36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 37
CONTENTS
Friday, December 10, 1999
1005
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| Bill S-14. First reading
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Supplementary estimates (A), 1999-2000
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1030
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1035
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1040
1045
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1050
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CONESTOGA COLLEGE
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1100
| BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| OAK RIDGES MORAINE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| HAZARDOUS WASTE
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| EQUALITY
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1105
| HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| FARMING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| MARIE WAKID
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| ELIAN GONZALEZ
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1110
| HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1120
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1125
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1130
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1135
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1140
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TOBACCO PRODUCTS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1145
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1150
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| FISHERIES
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1155
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1200
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TABLING OF DRAFT BILL
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1205
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| FIRST NATIONS VETERANS' COMPENSATION ACT
|
| Bill C-398. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-399. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT
|
| Bill C-400. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1210
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| PETITIONS
|
| Condominiums
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Children
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1215
| Incontinence
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Supplementary Estimates (A), 1999-2000
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1220
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1225
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1250
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1255
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. John Godfrey |
1315
| Division deemed requested and deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1335
1340
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1345
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1350
1355
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1400
1405
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1410
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1415
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 37
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 10, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the
concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-14, an act to amend
the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian
District of the Moravian Church in America.
[Translation]
This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and the
second reading is set for the next sitting of the House.
(Bill deemed read the first time)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day
for the supply period ending December 10, 1999, the House will go
through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bill. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree
that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in the amount of $63,196,279,
under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD—Operating expenditures, in
Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2000, be concurred in.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
this supply motion today.
I would like to make a few comments about the work of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and what we are doing in so many
different ways to assist farmers, as well as our work with the total
agri-food industry in Canada. As I have reminded the House
before, this is very important subject and Canadians know clearly
the importance of the agriculture and agri-food industry.
It all starts on the farm, that very tough part of the food
production cycle in Canada and in the world, where those people,
those families and those communities deal not only with the
vagaries of the world market, but also with the vagaries of the
weather and many other things which, no matter how good their
management or the technology they have, are out of their control.
It is a tough, unpredictable business which can tear out anyone's
heart. However, 75% of the jobs in the agri-food industry are
beyond the farm gate.
1010
When most people think of the agricultural industry, they think
of the farmers, and well they should because they are the
important key people who start the whole food production cycle.
However, when the product leaves the farm gate, it enters into
what I refer to as the agri-food portion, that is, the further
processing, the retailing, the marketing, et cetera, which
presents to Canadians, to the customers of Canadian agriculture
and agri-food products around the world, without question, some
of the highest quality food products in the world.
We also have some of the highest safety standards in the world.
Consumers around the world are concerned about food safety. We
have a positive and effective regulatory system in this country.
That has been clearly demonstrated. The best test of any system
is the results, and the results are that this is the safest food
in the world.
There is no mistaking the importance of the programs and
services that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is involved in,
only a small minority of which are mentioned in the motion that
we are debating.
I want to remind my colleagues and the people of Canada that the
agri-food industry is one of the largest employers in the
country. One in seven working Canadians works in the industry.
Over 13% of Canadian jobs are in the agriculture and agri-food
industry. I think we would all be surprised to learn that over
half of all young Canadians entering the workforce for the first
time get jobs in the agri-food industry.
It is also a highly innovative industry, one that depends on
scientific progress, which is why we spend a good chunk of our
money investing in research each and every year. It is an
industry in which we can take a great deal of pride, one I
believe must and will survive and thrive, not just for the good
of farmers, but for the good of the country as a whole, whether
it be in job creation or anything else.
As members know, I spent a good portion of my life in the
industry. I know firsthand the ups and downs of the industry,
but I also know firsthand the satisfaction that comes with the
success of meeting the challenges which come every day. There
are risks and there are things which happen that can make a
person's heart pound or the hair on the back of their neck rise
because, just when that person figures out the way things should
go, that is when the chain flies off, or whatever terminology we
want to use.
We are going to continue to work together and keep holding
everything together so that more can happen. In the partnership
we have with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and with everybody
in the industry, I am convinced that we will find an effective
way to deal as much as possible with those risks that have become
not only my preoccupation over the last many months, but the
continuing preoccupation of everyone involved.
As my colleagues know, earlier this week I returned from very
important meetings for the agriculture and agri-food sector. The
meetings were held in Seattle, where the WTO talks were expected
to be launched. We know the results. Unfortunately they did not
get off to the start we had hoped.
I also met this week with my provincial counterparts to work
toward a long term safety net. It is not the only challenge we
have before us at the present time, but I would say, without
question, it is the most important challenge.
1015
The fact that the world trade talks could not be launched as
planned is obviously a disappointment. However, for those people
who try to paint this as the end for agriculture, I want to tell
them that they are a long way from reality. That is just not the
case.
The 135 countries represented at Seattle could not agree on how
to proceed on a variety of issues, but the talks will begin.
Agriculture and services were mandated in the Uruguay round to
begin in the year 2000 and will begin at that time.
I am pleased to say that we were able to maintain the
agricultural working group and the text was frozen. When the
talks begin again we will begin negotiations from that point. We
were clearly in a position that our negotiators could go forward
from that text as it was frozen and negotiate toward the mandate
that we announced as an industry after a long period of
consultation back in August as the goals and the objectives for
the Canadian industry.
We did make progress in Seattle, despite what some reports might
have suggested and that is the important thing. It will be a
setback, unfortunately, but only a temporary setback. That was a
very important meeting to work toward trade reforms and we will
continue to press on for and with our industry.
At this time, on behalf of myself, the government and the trade
minister who was there, we were very pleased with the support,
co-operation and attendance of a large number of non-governmental
organizations, as well as provincial members of parliament,
federal MPs and senators who were there as team Canada at the WTO
talks.
As one of the biggest trading countries in the world, Canada
does have a strong interest in those talks and we are absolutely
committed to staying in the game until the very end. The
commitment is not just at the federal level either. One of the
really positive things about the talks and this whole process of
getting ready for them has been the partnership, the working
together and how everybody in the industry has stuck together
throughout all that. That kind of co-operation will stand us in
good stead in the long negotiations to come.
Our farmers need a level playing field. I will continue to work
to build support with our trading partners around the world so
that we can get an agreement that allows our Canadian farmers to
compete fairly in markets all over the globe.
As we said, the WTO talks even if they had started last week are
not going to be a quick fix, but they are a necessity and an
important part of all that we have to do in order to continue to
level that playing field.
In the meantime, we brought forward as a government the aid
program, AIDA, a year ago. We look back to where we were about a
year ago this week when we announced as a federal government that
we would be putting forward $900 million. Since then we have
added another $170 million so it is close to $1.1 billion. With
the provincial contribution to that, there is over $1.75 billion
available over 1998 and 1999 to assist producers in this
stressful time they are going through.
I am well aware of the criticism that the program has received.
I think the House is aware that I am not as happy with the
program as we would all liked to have been. The goals of the
program were to target the resources that were available as much
as possible to those who needed support. In targeting, it takes
some paperwork. The easiest and quickest way to disburse money
at any time is just to send everybody a cheque, but when one does
that those who do not need the support as much as the others get
support and, for those who need it, there is less to have.
We have fixed some of the problems with the program. We will
continue to work at it, but I remind everybody that it was a
program to deal with the precipitous drop in incomes in 1998 and
1999 relative to the period of time before that. That was the
request. We remember the very spirited and thoughtful debates we
were having in this place and other places a year ago.
Everyone was saying that because the bottom had dropped out of
grain and hog prices that we needed to do something to address
it. We did that. There are those who unfortunately it did not
reach and we are looking at that. That is why we are looking at
a long term program. I had a good discussion with ministers
earlier this week. We will continue that discussion through our
officials and through further meetings in as early as January.
1020
We know we need to put a long term program in place. We have a
short term problem and we have a long term reality to face. We
have to work the two of them together. I am confident that we
can. I am confident that we will be able to find a lot of
resources to do that. I am a realist and I know there are not
enough resources to satisfy everybody to the extent that every
individual would like, but we will do the best job we can.
I personally feel strongly that we need to work together. We
are working together to be more flexible with a system that
responds to the whole range of needs that exist in a very diverse
agricultural industry. When we think of the size of this
country, of how diverse it is even within one province and how
diverse the agriculture and agri-food industry is from coast to
coast to coast, it is absolutely incredible.
It is not an easy task but nobody said it would be easy. If it
were easy, we probably would have been there a long time ago.
Every time we do these kinds of things in the best interest of
and in fairness to everybody who has been involved in the past,
present and future, we think we have got it. Then we find out
that because this industry is so flexible, so rolling and moving
so fast that we have a hard job keeping up. Because there are so
many things that affect what goes on out there, things change.
I will talk about change for a minute. It not only applies to
the agri-food industry but also to our lives in general. The
assistant deputy minister of research in my department told a
group of us not too long ago that 90% of the scientists who ever
lived are alive today. There are some pluses and minuses or pros
and cons to that. It is not just agriculture and agri-food
scientists but all kinds of scientists who make up this 90%. It
is just amazing what these people will produce in terms of new
technologies, new research, et cetera, and that is fantastic. We
can see that every day in our lives.
It also means that because so much is being produced and so many
of those results are coming about, the shelf life, to use a
layman's term, is so much shorter because something comes on to
follow what was there before. This is happening in every sector
of our society. Things change and the only constant is that
there are changes taking place.
I know the discussions will be frank and fruitful and we will
continue with those.
Farmers are counting on us. They can know that we are spending
an inordinate amount of time and that we have their best
interests in mind. All ministers I met with this week know it is
our obligation to show leadership and to work together to come up
with a package of risk management tools that the government could
be involved in to encourage producers to get involved in what I
refer to as commercial risk management. There are other ways to
manage the risk out there as well that will help us build an
adaptable, productive and competitive industry.
All of us as individuals, all of us as ministers and all of us
as MPs and provincial members of legislatures want the best for
farmers. I want the best for Canadian farmers. We cannot afford
to divide ourselves if we are going to deliver to our producers.
As I said, I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts to
continue on that.
The moneys in this motion today are to go toward a number of
those things, programs such as the Canadian adaptation and rural
development fund, to make sure our industry is compliant. We
have contingency planning for the Y2K event that will be
happening not too many days ahead of us. There is money for the
Canadian biotechnology strategy and money for genomics based on
research and development. There is the implementation of a
component of the youth employment strategy and those types of
things. They are very important things that we need to do.
1025
I will continue to do whatever it takes with my colleagues here
in the House and with my fellow agriculture ministers across the
country, with industry itself and with our trading partners
around the world, to build an agriculture and agri-food industry
that is strong, stable and productive.
This has been a busy year again for all of us. It has not been
an easy year for industry. I am sure building on the
experiences and determination that we have, we will all continue
to do whatever it takes; my colleagues here in the House, the
ministers, the industry and our trading partners. I look forward
to continuing to meet and beat the challenges that we have before
us and to find opportunities, to make opportunities and take
advantage of those opportunities for everyone in the important
agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for recognizing the official opposition's
responsibility in the House to ask the first question.
The history of agriculture in Canada is written one page at a
time. The agriculture minister has been writing his pages
certainly since the start of his appointment to the ministry in
the House.
My question for the agriculture minister deals with his
administration of the agriculture department. He briefly
mentioned that he had responded to the drastic drop in income. In
the good administration of a minister's department, particularly
agriculture, why is the minister simply responding to requests as
opposed to administering the department and foreseeing that ad
hoc payments have not worked out over the past 100 years? Why
has he not been able to put in place long term programs over the
past two terms of this Liberal government?
My question relates to the $1.4 billion budget that he has to
work with and why an additional $63,196,279 has to be
appropriated in extra payments from taxpayers at this time.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
obviously does not understand how the system works. Before we
can get permission from Treasury Board to actually get the money,
we have to demonstrate what it will be used for.
At the beginning of a year when the budgeting is done, plans are
there and the money is there. However, before we can actually
draw it from the Treasury Board we have to go back with the
specific things that we will be using it for. We tell Treasury
Board what we expect to need, what our plans are and what our
budgets will be for the year.
It is not as simple as the Treasury Board just writing a
minister or a department a cheque and saying “Here is the $1.X
billion. Go away and do it”. There is a system of checks and
balances there.
If I recall, members of the official opposition have said a
number of times that they want to see that type of system. That
type of system is there. The reason we are here today and why we
are having these votes is to move those moneys from point A to
point B.
The hon. member talked about the government reacting to things
rather than being as proactive as he would like it to be. If we
go back to the previous election, the definition of proactivity
of members of the official opposition was to remove hundreds of
millions of dollars from the agriculture and agri-food budget in
Canada.
