddle. It is not good for government to have
legislation that keeps a very large minority of the population in
a constant state of agitation, and, believe me, they are
agitated. I would think that anyone who lives in a rural riding,
regardless of their party, would be well aware of that fact.
The parliamentary secretary in his analysis mentioned a couple
of things which I really must comment on. He says that the
background checks have been effective, and that people who should
not have had guns have been denied the right to buy them because
of these checks. However, what he fails to mention is that there
really is not any solid connection between the availability of
the checks and the legislation that we are talking about.
We have had background checks in this country for at least 20
years that I am aware of and they did not have to pass this
nonsense. They did not have to bring in this bureaucratic
monster in order to bring about something that was already there.
The parliamentary secretary also stated that if Bill C-409 were
to become law, all Canadian gun laws would be sunsetted and
Canada would be left with no licensing and no registration.
Well, if that is true, I can only assume that the hon.
parliamentary secretary is saying that all of our gun laws are
useless because Bill C-409 would only sunset gun control laws
that the auditor general proved were not cost effective at
achieving their stated objective of saving lives and reducing the
criminal use of firearms.
Again I have to ask: Is the parliamentary secretary saying that
all our gun laws, going all the way back to 1934, are not cost
effective?
That is a terribly broad statement to be making.
1825
When the legislation was first debated back in 1994, we believed
that the government should at that time have done some really
serious studies, some scientific evaluation of what the
legislation might entail, what it might result in and whether it
would be beneficial, cost effective or not. The government chose
not to do that. At the time there were a couple of very
important academic studies that had been done, one in Canada in
Vancouver and one in the United States in Florida, that
strongly—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member for Cyprus Hills—Grasslands but his colleague, the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville, has a right of reply for five
minutes at the end of the hour allocated to private members'
business. Since we have reached that point, I am obliged to
interrupt the hon. member and allow his colleague to take the
floor.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I was watching the clock
but forgot all about my poor colleague.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to do that, but I am sure
he is glad to yield the floor to his colleague, the hon. member
for Yorkton—Melville, who now has his five minute right of
reply.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I too was so enthralled with what my
colleague from Cyprus Hills—Grasslands was saying I had not
noticed the clock either. His remarks were probably better than
what I will be making here in conclusion.
In my introductory remarks I reported what the auditor general
would have found if he had been able to look at Bill C-68, the
Firearms Act.
My desire as a member of parliament is for all Canadians to
scratch beneath the surface of the issues that face this country,
to look at what really makes it tick and to see how things work,
especially the legislation that is before the House, then they
would understand what is actually happening. This legislation
affects all Canadians.
The auditor general would scratch beneath the surface. He would
look to see whether this law is effective. That is what I was
asking. In fact, should we not be doing this with more laws? It
really begs the question. We spend hundreds of millions of
dollars, I believe, on things that really bring no material
benefit.
One of the most damning things that the auditor general would
have found if he had been able to look at this would have been
the deplorable fact that the gun registry has undermined
community policing programs by treating more than three million
law-abiding responsible firearms owners as criminal suspects.
This is a key point. The consequences of this law is a breakdown
of trust between the police and the average citizen in thousands
of municipalities across this land. Everyone ought to take note
of that. That is one of the very negative things that is
happening.
If we would let the auditor general look at this he would go on
for page after page documenting the most colossal political
disasters and bureaucratic boondoggles in recent Canadian
history. He would conclude by recommending that the gun registry
be scrapped and the money go to putting more police on street in
the fight against organized crime.
Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun control laws are both costly
and ineffective, whereas Bill C-409, which I am proposing, will
guarantee that every gun control law has to be both successful
and cost effective in saving lives and reducing the criminal use
of firearms.
If members of parliament want gun control measures that reduce
violent crime, they will support this bill. If members of the
House want gun control measures that improve public safety and
save lives, they will support this bill. Finally, if MPs want
gun control measures that not only reduce violent crime involving
firearms but want the most successful and most cost effective
methods for achieving these goals, they will support this bill.
Every year the government passes hundreds of new laws but seldom
repeal any. That is my point. Maybe every bill passed by
parliament should come with a built-in sunset clause which would
automatically repeal any measure that is not working or is not
cost effectively achieving its stated objective.
Bureaucrats who depend on costly ineffective government programs
for their jobs will hate this bill. Ministers who are more
intent on building empires and retaining their status at the
cabinet table will hate this bill, but taxpayers who are footing
the bill and the general public who have to pay through the nose
for this bureaucratic bungling and inefficiency will love this
bill, the firearms law sunset act.