Thank goodness they did not get elected.
1030
We were proactive when nobody saw the expected downturn in the
industry coming to the extent that it did. As a government we
found the money, an extra $1.1 billion. It is quite a
difference, if we compare it to the opposition wanting to remove
over $600 million. The farmers of Canada are fortunate that it
is a Liberal government and not a Reform government.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the minister. The Reform Party wanted to
cut back even further.
My question is one that farmers are asking me on an almost daily
basis, and I ask it very sincerely. Why is there no more
assistance coming from the government?
The minister knows that the joint position in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan is supported by all three provincial political
parties: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, which is
the Saskatchewan party, and the Conservative Party. It is
supported by all farm organizations, chambers of commerce and
federations of labour. There is sort of a position of solidarity
in both provinces that they need an extra $1.3 billion for people
to survive.
I do not want to go over the arguments this morning. We all
know the argument that the trade war is driving down the price of
grain and people are at the point of suffering. I am sure the
minister is aware of that. In light of all the protests, in
light of all the representations, in light of the solidarity
among members of his own party, and in light of all the media
coverage, people are asking me why there has not been any action.
The Liberal Party ran an extremely high profile popular
candidate in the byelection in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Henry
Dayday who was mayor of the city of Saskatoon for 11 years and a
very good person. He obtained 15% of the votes, basically
because the issue became the farm crisis and the economic harm
that would result if there were no additional aid.
Farmers are asking why the message did not get through. We know
there is a surplus of approximately $10 billion coming next year,
or almost $100 billion over five years. People are aware of
that. Historically the minister is very conservative in his
estimates. It may even be more than that.
If this money were to come, farmers also know that a lot of it
would go back to the federal government because of the extra
stimulus in the economy and taxes. They are asking why this
message did not get through in terms of getting the extra $1.3
billion. I hope the minister understands what I am asking.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the
hon. member is asking, but I also understand that in the last few
years the province from which he comes has drastically cut back
its support to the agricultural industry. The federal government
did so too because of fiscal realities.
Because of what we did we are now able to put $1.1 billion back
in. We are now able to talk about a long term program based on
the experiences of that program, the needs, the realities of
today, and the everyday changing and rolling, if I could use that
term.
I remind the hon. member of the incredible difficulty we had as
a government to get the Government of Saskatchewan in particular
to come forward. We had to beg. We had to push. We had to
pull. I could use words stronger than those in order to get it to
to support that major industry in that province.
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between the federal
government and provincial governments. Shared usually means
50:50. In the safety net program over the last number of years
the federal government has paid 60%. I had to do a lot of
levering to get the hon. member's provincial government to come
forward with its 40%.
When we came forward with another change to the program to cover
negative margins, the province did not want to do it. It wants
to take some money and mail a cheque out to every farmer in
Saskatchewan. I understand there are farmers that the IDEA
program did not reach. We are trying to fix that in the future,
but in order to get money to farmers that need money that
provincial government wants to give money to those that do not.
1035
In the last 12 months the federal government has put in $1.1
billion. When we combine that with what we have finally
convinced the province of Saskatchewan to put in, it means that
$575 million more than what there was a year ago are going into
the hands of farmers of the province of Saskatchewan who are
hurting. Only the New Democratic Party would say that $575
million were insignificant.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for West Nova.
With respect to agriculture we are very pleased that it was the
Conservative Party that brought about this debate. Obviously the
minister has been forthright in his remarks today, but it is
increasingly clear every day that the federal government has not
clearly recognized the importance of agriculture in Canada. Due
to the urging of members of this party and others a standing
committee is currently travelling in an attempt to deal with this
crisis.
A crisis is the proper word. The government manages by crisis.
It waits until the wheels come off and then it reacts. It is not
like there has been any planning. The minister talked about long
term planning. It will be a long time and a cold day in this
place before we see long term planning coming from the
government.
With respect to that topic we now know that legislation is
coming that is meant to provoke the province of Quebec. Yes, the
little cat from Shawinigan is out of the bag. We now know that
the government plans to bring in legislation in very short order.
There will be a press conference later today in which the Prime
Minister will outline his attempt to poke Quebec in the eye once
again and try to get the country embroiled in a debate over
national unity.
We question the timing, the procedure, and the process that has
been followed. It has been demonstrated again. We just finished
a 40-plus hour debate over a similar issue, an issue that is
divisive, an issue where the government has failed to consult,
and an issue where the government deliberately ran roughshod and
used a process to beat the opposition and rest of the country
over the head to impose its will. We are about to embark on that
same process again. Later today in a press conference the Prime
Minister will outline his way to impose things upon the province
of Quebec in a referendum.
We have to question that. As members of the House we are
representatives of the people of Canada. It is our
responsibility to question the Prime Minister as to why he is
doing it and why he is continuing to demonstrate such a
provocative, aggressive approach toward one province of the
country. We have seen it. It is always Quebec that the
government and the Prime Minister single out in an attempt to
impose their will. We do not see leadership demonstrated in the
government. We see dictatorship. We do not see democracy. We
see autocracy. That is what the government stands for.
There has been very little insight from the Prime Minister. Time
and time again he has demonstrated that he does not understand
his home province. Again the process is being abused and used by
the government to impose its will.
Why are we dealing with the issue of agriculture today? A
supply day is traditionally and has always been a day on which
the opposition was allowed to choose its priorities. It is clear
that the opposition understands the priorities of the country a
lot better than the government.
I am of the mind that the Prime Minister gets up every morning
with no plan. It is whatever pops into his head that day. He
got up one day and decided to pick a fight with the premier of
Quebec and with the province of Quebec. Why? Maybe in the back
of his mind he thinks that this is a way to somehow rewrite
history, to correct the wrongs or correct the way he somehow
dropped the ball in the pass. He is trying to make Canadians
forget that he completely mismanaged this issue during 1995. He
has completely misunderstood Quebec from the very day he entered
public life.
There is very little faith not only in the province of Quebec
but in every province. I suspect the premiers will be extremely
upset when they come to understand what the Prime Minister is
doing.
1040
The premiers have not been consulted. The provinces have not
been consulted. God knows the opposition has not been consulted
at all on this issue. Why now? Why at this time when we have
seen in the province of Quebec the most sustained period of
stability that has existed for some time?
An hon. member: It is Christmas.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Perhaps it is that it is Christmas.
Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister is very good at
manipulating the rules. It is very clear to him that we will be
out of here some time in the next week. Of course that is at his
urging; he is the person who will control the agenda. Then
Quebeckers and the rest of the country will be left to stew in
their own juices over the holidays, to sit and wonder and wait to
see what the Prime Minister will do next.
This supply day is focused on agriculture. There will be
significant debate on the issue. My colleague for West Nova will
speak further on the Conservative position. Sadly the member for
Brandon—Souris cannot be in the House. He is travelling with
the agriculture committee and doing his good work on behalf of
his party, of Canadians, and of his home province of Manitoba.
We are faced with a very crucial issue in and of itself, the
issue of what the Prime Minister is up to. We read about it
through a leak. The government policy is to leak things through
the press rather than have any meaningful debate or interaction
with members of the opposition. We see this time and time again,
not only from the Prime Minister but from all ministers across
the way. They would rather leak something to the press gallery
than come in here to make a ministerial announcement, talk with
members of the opposition or go to committee.
Why are members of the opposition even in the House if they
cannot expect some kind of meaningful dialogue, some indication
that government members are listening? Members of the House have
been elected to put forward their beliefs on behalf of their
constituents. Yet the government completely forgets that and
abrogates its responsibility when it comes to having any kind of
dialogue with members of the House. We see it in committees when
ministers are simply too busy to appear before members of the
committees to speak about the government plan, and we are left
wondering what the point is.
With respect to Quebec we know that the plan is to be
provocative and reckless. The government will impose what it
thinks it should do as opposed to sitting down with Quebec and
discussing what should happen. Does it try to include the
commentary and thoughtful insights of the province of Quebec? No,
that is not the way the government approaches the situation. It
has not been and it probably never will be under this Prime
Minister.
The Liberal government has very skewed priorities. It knows
that its one driving or motivating force for being in government
is to remain in government. That is what the government is
about. It is not about identifying issues that are important to
Canadians. It is about how it stays in power.
Government members are like survivors of the Titanic
clinging to a lifeboat. That is the way they approach this
matter. They will do whatever they have to do to stay in power.
They are clinging to power by dividing the country. They have
taken a provocative approach that will pit members of one
province against those of other provinces. That is an easy thing
to do. It is always easy to find issues that divide the country.
The Prime Minister has demonstrated that time and time again.
It is very easy to keep the passions of people outside Quebec
enraged against those who live in Quebec. It is very easy to
leave Quebeckers with the impression that the rest of Canada does
not care about them, and that is not true. That is not the case.
There are people right across the country, francophones both
inside and outside Quebec, who want to make the country work.
We have to remind Quebeckers and Canadians of that time and time
again. Unity is something that can and will work in the country,
but the Prime Minister does not understand that. He would rather
pick a fight, get down on a very base level and try to impose his
will, his vision if he even has one, of how Quebec should exist
within the country. It is a sad day in the House when that
happens. It is a sad day every day that the government takes a
provocative and mean-spirited approach toward one province and
one people in the country.
That is not the position of the Conservative Party of Canada.
It never has been and never will be. We have a long and proud
record of what we have tried to do to keep the country together,
not in an appeasing way or in a way that is meant to give away
rights but in a way that is meant to respect, understand and at
least make meaningful and truthful gestures when it comes to
keeping the country united and people of the country working
toward a common goal.
1045
I realize my time is short and that we are somewhat off topic in
talking about agriculture, but it is too important an issue to
let it go by at this time. We have not seen the type of
leadership that one would expect from the Prime Minister who is
from Quebec. He has abrogated his own responsibility and
understanding toward his own home province in the move he has
made today.
I suspect that members of the government are surprised and taken
aback at the approach their leader, the Prime Minister, has
taken. There is very little unity in the government as opposed
to the unity in the country at this time, yet the Prime Minister,
I suggest, is prepared to stumble recklessly into this issue for
his own political gain.
When the press conference occurs today, Canadians should beware
and be ready for what the Prime Minister will say. It is not
going to be all wine and roses. That will be the approach he
takes. It will be an attempt to baffle Canadians with his
insights into Quebec. They should look a little deeper as to
what is behind this provocative move by the Prime Minister. It
is not an approach to heal; it is an approach that will harm the
unity of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague who has just spoken has condemned
the parliamentary scandal we are facing. It shows that we have
reached a total breakdown of the Canadian federal system.
I have a question for him.
Do the negative effects of this alarming power grab the Prime
Minister will be carrying out with the complicity of the Liberal
Party of Canada not indicate a disdain for democracy, a disdain
for parliament, a disdain for all the people of Quebec and of
Canada, for which he will pay the price politically? Will he
not go down in history as the Prime Minister of Canada who was
responsible for this failure of democracy?
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question and a very apt description.
We know that the Prime Minister has always been prepared to
manipulate the process, to use a provocative, powerful approach
when he has a majority government to beat other provinces over
the head. We know that other governments have been less likely
to do so.
What about the farmers? Why did they not make today an
agriculture day instead of sitting over there on their butts?
The province of Quebec is very concerned about why this is
happening now. Why is the Prime Minister creating an issue at
this time when there are other important issues brewing like
agriculture, the crisis in the fishery on the east coast and
problems right across the country? He is just creating an issue.
There is no reason whatsoever to be in this debate right now.
There is no reason. It is only because the Prime Minister once
again wants to create a problem.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member from Pictou—Antigonish has brought up the
fact that agriculture has a lot of problems today and something
has to be done. That is what we are here to debate. He also
brought up alienation, east versus west, Quebec versus the west,
all the different parts of the country fighting against each
other.
I have one question for the member. Back in the 1980s, Mr.
Brian Mulroney was the prime minister. Fifty percent of the
alienation in western Canada today is directly related to that
prime minister. Not only did he take the CF-18 contract away
from western Canada, from my own city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, but
he turned off the farmers. Where was the long term disaster
assistance program for farmers? Why was it not created during
the Mulroney years, the Progressive Conservative years, when they
had the biggest majority ever as the governing party?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, once again we see an
attitude from the Reform Party that is very much in line with the
current government. It singles out one region of the country and
pits it against another region.
We have seen the emperor's new clothes in the form of Mr.
Manning and Mr. Chrétien when it comes to this type of thing.
They want to take the divisive approach. They want to take the
approach that is very provocative.
1050
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
realize that you were engaged in a conversation, but you missed
something. The hon. member from the PC Party is blatantly
breaking House rules in debate by using members' names. I think
you should correct him on that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair accepts
the point made by the hon. member for Elk Island. I am sure that
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in no way would
want willingly to break the traditions and the customs of the
House.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
on a very timely and well delivered speech.
While many Canadians prepare to celebrate the holiday season,
many others are worried that any kind of celebration will be
short lived if they do not see any kind of financial assistance
soon from the federal government. I am referring to Canadian
farmers who in some instances have been suffering through the
most serious farm crisis since the Great Depression.
The sad fact is that the Liberal government fails to recognize
the severity of the situation throughout Canada's farming
communities. Since being elected in 1993 the Liberal government
has consistently ignored the plight of our farmers. From what
our farmers can see from the government's estimates, this neglect
is bound to continue.
Farm support since 1993 has been reduced by approximately $3
billion. We are talking about federal-provincial contributions
that once exceeded $7 billion which have been reduced to under $4
billion. This is a very significant decrease at a time when our
Canadian farmers are facing increased subsidized competition,
rising input costs and natural and economic disasters. Now our
federal government wants to add Canada's inadequate national
safety net program to their misery.
The government continuously preaches about the importance of our
agricultural industry, yet its inaction in a time of crisis
suggests a clear lack of commitment toward our Canadian farmers.
In response to the crisis in the agricultural industry the
government has introduced a farm aid package that has been
thoroughly criticized for being inadequate. Even members from
the minister's own governing party are lamenting about the
inadequacy of the government's AIDA program. This is the program
that was going to provide farmers with $1.1 billion in aid but
has thus far only delivered $300 million in much needed
assistance.
The minister has promised that all the money will be in the
hands of our farmers by Christmas. I would like to tell the
minister that Christmas is fast approaching, as is bankruptcy for
many farmers unless money arrives soon.
The government has designed a program that is a regulatory
nightmare. Many Canadian farmers who need the help the most are
falling through the cracks. The AIDA program was ill designed
and totally underfunded. Even provinces such as Ontario and
Saskatchewan are threatening to pull out of the federal safety
net program because they recognize that the government is not
truly committed to helping our Canadian farmers.
On November 22 I read a very disturbing article in one of Nova
Scotia's daily newspapers, the Halifax Herald. The article
was entitled “Quebec farm suicides lead country”. Any suicide
is tragic but to have specific numbers for our farming community
simply magnifies the crisis situation our Canadian farmers are
facing each day due to mounting debt. I recognize that this
Queen's University data is somewhat dated, however it does
magnify the tragedy our farmers are facing due to the extreme
financial pressure often associated with the agricultural
industry.
Agriculture is one of Canada's top five industries. However by
the actions of the federal government we would think that this
important industry is of very little benefit to Canada's overall
economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1998
alone, our agriculture and agri-food industries contributed over
$90 billion to our overall economy.
That is equivalent to 8.6% of Canada's gross domestic product.
Our overall agri-food exports exceed $22 billion and are
responsible for 30% of Canada's total trade surplus. These are
impressive figures, however behind these impressive figures lies
much anxiety and heartache.
1055
Perhaps blinded by some of these impressive numbers, our federal
government appears incognizant of the growing threat to our
agricultural industry. Each and every day Canada is facing the
loss of another farmer. We are losing these farmers because the
government has failed to come up with any long term solution to
the problems facing this vital industry.
In Nova Scotia alone, well over 1,000 farms have disappeared
since 1981. That is an average of 69 unreplaced farm closures
across the province every year. Nova Scotia's youth increasingly
choose other careers rather than farming because they sense that
there is no future for them in this industry. They recognize
that their federal government will not be there to help them in a
time of crisis such as we are witnessing today.
Nova Scotia's farming industry is increasingly in danger of
eventually becoming irrelevant. This would be a tremendous blow
to an area that has prided itself on its agricultural prowess
since as far back as the beginning of the 17th century when the
first European settlers arrived in the Annapolis Valley. What is
particularly frightening in Nova Scotia is the fact that 42% of
our farm operators in 1996 were over the age of 55. The average
age of farmers in Nova Scotia is 52.2 years. Our farmers are
slowly getting older and there is no indication that our youth
will be willing to carry the torch in any significant manner come
the new millennium.
The government should be encouraging our youth to embark on a
career in agriculture. Yet by the proposed estimates the
government has introduced concerning agriculture, any future
young farmers and I see that the government has very little
interest in encouraging our farming tradition that spans back
centuries.
Already we see a considerable number of our farmers being forced
to rely on outside employment to subsidize their farming income.
Because they are forced to pursue other employment opportunities
to survive, many of them fail to qualify for government tax
incentives that would offer them some relief on an already
enormous debt load.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party recognize that we
can ill afford to lose any more of our farmers. With less than
7% of our land being currently used for agriculture, Canadians
are becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign imports.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I request the
forbearance of the member for West Nova. We are getting very
close to the time for Statements by Members. If we interrupt
now, the member for West Nova will have three minutes to conclude
his thoughts before questions and comments after Oral Question
Period and Routine Proceedings.
The House will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CONESTOGA COLLEGE
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Conestoga College, the number one rated community
college in Ontario and the city of Waterloo this week announced
that they are in negotiations to build a new college campus on
city owned land in northeastern Waterloo.
The partnership between the college and the city will offer
students access to athletic and recreation facilities,
opportunities for specialized educational programs, co-operative
education placement opportunities and shared parking.
This partnership will strengthen Waterloo's reputation as a
centre of excellence for higher education. It will provide a
complementary educational facility for the high tech business
community and a new upgraded nursing school. It will also serve
as a potential site for a branch library, employment
opportunities and economic spin-offs from housing and spending by
2,000 new students.
This is great news for my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, Ontario
and Canada.
I congratulate the city of Waterloo and Conestoga College for a
new exciting educational project for the new millennium.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday of this week the agriculture committee was in my riding
of Prince Albert. Requests for the agriculture committee to hold
more hearings in January were refused and motions for the
committee to hear more primary producers were refused.
The agriculture committee had no problem hearing from the same
lobby groups twice, once in Ottawa and again in my city of Prince
Albert. Then the committee went on to listen to only eight
farmers, giving them each less than 10 minutes.
1100
The official opposition has sent its own committee to hear
farmers even during January. It will be this party's committee
that will be hearing from farmers long after the Liberals have
packed up and gone home.
It was evident this week both in this House and out in committee
that the government is not interested in the problems of the
people nor in the will of the people.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently visited
Vancouver, British Columbia. I had the opportunity to organize
an informal round table with 30 community leaders to meet with
her. This forum gave my constituents and British Columbians an
opportunity to raise issues and concerns to the minister that are
important for the entire community and Canada.
I would like to thank the minister for lending her time to these
important community discussions in Vancouver. We can now
incorporate some of the citizens' ideas to the planning of new
policy.
* * *
OAK RIDGES MORAINE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
member of parliament for Oak Ridges, I would like to take this
opportunity before the House rises to thank several people for
their interest in my riding's namesake, the Oak Ridges moraine.
It is a 160 kilometre stretch of rolling hills that acts as a
giant sponge. It absorbs, filters and releases water and acts as
the headwaters for over 30 rivers. It is the home to wildlife
and rare species of plants and is a treasure in the greater
Toronto area.
At the same time, it is under severe development pressures,
which can see a great portion of the moraine paved over with
little idea of the effect it would have.
So a big thank you to my colleagues in the GTA, in particular
the member for Davenport for his statement and the member for
Victoria, the Minister of the Environment, all those who attended
the clean water summit of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust which
focused on the moraine, the Geological Survey of Canada, and
especially all the members of grassroots organizations who have
given a great amount of time and energy to make sure that we
recognize the importance of the Oak Ridges moraine.
* * *
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Environment Canada reports that the amount of industrial
hazardous waste, including cancer-causing chemicals, being dumped
into Ontario's sewers is increasing. It is now five times
greater than all the other provinces and territories combined.
The latest figures also indicate that the amount of industrial
pollution that went directly into air, water and landfill sites
in Ontario increased to 63,000 tonnes in 1997.
The Government of Ontario says that these figures reflect better
reporting by company officials. Surely the citizens of Ontario
deserve a provincial government whose aim is to reduce the toxic
product rather than just reflect on the reporting process.
* * *
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
November over 1,000 Canadians gathered on Parliament Hill to
voice concern for their legislated loss of equal rights in
Quebec.
Together, they brought a petition of over 16,000 persons asking
our government to affirm that all Canadians are equal under all
circumstances and without exception in the province of Quebec and
throughout Canada. They wished to remind Canada's government to
only enact legislation that would affirm the equality of every
individual under the laws of Canada.
Today in Canada, we see equality once again being legislatively
degraded in the Nisga'a treaty. Equality in Canada is paramount
to our freedoms. Special status for some over others is
regressive. We must stand up together to reaffirm equal rights
for all. We must not enact legislated segregation for any group
in Canada. Equality—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very historic week in parliament where Tuesday
became Wednesday and Wednesday became Thursday. Now here we are
on Friday and I am glad to see the table has changed.
Voting took place in here for some 43 hours. People talked
about a waste of time and money, but I want to talk about the
thanks that should be given to the staff, in particular to the
pages, the clerks, the bus drivers, the security, the table
officers, the Hansard staff, the sound and TV people, and
in particular the cleaning staff who made such a fabulous job of
cleaning up after our sitting for some 43 hours and voting.
Let us take the time to thank the people who support us here and
my thanks on behalf of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations has proclaimed December 10 Human Rights Day.
In honour of this, the international centre for human rights and
democratic development is today awarding the 1999 John Humphrey
freedom award to two Burmese activists. Cynthia Maung is a
doctor who treats Burmese refugees in Thailand and Min Ko Naing
is a student leader imprisoned for his activities.
On behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I congratulate the two
recipients and encourage them to carry on the fight to reinstate
human rights in Burma.
The imprisonment of 150 Burmese democratically elected
representatives since 1998 speaks very clearly of the state of
human rights in that country.
There is a long way to go before a stop is put to the repression
and political coercion visited on the people of this planet.
This Human Rights Day gives us the opportunity to renew our firm
commitment to ensuring equality for all and the right to
freedom.
* * *
[English]
FARMING INDUSTRY
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday I had the opportunity to meet with a group of farmers in
the lovely town of Melita, Manitoba. This town, in the southwest
corner of the province of Manitoba, is located in the centre of
the area that bore the brunt of last year's high water.
The farmers I met with were representative of the area's best.
Smart and industrious, these farmers are successful in a very
difficult industry. The product of their labour contributes
strongly to Canada's exports and is the foundation upon which a
number of other industries run.
This year they have suffered two blows. The flooding of
international markets with low priced goods has reduced their
returns from their labour. The flooding of their land has made
it impossible to plant much of the available acreage. They made
the point to me that farming is a very difficult business subject
to the vagaries of weather, disease, insects, drought one year,
flood the next. These are the norms of the industry and they
accept that. They know that there will be good years and bad
years.
Now, however, a new blight has emerged, one which they cannot
fight alone and one which will overwhelm them if we do not offer
some support. The blight is the subsidies that are given to
farmers in the U.S. and Europe. Eighty percent of our farmers
sell their goods in international markets and these subsidies
cause—
The Speaker: The member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the environment minister stated that his
government could pay millions of dollars in compensation as part
of its plan for protecting endangered species. So far he has
been extremely evasive about specifying the formula for
compensation based on fair market value and lost investment
revenue. The minister has only stated that he is determined to
protect vulnerable habitat, whether it is on federal, provincial
or privately owned land.
Landowners are watching the minister closely to see if he is
just as committed to protecting their fundamental freedoms to
enjoy private property as he is to protecting endangered species.
I have heard from hundreds of landowners who believe that they,
not big government bureaucracies, are the ones who can best
protect endangered species. Canadians will be watching closely
to see if the minister will rise to the challenge of committing
the task of protecting endangered species to the people who are
best prepared to do it, private property owners.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIE WAKID
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 2, 1979, Marie Wakid assumed the position of riding
assistant in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier. Having excelled in
her work for over 20 years and celebrating her 65th birthday
today, she has decided to retire.
For over 20 plus years, she has served the people of
Ottawa—Vanier in exemplary fashion. She began her work
alongside my predecessor, Jean-Robert Gauthier, and continued it
with me. I have defended the interests of the people of this
region and will continue to defend them.