1830
Before this bill dies, I would like to respectfully request the
unanimous consent of the House to send Bill C-409 to the Standing
Committee on Justice for further review and consideration.
In making that plea for unanimous consent to send it to the
committee, I would like to point out that parliament was deceived
when this was originally introduced. The government said that
the police supported gun registration. The government should go
back and check. I have very close contact with the police
association. I know that in my province 91% of the RCMP oppose
this bill. I challenge the government to find out whether that
is true.
It deceived parliament by saying that Canadian people supported
gun registration. Canadian people support effective gun control.
They do not support hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted
on a bureaucratic boondoggle. We were deceived about the cost.
We were told it was only going to be $85 million. The cost
overrun will be 10 or 20 times that amount and that is no
exaggeration.
We were told that the fees would cover the costs of the registry
and that the deficit would be $2.2 million. The deficit is 150
times larger than that amount. That is how parliament was
deceived. We were told that it would not take police off the
street. The police are calling for more resources and more
people to work. The money is not being used.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to have this bill sent to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
bill be referred to the justice and human rights committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on May 10 I put a question to the Minister of Health and
I was not very impressed by his response. My question had to do
with the tainted drug issue in the United States.
In the U.S. a drug called gentamicin sulfate was under question.
That drug is used to treat severe infections such as blood
poisoning and inflammation of the heart lining. The drug is
imported in the United States in bulk and there is contamination
in the product. I asked the minister what safeguards were taken
in Canada to ensure the same thing did not happen.
Eighty percent of the active ingredients in many of the generic
drugs in the U.S. come from third world countries. There is a
quality issue involved here. Some of these contaminated products
work their way into drugs which are given to citizens of the
United States. At least 17 people died as a result of using
gentamicin sulfate in the United States.
I was shocked by the casual reply by the minister. The minister
said: “The manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products in
Canada is done in accordance with exacting regulatory
requirements to ensure the purity of product and safety of
consumers”. The minister did not go into the kind of detail
that we would expect on an issue that could be serious.
On these generic drugs that are coming into Canada, what
safeguards do we have? How much do we know about the companies
that are manufacturing them? How many of these drugs come into
Canada? Is there any evidence at all, slight as it might be,
that some of the products used in these drugs might be
contaminated? What kind of regulatory inspections do we use on
facilities that manufacture these products in third world
countries? In other words, if it happened in the United States,
why could it not happen here?
I do not think we should have to go to the trouble of putting
everything on the Order Paper. I would think that the minister
would understand that it could be a problem in this country. We
raised the alarm and we have to have some evidence from the
government that it is not happening and that some kind of
inspection process is being used.
1835
Some of these drugs are too powerful. Some of them are not
powerful enough. Some of them are absolutely biologically
contaminated because the inspection process in some
third world countries is not being carried out to meet U.S. or
Canadian standards. Why is the situation in Canada any different
from the situation in the United States? If deaths resulted in
the United States because of contamination in generic drugs, why
could it not happen here?
I do not expect a detailed report tonight from the minister
because we have never got a detailed report in reference to any
question put on the floor. However, I am putting the ministry on
alert that tomorrow I will be putting questions on the Order
Paper so we can get a detailed response to what I think could be a
problem in this country.
I know the parliamentary secretary will respond tonight and we
look forward to it. However, we do not expect to get the kind of
answers tonight that we would like.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure our answer will meet the
expectations of the opposition member.
This is an opportunity for us to remind members of the House
that Health Canada's mandate is to protect the health and safety
of Canadians and that the mandate of the therapeutic products program
is to ensure that therapeutic products available to Canadians are
safe, effective and of good quality, wherever they come from and
whatever the origin of some of their components may be.
That program made the commitment, and that commitment still
holds, to make the drug review process as efficient as possible.
Between 1994 and 1996 the timeframe for drug reviews was reduced
by 50%.
Pharmaceutical companies that want to sell their products in
Canada, in order to obtain permission to sell a drug, must submit
an application, which is reviewed carefully and in a very
professional manner by the scientific staff of Health Canada's
therapeutic products program.
Right now, it takes an average of 18 months for a new
pharmaceutical substance to be approved, which compares very
favourably with the timeframes in other countries.
[English]
Through strict regulations and high standards, the TPP helps to
ensure that Canadians are never put at undue risk by the use of
therapeutic products and that Canadians are informed about the
benefits and risks of therapeutic products.