It saddens me greatly to see Marie leave us today, and we want
to use this day to wish her a happy retirement.
It is probably a record to work in a riding office for over 20
years.
It is on behalf of thousands and thousands of individuals and
families she has helped in Ottawa—Vanier that I want to thank
her.
Thank you very much, Marie. May your retirement be a
happy one.
* * *
[English]
ELIAN GONZALEZ
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a six year old Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, who survived
the sinking of a boat illegally transporting him from Cuba to
Florida, is now being held in the U.S. in blatant violation of
both humanity and international law.
The boy's father and grandparents, all in Cuba, naturally seek
his immediate return. New Democrats join this young boy's family
and the Government of Cuba in demanding that the U.S. immediately
return the boy to his family and apologize for this serious
breach of international law.
1110
As Cuban foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque recently stated:
Arbitrarily holding the boy in the territory of the United States
of America qualifies as an abduction...and a true escalation in
the stubborn and failed anti-Cuban policy rejected by the
international community and detrimental to the best interest of
the American and Cuban peoples.
This boy's case is clearly being manipulated for political
purposes, and I call today on our foreign minister to strongly
condemn the U.S. actions and demand the return of young Gonzalez
to his family in Cuba.
Today, on on International Human Rights Day, let us reaffirm the
fundamental human rights of all people, including the Cuban
people.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today Canada marks Human Rights Day. Last year we celebrated the
50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. This day is
extremely significant and I would like to highlight women and
human rights.
This past week we took time to remember the 14 women who lost
their lives 10 years ago because of violence. It was a senseless
act based on hate. Through the promotion of human rights we
strive to enshrine equality between men and women.
Canada has been an international leader in this area. We are
strong supporters of human rights at the United Nations. We have
committed to the UN Commission for the Status of Women, the UN
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the
1995 Beijing Platform.
At Beijing, Canada's delegation lobbied to ensure that the
platform would call for an accelerated process toward equality
between men and women globally.
However, there is a still a great deal we need to do. Pay
equity was just the beginning. It was not the end. Gender
analysis must become a commonly used tool by this government in
order to achieve—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when the Prime Minister decides it is time to put Quebec in its
place, to deny the existence of the Quebec people and attack
them just to make himself look good, there is no commitment, no
fair play, no rules that hold any more.
The Prime Minister does his deeds at night, behind closed doors,
running roughshod over the public and its democratically elected
representatives.
Speaking about Fidel Castro and his regime, the Prime Minister
did not hesitate to say “He does not have much opposition. I
would love to be in the same position”.
The Prime Minister's past and present actions clearly
demonstrate that he meant what he said. The important thing for
him is to have his own views prevail at all times. Anyone
holding a different view has no choice but to shut up.
This is a sad day for democracy.
* * *
[English]
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to congratulate the 207 students
of St. Francis Xavier University who will receive their degrees
on Saturday at fall convocation. I would also like to
congratulate this year's senior class who received their
cherished X-rings as part of the St. FX day festivities on
December 3.
The famous X-ring has been in existence since 1942, and the
ceremony has been the crowning achievement of a Xavarian's
university career since 1958. This year close to 800 students
received their rings. As the ring stands out, so too do St. FX
grads in fields of science, business and education circles. Yes,
St. FX has been known for having produced some of the most
prominent politicians in the 20th century.
In special recognition, I extend congratulations to the 46
graduating students of the Coady International Institute.
Celebrating its 40th anniversary, the Coady Institute is renowned
for educating social action and economic co-operation to
community leaders around the world.
St. FX continues to be a worldclass university and I
congratulate this year's graduates. You are truly excellent.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday evening, more than 3,000 Franco-Ontarians from the
national capital region gathered at the Cité collégiale to
celebrate the legal victory of Ottawa's Montfort Hospital.
The Ontario divisional court recently ruled that the Montfort
Hospital, the only French language teaching hospital in the
province, is necessary to serve the francophone community, which
knows how to stand up for its rights and survive.
Bravo.
* * *
[English]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Transport is playing hardball with
B.C. stakeholders in its abandoning of any interest in
maintaining remote west coast docks and wharves. Stakeholders
are complaining.
The department has been playing hardball with my office as well.
I submitted an access to information request in April for DOT
strategy and plans to devolve over 50 west coast dock facilities.
1115
In June I was told the response was ready and only needed
editing. In August, when it was clear that no progress had been
made, I complained to the access commissioner, who shares my
concern. Now it has been eight months, and still no response.
Access to information legislation designed to bring transparency
to government is being subverted.
How can I represent west coast interests if I am hampered by
departmental arrogance?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we understand that the Prime Minister has completed
legislation setting out the government's guidelines on secession
referenda.
We have advocated this type of legislation for a long time and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning: Check the records.
It is crucial, however, that any such legislation actually bring
clarity, including a clear definition of what constitutes an
acceptable question and what constitutes a clear majority.
Will the Prime Minister now tell the House how his proposed
legislation defines each of these?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we could have unanimous consent we could propose the
bill right away so that I would be at liberty to reply to all
these questions. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have debated
that for a long time. There is a judgment of the supreme court.
The legislation that will be made public today reflects the
request of the Supreme Court of Canada to make sure that
political partners state clearly their positions in a civilized
society.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are still seeking clarity.
Canada will win any future referendum if Quebecers are presented
with clear choices: the choice between an isolated Quebec state
or a strong vibrant province within a renewed federation; the
choice between building a strong future together on the basis of
equality or embarking down separate paths on the basis of
differences.
Surely the government has a responsibility to ensure that the
choices are clear and that the consequences are clear.
I ask the Prime Minister, how does this proposed legislation
clarify these choices and those consequences?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said publicly many times that the question has to
be clear and the result has to be clear. The question has to be
on the idea that Quebec will not be a province of Canada. We
want to clarify that so that people know exactly what they
are doing and what they will achieve when they vote. We want the
people to know exactly what is the plan of the provincial
government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, defining the rules of any future Quebec referendum in
clear, indisputable terms is only half the battle. It is
crucial, but it is only half the battle. Equally important is
how the government proposes to modernize the federation to offer
Quebecers and other Canadians an alternative to either status quo
federalism or separation. They need a third way. For the
Canadian federation to thrive in the 21st century, federalism
itself needs to be modernized.
Will the Prime Minister include with his referendum legislation
a list of the positive reforms that he proposes to modernize the
federation for the 21st century?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a policy on modernization that is one step at a
time. That is why we voted in the House of Commons in December
1995 to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. That is why we
have given a veto on constitutional amendments to the provinces
of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. That is why the federal
government gave manpower training to the provincial governments
some time ago.
That is why we are no longer in tourism and forestry, as we were
before. We are modernizing.
1120
The best way to convince the people of Quebec that Canada is a
good country is to have good government, and that is exactly what
we have done in the last six years.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since 1994, we have
been asking this government to be clear on the question of
secession and the question of majority. The government must
also be clear about the problems of secession.
Why can the Prime Minister not answer these three questions
clearly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously nobody is against clarity, and we Quebecers
will never lose Canada in confusion, nor we will lose it in
clarity, because we want to keep it. That is what the bill is
all about.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the rules of
secession are very important. They must be clear. It is also
important that the Canadian federation be renewed so that no
province wishes to leave.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee us that his referendum plan
will include a plan for renewing the federation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are constantly renewing the federation.
There must, however, be agreement on one thing: there can be
different ideas of how Canada can be improved, whether they are
proposed by reformers, social democrats, progressive
conservatives or liberals.
But we must all admit that nothing, and I mean nothing, in this
Canada justifies separation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
now clear that the purpose of the bill the government is
preparing to introduce is to thwart the people of Quebec and
their legitimate aspirations.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention, and
the intention of his government, to impose trusteeship on the
Quebec national assembly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill states clearly that the national assembly may hold a
referendum under the conditions it wishes to have. The bill
dictates only what the Parliament of Canada will do if there is
a referendum. It can hold a referendum on whatever it wants.
What I want and what I wish for is the
Government of Quebec to respect the wishes of the people of
Quebec who do not want a referendum. If Mr. Bouchard had
accepted the offer I made him two weeks ago, we would not be
obliged to introduce a bill to clarify the conditions if there
is a referendum, so that parliament may act.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Prime Minister not understand that, unlike his 1982 bill
which had the support of 73 submissive federal MPs from Quebec,
this time he is going to run into 44 Bloc Quebecois MPs
determined to prevent a power grab from happening in Quebec for
the second time in 20 years?
Does the Prime Minister realize that if his government gets his
bill passed, it will be going against the National Assembly of
Quebec and by far the majority of the members representing
Quebec in this House? It will get no legitimacy from Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
1125
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all we are trying to do is to gain respect for the wishes of the
citizens of Quebec who do not want separation, who do not want a
referendum, who want parliamentarians both in Quebec and here to
focus on other problems.
We are going to pass this legislation as quickly as possible,
but, regrettably, it is the Parti Quebecois that wants a
referendum. We do not want a referendum, we want to work to
improve the situation of all the citizens of Quebec, as we want
to improve the situation of all the people of Canada.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
could the federal government be considering Quebec's partition,
as it would be a crime against history? Quebec will leave Canada
in the same way that Newfoundland joined it, as a whole.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
realize that his place in history will be tarnished by what he
is about to do?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the village where I was born, people used to say—
An hon. member: Poor village.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, in Shawinigan Bay. They used to
say that insults are the weapon of the weak.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
is another old saying, that the truth sometimes hurts, such as
the truth about Canada's history, which is full of attacks on
Quebec.
In 1867, they refused to hold a referendum. In 1942, they
imposed a plebiscite. In 1982, they unilaterally patriated the
Constitution. In 1990, they gave the kiss of death to Meech in
Calgary. Now, in 1999 they are drafting referendum legislation.
Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada's survival and
existence rests on nothing but a series of underhanded measures
against Quebec?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the truth hurts, indeed. But the truth is that, today,
the hon. member is saying things that are unworthy of him and
must really make him feel very uncomfortable.
When he was a university professor, the hon. member testified
before the Bélanger Commission and said:
As for the right to secede, Quebec cannot claim that aboriginal
people did not also have the right to secede. The same rules
apply to aboriginal people and to the people of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance told Canadians that he would consider an
ethical screen for CPP investments. Without an ethical screen
our pension funds will wind up in the hands big tobacco.
1130
At the same time as the government claims to be fighting teen
tobacco addiction it compels us by law to support big tobacco.
Why is the financial minister allowing the use of our CPP funds
to promote smoking by our kids?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that question is simply nonsense. The fact is that when
the CPP was set up all provincial finance ministers agreed with
the federal government that it should invest in the indexes.
Having had the experience and seeing the quality of the
administration, all provincial finance ministers along with the
federal government have decided that 50% of its funds could well
be invested in equities providing a greater return and in fact
supporting Canadian endeavours.
That is what is happening. There is no support of big tobacco.
The government has made very clear that smoking is wrong, that
smoking creates tremendous health problems and that the
government is prepared to—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
consistency has never been part of the Liberal vocabulary. That
is for sure. On the one hand government claims that it wants to
prevent our kids from smoking. On the other hand government does
not rule out investing their parents' money in big tobacco.
To be consistent and to prevent our kids from smoking, will the
finance minister recommit today to promoting an ethical screen on
our CPP investments?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are prepared to discuss the possibility of having
those kinds of limitations, but we do not in any way, shape or
form want to interfere with the independence of those who will be
making investments on behalf of Canadian pensioners. That is
very important.
As far as the issue of smoking is concerned, we have made it
very clear as a government that we will take whatever measures
are required in terms of education and in terms of demonstrating
to young Canadians that they should not smoke.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's unilateral provocative
legislative action against Quebec, my question is for the man who
desperately wants to succeed him.
Does the Minister of Finance enthusiastically support the most
recent legislative action against Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this law is not against Quebec. This law is in favour
of giving people of Quebec the right to make their own decisions.
This law is in favour of the people of Quebec and I support this
law unequivocally.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, does the
President of the Treasury Board intend to leave the government
after what the Prime Minister has done to Quebec?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me tell you how disappointed I am at the Conservative Party's
talk of action against Quebec.
Never will we do anything against Quebec, but never again will
we permit the confusion we faced in 1995, and I would hope that
the Conservative members support clarity as well.
* * *
1135
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Air Canada and
Canadian Airlines will create one dominant carrier that controls
80% of the airline business in Canada.
The transport committee provided the government with a number of
recommendations that strike a balance between protecting the
public interest and fostering healthy competition. Now is the
time for the government to show that it is truly committed to
competition in the airline industry in Canada.
Will the minister indicate to the airline industry and the
travelling public that he wants competition in the airline
industry in Canada by immediately raising the foreign ownership
component from 25% to 49%?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member; especially the hon. member
for Hamilton West, the chairman of the Commons committee; and all
those who took part in this debate. They did an outstanding job
and they have produced a report that will have a definite effect
on government policy.
I have said many times before that we believe in competition. We
want to make sure the rights of consumers and prices are dealt
with and that we guarantee to the travelling public in Canada
that this new carrier will work to our benefit.
* * *
AIRPORTS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government downloaded all its money losing
airports to local governments in 1994, it removed the onsite
airport firefighting requirement.
Now that local governments have their airports operating cost
effectively, the government wants to reintroduce onsite
firefighting requirements. This move will force most small
airport operations into a deficit.
Recent studies indicate that the benefits from these services
are marginally sufficient to justify their costs at the 28
busiest national airports.
Why is the government proposing to reintroduce this requirement
for 123 local airports when its own studies indicate that they
are of marginal benefit for the 28 national busiest airports in
the country?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that this matter came to
the fore in the aftermath of the very tragic accident in
Fredericton when we started to assess all of the emergency
response measures across the country including firefighting
regulations.
It is true that we have to strike a balance between providing
adequate protection and the ability of the local airports,
especially in small towns, to pay for that. As a result there
have been consultations within the industry, with the airport
community and with firefighters to ensure that we come up with a
regulation that does not hamstring those communities and does not
mean that they do not have the ability to pay for these very
valuable services.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and
the Prime Minister, this is marvellous legislation for Quebec.
That being the case, how does the government explain to us and
those listening that there was no agreement between the
parliamentary leaders as is normally the case, that everything
was kept secret, and that the government position changed
overnight? This morning we have a surprise tabling. The bill
was put together overnight.
If it is a good bill, why is the procedure so different from
what is usually done? Why is this taking place behind the
curtains, in the shadows, under cover of night?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to discuss this
matter with the member a bit earlier today.
He knows very well that I called a meeting of the leaders of all
parties a bit earlier this morning—there was a leak, which was
certainly not the doing of the government; as a matter of fact,
we had nothing to gain from it—for the purpose of informing the
member.
He also knows very well that, for the last three days, in terms
of parliamentary procedure, parliament has not sat, with the
result that there was not even an opportunity to give notice
that this bill was being officially introduced.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is proper
procedure. I want to remind the government House leader that,
up until yesterday evening, his office was confirming to mine
that there was no question of a bill like this.
That was the government's position at 7 p.m. yesterday evening.
At 7 a.m. this morning, Quebec is betrayed. That is what has
happened.
1140
The Speaker: Order, please.
Things are apparently going to be very emotional today. I would
ask all members on both sides of the House not to use words like
“betray”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon.
member opposite, as he very well knows.
I already told him a bit earlier today that it was impossible to
give notice earlier this week. I told him this a bit earlier,
and he knows it perfectly well. I had wanted to give notice
that would have allowed the bill to be formally introduced.
No notice was given until this morning. This morning it became
possible. I signed the notice roughly 30 minutes ago. In
fact, it was stamped at 11.10 a.m. and gives official
notice that the bill will be formally introduced next week.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting that the finance minister
believes his government has done all that it can to stop smoking.
The health minister is under the same delusion. In an article
he wrote yesterday he believes that his government is in favour
of health promotion. The facts are that on this government's
watch a quarter of a million children have picked up smoking. It
has reversed a 15 year trend of decline in smoking.
How can the government and its ministers say they are promoting
health when through their actions smoking by children has
increased over the last five years?
An hon. member: There is nobody home.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government
has been dedicated to trying to stop smoking. We have increased
the taxes on cigarettes four times in collaboration with the
provinces.
The Reform Party should come clean with us. We know that the
member opposite has called for massive increases in cigarette
taxes and is oblivious to smuggling issues. If that is the case,
does his party agree with him? Why is it criticizing our
cigarette tax increases on its website?
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, somebody will be home for this question.
B.C. municipal governments and others are complaining about
Department of Transport strong arm negotiating tactics and
threats of demolition in attempts to transfer over 50 west coast
docks.
For example, the dock at Ahousat is in great shape for at least
another 10 years. It is the only large boat dock in the area. It
is an essential port in a storm with a replacement value of
$300,000. Why is the department planning to spend $130,000 to
demolish it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with great respect this is really an order paper
question. I will certainly get the detailed answer to the hon.
member at the earliest convenience to him.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister keeps referring to the need for a clear
question to justify the federal government's involvement in the
Quebec referendum process, while he likes to conduct his
business in a murky and secretive way, as he did in 1982.
To make a judgment on the clarity of the question involves
determining whether that question will be understood by those
who will vote on it. It is a judgment of a cultural nature.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What makes the federal
parliament better able to assess the clarity of the question
than the Quebec national assembly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the national assembly may ask any question it wants. We are
simply saying that once the question will be put the
Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons will see if it
complies with the supreme court ruling. It is as simple as that.
1145
We want a clear question and a clear result. These conditions
were imposed on us by the supreme court and we want to comply
with the court's ruling. I hope the Bloc Quebecois will do the
same.
We are simply respecting the supreme court ruling.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the question really is: Why should people in Moose Jaw,
Whitehorse, Toronto and Vancouver be better able to assess the
clarity of the question than people in Jonquière, Trois-Rivières,
Gaspé or Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
right now, people in Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi and so on do not
want the Parti Quebecois to hold a new referendum. They want to
deal with the real issues.
At any rate, when the day comes to make a decision on breaking
up a country called Canada, it is clear that all the citizens of
that country will have an interest in keeping it together.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
middle income employed wage slaves are being crushed by their tax
burden. These middle income people have worked for 20 or 30
years and they just cannot seem to get ahead because half of
their earnings are taken from them month after month, year after
year. They just keep getting more and more abuse at the hands of
the tax man.
Will the finance minister give some hope to these taxpayers by
committing substantial broad based tax relief that will actually
bring their tax load down?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Reform Party is sincere in its desire to help
middle income taxpayers, why is it that despite the fact that the
government has cut taxes in each of the last two budgets, the
Reform Party's official position is that there be no tax cuts
prior to the year 2000?
I simply ask the hon. member, why does he stand up in the House
and give a position that bears no relationship to his party's
official policy?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister ask
so many questions? He is supposed to answer them.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the hon. member is correct.
The questions are over here and the answers are on the other
side. I would hope that we would listen both to the question and
to the answer.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the federal fisheries minister threatened to
get tough on municipalities that are pumping raw sewage into
their harbours. These cities include Victoria, a city that
happens to be in the environment minister's riding. The
environment minister disagrees with the fisheries minister and
has said openly that this is not an environmental concern at all.
Which minister is playing politics with the environment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, although he comes from Alberta, the hon. member
should know that in the oceans there is the possibility of
allowing the natural effect of heavily oxygenated sea water to
treat sewage. Within 1.4 metres of the outfall pipe there is no
toxicity and within 400 metres there is no visible sign
whatsoever.
We have to recognize that if the member's party wants to spend
an extra $400 to $600 million in one Canadian city for something
that has no environmental advantage, go ahead and propose it. We
see nothing in this House but increased expenditure by the
opposition and no suggestion that we should do things
intelligently.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): What irony, Mr. Speaker.
The government chooses, as the day for its power grab, the
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
states the following in article 21(3): “The will of the people
shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage—”.
How can the Prime Minister justify internationally that his vote
holds more weight than mine?
1150
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest to the hon. member that she never
let the UN see the 1980 and 1995 questions. It would be amazed
by them.
Unclear questions cannot be used to break up a country. In
Canada, Quebecers are entitled to be Canadians every bit as much
as the people of Ontario, British Columbia, the eastern
provinces, the Prairies and the North. We are Canadians, and
Canada must not be lost through confusion.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In view of the fact that it would be very much in Canada's
interests to ratify the United Nations convention on the law of
the sea, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicate when the
Government of Canada will ratify the law of the sea now that 143
other nations have already done so?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know how deeply involved the hon. member has been
in this particular subject. I can report to him that we do
intend to ratify the law of the sea convention. The only question
that remains is that we must complete the ratification of the
straddling stocks agreement to fill in the gap of fish management
on the high seas. Once that has been done, Canada will ratify
it.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the chairman of the agriculture committee is telling
flooded farmers that while it is late in the day, they should not
give up trying to have southwest Manitoba and southeast
Saskatchewan declared a natural disaster area. The government has
waffled on declaring this a natural disaster area for seven
months. His own caucus members are saying that help may still
come.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will he
declare the flooded region a natural disaster area, yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are very clear criteria for the
declaration. First, I have to have a request from the provinces
to do so and it has to meet the criteria. The criteria are
established by federal and provincial agreements. The federal
government wants to be just as co-operative as it possibly can be
in dealing with disaster financial assistance.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the spin doctors have prepared notes for the foreign minister to
try and counter the claims of a whistleblower who uncovered
billions of dollars of worthless overspending by our diplomats
all over the world.
Will the minister read those lines prepared for him to explain
the breach of treasury board spending limits on properties
purchased abroad by our diplomats? Or will he admit that the
whistleblower was right and ensure that treasury board guidelines
are being respected by his officials?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in deciding on property matters it is a complex
problem. We have to take into account particularly in today's
world, security problems, safety problems and environmental
problems.
We attempt to make the best efforts under treasury board
guidelines to ensure safe and adequate residences for our
overseas diplomats. We serve two million Canadians a year
overseas and they receive very good service. I think our
diplomats deserve to have proper facilities.
* * *
1155
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Members will recall that in 1995 under pressure from the Reform
Party the Minister of Finance slashed funding for social programs
to the point where these programs are now seriously underfunded.
Some 20% of our children now live in poverty.
Will the minister listen to the people and restore funding for
health and education, or is he still intimidated by the Leader of
the Opposition on this question?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would take a lot more than that.
The Government of Canada has acted in much the same way that
previous governments in Saskatchewan have acted. It was Tommy
Douglas who said that no government should ever allow itself to
be put in the hands of its bondholders because if it is, it does
not have the ability to make the kinds of decisions that we have
made. For instance, last year the government put $11.5 billion
back into the health care system. There was the Canadian
opportunities strategy in the 1998 budget and the child tax
benefit.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to invest in
the future of Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I remind the Minister of Finance that Tommy Douglas never got out
of health care. Tommy Douglas founded health care in this
country. We now have the money to do some of these things.
I want to ask the minister a supplementary question about
agriculture. The Europeans are now funding their farmers. The
Americans are funding their farmers. Saskatchewan and Manitoba
farmers and all the parties in these provinces supported by the
chamber of commerce and trade movement have asked for an extra
$1.3 billion. The farmers want to know why the Minister of
Finance has not listened.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not there will
be an additional $1.3 billion coming to the farmers of those two
provinces?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the
government have already put $1.1 billion into assistance for
farmers in the last year.
The government continues to look at many different ways in which
to assist the producers. We will continue to do that. We know
how important the producers are to this country and what their
needs are.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
clarifying the September 17 ruling in the Marshall case, the
supreme court said that the native fishing rights were limited to
the area traditionally used by the local community. That being
the case, why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give LFA
33 lobster licences to fishers from Indian Brook?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the issue of licences for lobster fishermen in the
area in question is a tricky one. These licences are worth a
great deal of income and money. We are attempting to work out a
system whereby fairness prevails. Inevitably in such a system we
want to have a full discussion with the lobster fishermen
themselves. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I believe
that this process is working effectively. However, we have to
accept that in a situation such as this, we cannot satisfy every
player.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the supreme
court ruling clearly restricts the mobility of natives from
moving from one fishing area to the other. I ask again, why did
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give Indian Brook natives a
lobster licence in LFA 33?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member clearly is unaware that with the
surprising decision of the Marshall case where there is indeed a
need to accommodate a large number of people who previously were
not taking part in the lobster fishery, adjustments will have to
be made along the line. We cannot simply say that we can change
that and leave everything else the same. Clearly under those
circumstances there would not be enough of the resource for the
fishermen involved. Alternatively, we would simply run the
resource into extinction which would be the worst possible thing
we could do.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
homelessness is a very serious problem. Even in the shadow of
our parliament many people still live in poverty and without
shelter.
I ask the housing minister, the minister responsible for
homelessness and the government what is being done in order to
ease the problem of those who are living in poverty and those who
do not have a shelter to go to every night?
1200
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last year
over $2.5 in RRAP funding has been approved to help set up
projects for the homeless in the hon. member's area of Ottawa.