The TPP monitors each product through surveillance and
inspection programs and in compliance with the regulations,
including annual licences for manufacturers, importers and
distributors.
[Translation]
In conclusion, all drugs approved by Health Canada must meet the
very strict guidelines of the therapeutic products program, which
is the national authority responsible for regulating, evaluating
and monitoring the effectiveness and quality of therapeutic and
diagnostic products available to Canadians.
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House again today to call on the government to honour
its stated commitment to provide decent housing for every
Canadian.
During question period, on my first day back, I asked the
minister responsible for housing what the government intended to
do at the meeting of Canada's housing ministers, the first
meeting in five years.
On September 18, I was somewhat encouraged by the minister's
response to that question. He said that on that night and the
next day they would be discussing how they could improve the
situation and how they could give Canadians some relief and make
sure that every Canadian had decent housing. He said that he
looked forward to the meeting in Fredericton.
I was somewhat encouraged to hear the minister's words, because
it led me and many others to believe that finally the federal
government was paying attention to this very critical issue
facing millions of Canadians who are either homeless or one step
away from being homeless.
1840
The minister attended the meeting. The following day I raised
the matter in the House again and asked the finance minister,
because it really comes down to a question of money, how he could
feel so good about a massive revenue surplus of $12 billion that
had accumulated in the past fiscal year when many Canadians were
denied the basic necessities of life, the right to shelter and
housing.
In following the meeting of first ministers I have to say that
there was huge disappointment in the lack of response from the
federal government. I would like to quote from one of the most
outspoken advocates for the development of a federal housing
strategy, Mr. Michael Shapcott who represents the National
Housing and Homelessness Network.
He was at the meeting in Fredericton with many other activists.
In coming away from that meeting this is what he had to say:
“The federal government had an historic opportunity this week to
take leadership in ending Canada's nationwide housing crisis and
homelessness disaster, and it fumbled the ball”. He went on to
say that there were high hopes that the minister would use the
housing summit to take the next step and announce a federal
housing initiative.
The federal minister is reported as saying after the meeting
that housing is a complex issue and there would need to be months
of consultations with stakeholders. These so-called
consultations had already taken place a year earlier when the
minister responsible for homelessness had travelled across the
country.
In response to tough questions from the media, the minister
responsible for housing for the federal government admitted that
the government had no new money for desperately needed social
housing, no new programs to offer and no timetable for bringing
in solutions.
Today I again call upon the government to recognize the
magnitude of the problem before us. There is no question a
crisis exists across the country which demands a national
solution.
In my open letter to the minister and the provincial housing
ministers I called upon the ministers to acknowledge the
magnitude of the problem and commit to a multi-level government
strategy that incorporates the knowledge and expertise of our not
for profit housing sector.
I also called upon the minister to agree to a national housing
strategy that focuses on a not for profit housing supply program.
The government has not responded to this issue, and as a result
there are still people who are homeless on the street tonight.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, affordable
housing remains a serious concern of the Government of Canada.
The minister responsible for housing met recently with his
provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss housing issues
and concerns, in particular the lack of affordable rental
housing. Ministers there agreed on a work plan which involves a
research agenda and multi-sector consultations with stakeholders
to discuss and formulate action plans.
We recognize that the private market cannot meet the housing
needs of all Canadians. That is why the Government of Canada
spends approximately $1.9 billion annually addressing the housing
needs of low income Canadians, including ongoing support for some
640,000 low income Canadians receiving assistance to reduce their
housing costs and to improve housing conditions for others.
The 2000 federal budget announced new affordable housing
opportunities with the goods and services tax residential rental
property rebate proposed for newly constructed, substantially
renovated and converted residential rental accommodation. As
well, through the $2 billion new national municipal
infrastructure program funding can be used for affordable
housing.
Homelessness is also a serious issue that requires a
comprehensive solution, with which the member agrees. That
extends beyond housing alone. The Government of Canada has
undertaken a range of measures including funding of the $753
million federal strategy to address homelessness announced in
December 1999. Of this amount CMHC will spend $268 million
expanding programs designed to repair and improve housing
occupied by or intended to be occupied by low income people,
including those at risk of homelessness.
Additional investments are being made in strategic initiatives
for youth, urban aboriginal peoples and victims of family
violence.
The cornerstone of our investment toward helping the homeless is
the $305 million supporting communities partnership initiative.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)