This week I announced that over $674,000 in financial
assistance will be allocated to Ottawa's Shepherds of Good Hope.
This fund will help create 47 units and repair the existing
shelters for the homeless. We will continue to do more.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
TABLING OF DRAFT BILL
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am tabling a draft
bill entitled an act to give effect to the requirement of
clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada
in the Quebec secession reference.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
* * *
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 four
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance,
entitled “Budget 2000 New Era—New Plan”. It is the result of
continuing conversations with thousands of Canadians, a national
dialogue that has helped us understand our fellow citizens'
values and priorities and how the federal budge should reflect
them.
Canadians want an agenda that will see them enjoy more
opportunity, a higher standard of living and an even better
quality life in the new century.
In order to achieve all this, we need a clear vision for the
future. “Budget 2000 New Era—New Plan” provides the road map
to achieve that vision. The plan fosters sound financial
management, promotes economic growth and a better quality of life
by reducing taxes.
I would like to thank all the members of the committee and
member of staff for their excellent work.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
announcing a dissenting opinion by the Bloc Quebecois with
respect to the report by the Standing Committee on Finance,
since it fails to respect the desire of the people of Quebec and
Canada for a reform of the employment insurance plan to make it
more accessible.
1205
It makes no mention of an increase in social transfers to the
provinces to finance health care spending, among other things.
It once again imposes a considerable financial burden on middle
income earners, without correcting the huge inequity caused by
the absence of full indexation.
Finally, this report makes no mention of what should be one of
our most important priorities here. Poverty and homelessness
have been growing problems in Canada since this government began
making decisions, in 1994.
[English]
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of
Regulations. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move
concurrence in the first report later this day.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act respecting
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FIRST NATIONS VETERANS' COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-398, an act to provide compensation to
First Nations veterans on a comparable basis to that given to
other war veterans.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill attempts to
right a wrong because of discrimination against first nations
veterans who returned home after the first world war, the second
world war and the Korean war by doing four things: first,
providing compensation to them; second, setting up a scholarship
fund in honour of these veterans who returned home from war;
third, constructing a war memorial at or near Parliament Hill;
and fourth, a public apology from the Prime Minister of the
country on behalf of the people of Canada for the way they were
treated, similar to the apologies made to other groups in the
past.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-399, an act respecting conscientious
objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting this
private member's bill known as the conscientious objection act.
The purpose of the bill is to permit individuals, who object on
conscientious grounds to paying taxes that might be used for
military purposes, to direct that an amount equivalent to a
prescribed percentage of the income tax they pay in a year be
diverted to a special account established by this bill.
The bill would not constrain in any way the ability of the
government to spend tax dollars as it sees fit.
In introducing this bill today on International Human Rights
Day, I pay special tribute to Conscience Canada, in particular to
Kris Manfield, to the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious
Society of Friends, or Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee
and the Conference of Mennonites and also Nos Impôts pour la
paix.
I urge the Minister of Finance to meet with these groups and I
urge all members of parliament to support this important
legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-400, an act to provide defined contribution
pensions for the Public Service, the Canadian Forces and the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to be managed and invested by a
private sector manager, and to amend the Income Tax Act and
certain other acts in consequence thereof.
1210
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's
bill, an act to provide defined contribution pensions for the
Public Service, the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, to be managed and invested by a private sector
manager. I thank the hon. member for Elk Island for seconding
the motion.
The bill will provide a new scheme to commence on January 1,
2001. It will be funded by the employees' contributions at the
same rate as before and the employee may elect to contribute
more. To this, may be added any amount appropriated by
parliament. The funds will be held in a pension account for each
employee. The account will be managed by an approved private
sector fund manager selected by a committee representing the
employees.
On retirement, the employee may take a prescribed part of the
account as a lump sum and the balance generates an annuity for
the employee. This will place these pension funds on sound
financial footings.
I present the bill for the consideration of the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of
the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations,
presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have three motions
today. I would like to thank the member for Surrey Central for
seconding them and Louise Hayes for helping me with these
motions.
The first motion calls on the government to develop and work on
the UN registry for conventional arms and the EU code of conduct
to include both conventional and small arms to promote
transparency in order to curtail both the elicit arms trafficking
and the selling of weapons to known human rights abusers, and
that the five members of the permanent Security Council be the
first to sign.
The second motion calls on the government to—
The Speaker: Excuse me, please, but because we
did not have a notice of the motions, they would not be
receivable today. I am sure at the next sitting of the House
when we go through Routine Proceedings the motions would be
acceptable at that time.
* * *
PETITIONS
CONDOMINIUMS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions signed by
hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas
who express concern about the failure of leadership by the
federal government on the issue of leaky condominiums.
They call upon parliament to provide a significant contribution
toward homeowners affected by the residential construction
crisis, to ensure that the cost of all qualified repairs are
deductible from income retroactively and in the future, to repeal
and refund all GST on qualified repairs, and finally, to permit
RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified repairs without
penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay
repairs special assessments to be income tax rebated.
CHILDREN
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present the second
instalment of a petition from Mrs. Nancy Caldwell of Middleton,
Nova Scotia. It contains a further 6,200 signatures calling on
parliament to enact legislation providing for tougher penalties
to be meted out against those who commit sexual assault against
our children.
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by
1,780 concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.
1215
The petitioners ask our government to affirm that all Canadians
are equal under all circumstances and without exception in the
province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to remind
our government to enact only legislation that affirms the
equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.
[Translation]
INCONTINENCE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table a petition, shepherded by Blaise Rivard of
Black Lake, requesting the month of November be devoted to
increasing awareness about the problem of incontinence. The
petitioners ask the government to invest generously in research
and home care for people dealing with incontinence.
I join with them in their request.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1999-2000
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying prior to question period, members of the Conservative
Party recognize that we can ill afford to lose any more of our
farmers. With less than 7% of our land presently being used for
agriculture in this country, Canadians are becoming increasingly
dependent upon foreign imports.
The Liberal government may accuse me of exaggerating the
severity of the situation; however, I do not think I am
exaggerating Nova Scotia's increasing dependence upon imported
agricultural goods. Whether these goods are imported from the
U.S. or from another Canadian province, the fact still remains
that it is importing large amounts of agricultural products, and
this trend will continue so long as our youth stay away from
agriculture.
As I have mentioned many times in the House, our farmers in Nova
Scotia have had to endure three successive years of drought
conditions. These hard weather conditions have significantly
reduced yield, resulting in a tremendous increase in feed costs.
A number of farmers have been forced to prematurely rid
themselves of cattle, at a substantial loss. With the price of
beef being so low, a farmer in Yarmouth told me that some beef
producers have incurred such tremendous losses they will most
likely be forced to exit the beef industry.
I would like to offer these farmers and many others like them
throughout the country some ray of hope, but I find little in the
government's estimates to do that. Even the Prime Minister's
throne speech failed to address any of the major issues facing
our farmers. In fact, farming barely received mention in the
throne speech, which simply confirms what all Canadians know,
that this government is not committed to helping Canadian
farmers.
Our western neighbours are struggling tremendously, yet the
federal government is not there to help. Unfortunately, our
western friends are coming to grips with what Nova Scotian
farmers have known for years, that this government simply is not
committed to maintaining or enhancing our agricultural industry.
As I mentioned, we have had three successive years of drought
conditions, yet the federal government has seen fit to introduce
an aid package that is very difficult for our farmers to access.
We had farmers experiencing hardship during the ice storm, yet
the government did not see fit to provide them with any
assistance.
Nova Scotian farmers are not immune to hard times, yet they tend
to be overlooked by the government. I am telling the government
that it can no longer ignore our Nova Scotian farmers. Farming
is an important industry within Nova Scotia, as it is throughout
the rest of the country, and I will continue to demand that our
farmers be treated fairly by this government.
The previous Progressive Conservative government recognized the
importance of agriculture to our Canadian economy.
That is why in 1991 the government introduced the gross revenue
insurance program, GRIP, and the net income stabilization
account, NISA. These programs were designed to complement each
other. Unfortunately, the Liberal government abolished GRIP and
has failed miserably in replacing it with an effective,
nationally responsive program.
1220
For over two years our member of parliament from Brandon—Souris
has been calling upon the minister of agriculture to create a
long term safety net program for our farmers, yet his calls and
suggestions have fallen upon deaf ears, as have those of our
farmers who have been pleading for government assistance.
The Speaker: I am sorry, but it seems the time has
elapsed. We will now have five minutes of questions and answers.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks. Although
there was a lot of doom and gloom in his remarks, that really
does not surprise me. We recognize and the minister has said
that there is indeed a farm crisis in western Canada that we are
trying to deal with. However, there are some positives in
agriculture. I would like to know where the hon. member and his
party stand in terms of where those positives are.
I have heard mixed remarks from his colleague, the member for
Brandon—Souris, on the supply management industry. He goes on
and on attacking the Canadian Wheat Board, which is an agency
that maximizes returns to producers.
The hon. member will know that in his province there is a big
supply management industry in terms of dairy and poultry, which
are models of development for rural Canada. Where does he stand
on those industries? Is he supportive of them?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from Malpeque for his very important question.
The situation is that there are problems throughout the system.
We recognize that certain sectors are doing well, but the
problems still exist. We have serious problems that the
government is not addressing.
As I mentioned earlier in my comments, 42% of our farm operators
are over the age of 55. The average age of farmers in Nova
Scotia is 52.2 years. There are no young people entering the
industry. There is a reason. It is because of the policies of
the government.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to applaud the member for West Nova for his
intervention on this particular issue.
As the member knows, we have been working together on this side
of the House to get those people who live in urban areas involved
in the issue of agriculture and agri-food. The reality is that
80% of the population in the country live in urban areas and
those consumers have very little knowledge of the difficulties,
the challenges and the complexities that surround matters of
agriculture, the family farm and so on.
Does the hon. member feel that it would be a useful exercise to
engage the people of urban Canada in a very thoughtful,
constructive way, so that ultimately they could participate fully
in these agricultural issues, the family farm problem, and
especially young people moving away from the farm? Does the
member think that would be a good exercise? If we did something
like that, would he and his party get behind the exercise?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from Broadview—Greenwood for a very thoughtful question, one
which deserves a serious answer.
The reality of Canada is that, yes, 80% of the people live in
urban centres, which is a large part of our population. Some of
the decisions coming from the government are based on votes and
do not reflect the realities that exist.
If that is the case, that is why the government is not taking
hold of the problems that exist, dealing with the farm crisis,
the east coast fisheries crisis and other issues. Those are some
of the things that should be looked at.
1225
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating the business of supply. In the
Supplementary Estimates (A) the President of the Treasury Board
has indicated that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada requires an
additional $63,196,279 to continue its programs which began in
this fiscal year. The Reform Party and our chief critic, the
member for St. Albert, are opposed to this money being added to
the spending of the agriculture department.
The questions that always go unanswered are: Why did the
department not foresee what was happening? Why did it not plan
better? Where has the money gone that it originally had? Was it
simply wasted or was it shifted to some other area, resulting in
additional funds being required?
In debating this appropriation of money we have to look at the
overall operation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The
department's operations are of course directed by the minister in
charge. The agriculture minister sets the tone, examines what is
happening and determines how the money will be spent.
The performance of the Liberal government and the agriculture
minister is on trial. When someone takes over a major department
like agriculture and agri-food, that person has to demonstrate by
action, not words or spin doctoring, that a good job is being
done. When we see what is happening in regard to western
Canadian agriculture in particular, we have to question very
seriously the performance of this minister and, indirectly, the
government itself, because the problems that are evident in the
west are not being addressed and have not been addressed.
Over the last 20 years we have had successive governments which
have failed to put in place a program of long duration to address
the problems which we know come up continuously. The Progressive
Conservatives certainly had opportunities through the eighties,
with massive majorities, to put long term programs in place. Ad
hoc programs have been shown time after time to be insufficient
in taking care of the problems which farmers encounter.
The problems which agriculture is encountering are not of its
own making. The agriculture sectors that are in trouble are the
ones which are dependent on export markets. These farmers
contribute gigantic sums, in the tens of billions of dollars, to
the Canadian economy. As a result, when they are harmed by the
actions of our competitors, namely, gigantic subsidization for
cereal grains and oil seeds, our farmers are not on a level
playing field. They cannot compete against these massive
subsidies.
This is nothing new. This has been going on for some time.
Successive governments have failed to put in place programs that
will enable Canada to have a viable agriculture sector. This is
a bit astounding. Maybe over the years governments have become
complacent because there is always food at the grocery store.
Anyone can go to the store to pick up food relatively cheaply.
This complacency has done nothing for the agriculture sector in
having a long term program to guarantee that the sector will
remain viable.
1230
There are many things the government could do. Certainly what
comes immediately to mind is what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
brought up. There are user fees of $138 million that would have
been applied to farmers. The auditor general has questioned
whether or not the farmers are getting value for that, whether
they have any say about those user fees and whether the
sub-departments that are charging those fees are accountable for
how they use them.
Fuel taxes are a good example. The federal excise tax is four
cents per litre and that is applied directly to the farmer. That
is one case where we could quite easily lower his costs. The
farmer's problem, as I mentioned, is that input costs have gone
up drastically and net returns have gone down.
I have mentioned previously and in my question today in question
period, when a natural disaster strikes western Canada as in the
case of the flooded areas in southwest Manitoba and southeast
Saskatchewan, there is no declaration of a natural disaster. We
heard the defence minister tell us today that unless the premier
of Manitoba and the premier Saskatchewan initiate a call for a
natural disaster area, he will not do anything. The premiers and
the defence minister had better get together and make that
declaration for farmers. The chairman of the agriculture
committee of this House is telling farmers that there is still a
chance that a natural disaster area could be declared to get the
help they need to recover from that disaster.
There are places besides the department itself where we could
get the money. The government has to look carefully at how it is
using the money it gets. It must bear in mind that agriculture,
our food supply and the basic necessity of life which is food,
should be the country's primary importance.
The government has subsidized our magazine industry to the tune
of $150 million. Here again it is farmers versus magazine moguls,
which is what I would call them. They are limited in number and
have massive influence with the government. They are getting $150
million. It is a case of their merely not wanting to meet the
competition from other magazine producers. In the case of the
farmer, he is not getting the subsidy and he is up against
competitors who are subsidized. In the case of the magazine
industry, competitors in other countries are not getting
subsidized so it is not the same issue. It is mispriorization in
government spending in regard to agriculture and other sectors of
the Canadian economy.
I saw an interesting little example in the National Gallery of
Canada the other day, the famous “Voice of Fire”. That
beautiful art piece was purchased for about $1.2 million and the
gallery staff told me it is now worth $7.5 million. When hearing
that, the question farmers ask is if it has gone up that much in
value, why not sell it and use the money for some good priorities
such as keeping a viable agriculture sector?
There was the infamous Winnipeg situation of $15,000 in St.
Norbert for a display of dead rabbits hanging in the trees. That
was funded by the government.
The government is being asked for money for agriculture. Lots of
money is being wasted and foolishly spent and it lets the
agriculture sector sink.
1235
I should not go on too much about the extra money. Other
examples such as the movie Bubbles Galore have come up.
The coast guard and Corrections Canada spent $6,000 on a party on
the east coast. The ships with the helicopters on them probably
cost about $30,000 an hour to run. It was probably $200,000 or
$300,000 no doubt for that little trip.
The $130 billion budget for the federal government's operations
is a pretty big figure. With that amount the government knew it
was getting and would be able to spend, it should have simply
planned for that spending and used it properly. It should not be
coming back to the taxpayer time after time to get more money.
The last thing I will mention regarding wasted money is the
figure of around $200 million on the famous former Bill C-68 on
gun control, the Firearms Act. What a tremendous waste of money.
It is evident to virtually every Canadian.
We should look at what the agriculture minister and chairman of
the agriculture committee are saying and doing in regard to the
agriculture crisis that is happening in western Canada. We know
what they are saying to the people of southwest Manitoba and
southeast Saskatchewan in the flood area. Let us look at what
else they are saying.
The agriculture minister was talking about farmers who are in
trouble and possibly going bankrupt. One of the most famous
statements he made rates right up there along with Mr. Trudeau's
“Why should I sell your wheat?” The minister said, “I have
been there, I have done it and it is now time for tough love”.
He continued, “We are sorry but that bottom 30% of farmers who
cannot make it will just have to go and do something else and we
will continue on with the remaining 60%”.
That seems to be the vision of the government regarding
agriculture. Some of the policies the government brings out
encourage that kind of activity.
One of the best examples is the Canadian Wheat Board. A lot of
people believe that the Canadian Wheat Board will keep the small
farmers around. In the timeframe that the Canadian Wheat Board
has been going, since the 1940s, we have lost tens of thousands
of farmers, and the small farmers are disappearing.
The reason is that the wheat board does not have the ability to
provide independent marketing for the individual farmers who
could by looking at their own marketing maximize their prices.
The wheat board wants to tell everybody it will do all the
marketing and get a price which will be shared among every other
farmer. That has not worked.
I propose that the Canadian Wheat Board assets be sold off. They
should be sold off to a consortium named the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool and the Agricore. That would become their marketing arm,
two organizations that are set up to pool the returns for all
farmers and would voluntarily go in with them. The farmers who
did not want to be part of that organization would end up
marketing on their own.
We have the solution for marketing grain on the prairies. This
would actually add income for a lot of farmers. Those who would
be hurt by not having pooling and not having somebody to do their
marketing for them, would have farmer owned co-operatives, namely
Agricore and the marketing ability of the wheat board to do that.
It is pretty clear there are things which could be done.
1240
I would like to talk for a minute about a couple of farmers who
are telling the government what is necessary. One of them
mentions the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing freedom, but they
also get into other areas such as transportation.
One farmer said “I have been a producer representative on the
old senior grain transportation committee that existed”. He went
on to say that what it really comes down to with the current
regime is that it is based on a command structure. We could say
that about the wheat board as well, because the wheat board is
set up by the House as a command structure where one has the sole
right to sell wheat and barley for export. However, if one wants
to try and do it by oneself, the wheat board says “Sell it to us
and we will add some costs and return what is left over”. The
command structure there again is not working.
The farmer went on to say that the transportation system runs on
layers of regulations and formulas. He said that the irony is
that over the years it was the farmers who asked for that. We
see now that in fact a command structure does not work. It does
not work in agriculture and it does not work in the case of
transportation.
There is a lot of supply management in Manitoba where I come
from. We are glad to have it. That is different from the
Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is not supply
management. There has been a lot of deception by the government
over the years that the Canadian Wheat Board is supply
management. That is absolutely not the case.
The supply managed sector operates under legislation and the
cost of production is included in a formula on which it prices
its product. That is a good thing. I support that supply
management is a good sector for agriculture. Supply management
does not seem to be applicable to the whole agriculture sector.
The hog producers have said that they do not want to go back to
supply management because they are export dependent. As long as
we force agriculture just to be in the domestic market, we can
say that if we do not want to export, let us have supply
management in the whole agriculture sector and we will pay those
farmers who are able to be in that enough to keep going. But what
we see is that the country makes tens of billions of dollars in
the non-supply managed sector. That is new money coming in from
outside the country.
Why the government can stand here and not support western
Canada's farmers and also those in Ontario who export grains and
earn the country tens of billions of dollars is beyond me. In
the planning of the government and the agriculture minister, one
would think the importance of these export sectors and what they
contribute to the country would be recognized.
One other farmer saw fit to talk to us about farming on the
question of whether or not this government could afford to help
agriculture and maintain a viable sector. He commented that
“The finance minister is projecting a $90 billion surplus in
five years. I may say this government can find money for support
for those who are under siege”. He used the example of East
Timor. He went on to say:
But it is time to recognize the farm industry at home here is
under siege as well. Because farming is a renewable resource
every year employing people directly and indirectly by the
thousands, the government must come to recognize that those
dependent on the farming industry are under siege as well. What
is being offered so far to combat the record foreign subsidies
through AIDA is at best insignificant. The farmers and the
business people both directly and indirectly have demonstrated,
sent petitions, made trips to Ottawa, staged rallies and have
given presentations by the dozens in the months that followed
seeding and the harvest in 1999, all in an attempt to get Ottawa
to recognize the farm crisis in Canada.
There is no point in the government going around talking and
asking everyone what should be done. The facts are on the line.
The government has been told what is going on. Number one, the
low net margin in the west for the export crops and in Ontario
have to be addressed. The net margin has to be brought up.
1245
The lack of a long term program necessitates a massive infusion
of cash into Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular. That
infusion has been identified by the premiers of both those
provinces to the federal government as being in the neighbourhood
of $1.3 billion. It is time the government rolled up its sleeves
and gave us the viable agriculture sector that is so important to
our national interest.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the member from
the newly named riding of Hilstrom—Interlake. I am a member
from downtown Toronto and not a rural member.
I am not fully aware of the complexities surrounding the issue
of agriculture and agri-food, but earlier this week I had the
privilege of speaking at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
summit. One fact that came out at that summit was the need to
debate mobilization and getting more focused on the problems and
challenges surrounding rural issues. We must start with a new
beginning and engage a larger number of consumers and city
residents.
Because the member for Selkirk—Interlake is very sensitive
about government resources, I would like to ask him if he would
support the notion of the Government of Canada and Agriculture
Canada investing some dollars in mobilizing city residents to
become more engaged and more involved in rural agricultural
issues.
He seems to be very concerned about taxpayer money being spent
on arts, culture, et cetera. I personally believe that a lot of
money should be spent on mobilizing city representatives because
we represent 80% of the votes in the House. Perhaps the member
could speak on behalf of his party and indicate whether they
would support such a campaign.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, certainly I support a
campaign along those lines but we would have to look at the
details. The Leader of the Opposition and I met with the
ex-premier of Manitoba this summer, along with the Rural Disaster
Coalition people. We in fact called for the very same thing.
The consumers of Toronto are very important to agriculture in
not only the west but all areas of agriculture because they
consume and pay for food. They also vote to put MPs into the
House to represent them. The interest of consumers is served by
keeping a viable agriculture sector and reasonably priced food.
As a result I support that.
The last comment I would make gets back to the performance of
the agriculture minister. The government and the agriculture
department have to be very careful about putting out press
releases with regard to what is happening by way of support. He
mentioned again today that farmers received $1.1 billion. He did
not say this today but he has said that provincial governments
put in their part, bringing the figure up to $2 billion.
Consumers in Toronto think that farmers have obtained $2
billion. They have not. They have a portion of it but they are
still to get it all. We are in agreement that consumers are
important.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I too
listened intently to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I think
he wasted some of his energy at the beginning. Typical of
partisan politics, he decided to take a shot at the Tories so I
will take a little one at the Reform.
Western Canada was very well represented under the Tories.
Agriculture was at the top of the agenda, not at the bottom of
it. We had people like Don Mazankowski, Harvie Andre, Joe Clark
and a number of others who were cabinet ministers, prime
ministers and deputy prime ministers sitting at the table. They
understood and represented the issue of agriculture.
1250
The minister spoke about wheat and grain. Certainly they are
issues but there is a greater one which I would like the member
to comment on, and that is the desperate failure of the
government.
Our grain farmers are supported by something like 65 cents to 75
cents per bushel of wheat. The United States supports its grain
farmers by approximately $1.60 to $1.80. The numbers change
constantly. The European Union supports its farmers by $2.30 to
$2.40 per bushel of wheat. This is one of the major underlying
problems facing us.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the member's question
raises the point that a united alternative would certainly help
us put forward the position that he purports to be putting
forward right now.
The member termed my remarks as slamming the PCs. That was not
my point at all. The history of agriculture policy and programs
over the past 20 years the PCs and the Liberals have been in
power has not resulted in the long term program which everybody
is identifying needs to be in place. They are talking about it
again today. If this is not done in another five or ten years,
the MPs who follow us to this place will be talking about the
same thing. This is my criticism of past governments.
The lack of subsidy in Canada for farmers, not all farmers but
just those who are being hurt by trade distorting subsidies of
other countries through no fault of their own, is the issue that
has to be addressed today.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
love to get into an extended debate with the member on the
Canadian Wheat Board but we really do not have the time.
No one on the government side is saying that the Canadian Wheat
Board is supply management. We are saying that the Canadian
Wheat Board is orderly marketing, maximizing the returns that are
in that market. Instead of confusing the facts the member should
have clearly said that the government has put in place an elected
board of directors so that the farmers on the board could be
masters of their own destiny.
I am surprised and disappointed at the member for
Selkirk—Interlake. He used the tactics of divisiveness in his
remarks by talking about some of the grants to culture and so on
as if they were not needed as well. They are needed in that
area. I have seen this type of tactic being used previously by a
former Reform Party member, the present Saskatchewan party
leader. He used the argument of east versus west as to what one
was getting and the other was not.
We do have a problem. The minister has very clearly said that
there is a farm crisis. We have outlined the problem with
subsidies in the European Economic Community and in the United
States. We tabled a position at the WTO for those countries to
bring down the subsidies. Yes, we have to do more.
The member said additional funds were needed for the farm
sector. I agree that additional funds are needed. Could he tell
us how much in additional funding is needed from his perspective?
How should it be paid out so that it gets to the farm community
quickly and helps the family farm? Let us put the facts on the
table. What are you really saying?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind all hon.
members to address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the facts are on the
table. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have asked for
an immediate $1.3 billion. They have asked for a natural
disaster declaration for the flooded regions of the provinces of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That money should go out to the
provinces right now.
With regard to east versus west, that is not true. I put
forward a motion in the standing committee on agriculture asking
for a tour of Ontario so we could talk directly with the farmers
there. It was cancelled by Liberal members of the committee; we
will not be going to Ontario. My colleagues in the Reform Party
and I will be required to do it by ourselves and report back to
parliament on what farmers in Ontario are saying.
My last comment is with regard to maximizing returns of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
We have no idea whether or not it maximizes returns. That simply
comes from the Kraft report. The wheat board gave him some
statistics and he said that it looked like it was doing a great
job.
1255
There is only one true vote in an economic situation, and that
is the vote of the client, the farmer who says he is doing better
because of the wheat board and will deal through it, or he is
doing better with another company and will deal through it. The
choice of the farmer is the important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in the debate on supply, because we should in this
period be looking at the government's approach to management.
We should be talking about agriculture today. We want to talk
about it, but the government is turning its attention elsewhere,
as is its habit, instead of dealing with the real problems
confronting it daily. Since 1993, the government has done
everything except look after the problems put to it.
Today the government is disturbing this allotted day on
agriculture with the introduction, as a total surprise and in a
sneaky and unusual way, of a bill that has nothing at all to do
with economic difficulties, nothing to do with the way this
country is being governed, but that instead pits the House of
Commons of Canada against the National Assembly of Quebec.
Hon. members will understand that I, like my Conservative
colleague who made the motion, cannot help but address that
issue in the context of this debate.
Generally, the way the House of Commons operates is that the
House leaders of all parties reach agreement in a civilized and
correct manner, respectful of the rights of each, of the
standing orders, of tradition, habits and parliamentary good
faith. It is our habit here to reach agreement and to ensure
that the business is properly organized.
We have some idea of what is coming and the government has some
idea of the kind of fight, the kind of opposition it will
get from us on each bill. There is nothing really secret in
all of this, with the exception of a few surprises like the one
we had this week about the vote, but nothing more than that.
Things are clear and the business of the House is based on
mutual respect, confidence, honesty and clarity. That is how
things are generally done in this House.
In the past few days, however, based on certain things leaked to
the press, we were expecting the government to introduce a bill
that, more than ever before, places the House of Commons and the
members of this House in the position of having to make
decisions that will restrict the powers of Quebec's national
assembly.
Not only is this government not content with ignoring the
constitutional responsibilities of each level of government but
now, when it comes to something that has never been challenged
by anyone, that the history books accept as a given—Quebec's
right to decide its own future—the government has decided to get
involved.
Oddly enough, the entire process has been changed for the
introduction of this bill. Gone were any notice, clarity, trust
or honesty. The whole thing was done during the night. The
night was what it was, and I challenge the members opposite to
say otherwise.
Yesterday evening, after the dinner hour, I myself checked with
the government and the House whether it was indeed true that a
fast one would not again be pulled on Quebec, whether a bill
that might limit the rights of the national assembly would not
be introduced.
The answer yesterday evening at 7 p.m. was “Never, there is no
question of it”.
1300
When I give someone my word, they can believe it, and I expect
to be able to do likewise. I have always thought that honesty
and frankness took precedence over any parliamentary strategies.
On a certain night in November of 1981, a plot was hatched
behind Quebec's back, in the kitchens of the Chateau Laurier
here in Ottawa, to patriate the constitution. That was what
happened. It has been described as the “night of the long
knives”. On many occasions, the present Prime Minister has
claimed never to have had anything to do with the “night of the
long knives” and with what the history books will call the
“night of the long knives” with respect to Quebec.
Last night, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., there was a “night of the
long knives”.
Some hon. members: This is terrible.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Everything changed. That was the end of
parliamentary trust, the end of respect among individuals, the
end of respect for the word given. The case of Quebec was
settled the way things usually are, here in Ottawa. The deed was
done during the night.
To better understand such an inappropriate—to use a
parliamentary expression—process, let me quote an editorial
published on Wednesday, November 22, 1972, in the daily Montréal
Matin. The journalist was referring to the current Prime
Minister, who was then the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
The interview was given to CTV, on November 19, 1972. A copy of
the transcript was available. The journalist, Clément Brown,
quoted the Prime Minister talking about the parc de la Mauricie.
I would appreciate it if members opposite would listen.
I would like all Quebecers to hear it, because it will be a sad
reminder of who we are talking here. The editorial quoted the
current Prime Minister as saying “I used that park to break the
back of the Quebec government and, believe me, I am proud of
that”.
These are the words of the then Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, now the Prime Minister and member for
Shawinigan.
An hon. member: What a sinister individual.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: The difference between today and 1982, when
this same Prime Minister was the enforcer of the previous
Liberal government to unilaterally patriate the constitution, is
that, at the time, Quebec was represented by 74 members of the
Liberal Party of Canada in this House. Indeed, Quebec was
represented by one Conservative and 74 members of the Liberal
Party of Canada.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau had justified Quebec's support for the
patriation of the Cthey are going
to constitution by saying that the duly elected
representatives of Quebec agreed with him. He could therefore
proceed. And we were to think that Quebec had been well treated
and well served.
History has judged the Prime Minister of the time and the
current Prime Minister. Since 1982 in Quebec, no premier—
federalist or sovereignist—has dared put his signature to the
constitution, which no one in Quebec accepts.
I have news for the current Prime Minister and the government in
place: there will never be another 1982.
Never again will the majority of the members representing
Quebecers in this House support what this government is up to.
Never again will the members representing the majority of the
ridings in Quebec, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, people who
have something in their heart,
allow the government to try to take away from the national
assembly even a single ounce of responsibility, a single ounce
of power to determine the future of the people of Quebec.
1305
I would give the government notice that there are other
opposition parties in this House. I can hardly wait to see how
the Conservative Party members from Quebec, who have some
respect for the right of the people of Quebec to decide their
future—for instance, the member for Chicoutimi, in the
sovereignist region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—will vote on this
bill. I can hardly wait to see how the Conservatives will vote.
I believe they will not stoop to the same level as the
Government of Canada.
We can hardly wait, we the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the
people of Quebec, to see how the Liberal members from Quebec
representing Quebec ridings in the House of Commons are going to
behave.
If she had to choose between Quebec and a limousine, is the
President of the Treasury Board going to choose the limousine?
Is the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport going to
opt for satisfying his craving for a limo instead of for Quebec?
We shall see.
Which is the Minister of Finance, a man who is constantly
letting it be seen that he has a sort of sympathy for the people
of Quebec, going to choose: the race for leadership of the
Liberal Party of Canada or Quebec? We shall see.
What about the newly promoted Minister of Revenue, in his
portfolio for only a few months, another with a limousine, which
is he going to choose, the citizens of Outremont in Quebec or
his limo? We shall soon see.
What we are seeing today is that the chickens are coming home to
roost. In 1982—and hon. members would be wise to listen, for it
may improve their knowledge of the reality of Quebec—this Prime
Minister committed an extremely serious error in political
strategy. All of his government knows this.
Since 1982, the federal government has been dragging along, like
a ball and chain, a constitution that has never been accepted by
one whole founding people, by one whole province, one of the
most important provinces, one that was there from the beginnings
of Canada, that was the place where European life in North
America began. That province is part of the constitution of
Canada solely by obligation; we never signed it. This error
committed by the Prime Minister is what we want to correct
today.
In 1981, there was 40% support for Quebec sovereignty. Then came
the patriation of the constitution, the fruit of the labours of
this wonderful Liberal government.
In 1995, support went up to 49.6%. I remember having discussed
this with eminent colleagues just before the 1995 referendum.
Do you know what they told us? “The polls are giving you 35%;
and so that is that, sovereignists, that is the last we will
hear of you”. If my memory serves me, we got 49.6%.
An hon. member: 49.4%
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Sorry, 49.4%. The result of the
constitutional efforts of the Prime Minister is that in Quebec
more and more Quebecers have understood that their future lies
in sovereignty and not in this country.
1310
The government wants to settle things for good. Since the
sovereignists are democratically creating a country for
themselves because of the repeated constitutional mistakes of
this government and this Prime Minister, the government is going
to see to it that this is no longer possible.
On the pretext of clarity, the great minister of constitutional
affairs, the great implementer of the Prime Minister's
handiwork, wants to clarify Quebec's right to
self-determination. He wants to clarify the majority. On these
pretexts, they are setting up barriers likely to make it
impossible, to all intents and purposes, by setting all sorts of
undefined considerations. They are hanging swords of Damocles
over the head of Quebec.
The feeling is that the federal government wants to make sure
Quebec cannot democratically overcome all these obstacles. This
is where we are at. Because 1982 was a mistake, because 1982
was an injustice, because Quebecers want to run their own
country, those on the other side want to stop them. We will not
let that happen. We give them notice of that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier,
in response to the proposed bill, the leader of the opposition
made a three-part proposal to the Quebec national assembly and I
would like to put a question to the hon. member in this regard.
The three parts of his proposal are as follows. The first part
was that it was up to the Quebec national assembly to define the
question and the conditions of the referendum. The second was
that the leader of the opposition gave his support to the
principle of 50% plus one. The third was that the whole
matter should be in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme
Court of Canada. Does the hon. member agree with this proposal?
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the contents of the bill we
are debating were so clear, so good and so beneficial for
Quebec, why did they do this during the night? Why, until now,
has it been withheld from all the newspapers, MPs and Quebec?
Why, if it is so clear and so good?
We know the government. It has a habit of flaunting its bills
everywhere and telling people how wonderfully it is looking
after Canada. Members opposite are not shy. But now we have
this bill which nobody knew anything about. Without any advance
warning, it was sprung on us.
The fact of the matter is that this bill poses an indescribable
threat to Quebec.
The government will have to submit the referendum question to
all of Canada's provinces and territories. Only after all these
opinions are in will the federal government decide whether or
not the question is clear.
Let there be no mistake, responsibility for the clarity of the
question rests with Quebec.
1315
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.15 p.m. and
today being the last of the designated days for the supply
period ending on December 10, 1999, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and, pursuant to order made on Thursday,
December 9, 1999, all questions necessary to dispose of the
business of supply will be deferred until Monday, December 13,
1999 after the period set aside for Government Orders.
[English]
It being 1.17 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]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would like to
inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 30,
I am designating Tuesday, February 8, 2000 as the day fixed for
the consideration of private member's Motion M-19, standing in
the order of precedence in the name of the hon. member for
Skeena. This additional Private Members' Business hour will take
place from 6.30 to 7.30 p.m. after which the House will proceed
to the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-235, an act to amend the Divorce Act (marriage counselling
required before divorce granted) be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 is a bill concerning the
Divorce Act. However, it is not about parents, it is about
children.
On December 22, 1967, Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared that the
state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. At the time,
the number of divorces in Canada was 10,000 per year. In 1987
divorces peaked at 90,000, one in every two marriages. Today
there are about 80,000 divorces per year or an effective rate of
over 40%. However, there are also about one million common law
couples and their breakdown rate is 50% higher than for married
couples.
Common law relationships represent less than 20% of all couples
but account for over 60% of all cases of domestic violence; 20%
of parents break up before their children reach the age of five;
25% of children enter adult life with some sort of significant
mental, social or behavioural problems; and 50% of all children
will experience divorce or family breakdown before they reach
their 18th birthday.
Lone parent families represent about 16% of all families in
Canada but they account for 52% of all children living in
poverty. One out of four children do not live at home with their
biological parents and 70% of young offenders come from broken
homes.
There are other impacts related to family breakdown. Domestic
violence for instance is another important issue. Seventeen per
cent of homicide victims in Canada are divorced or separated, and
although as a group they only represent 6% of the population, 12%
of those committing homicides were also separated or divorced,
and 23% of women killed in registered marriages were separated at
the time of the incident.
The research evidence is clear. It shows that children who
witness abuse between their parents are affected as much as if
they were abused themselves.
Let us consider the recent statistics about children from
fatherless homes in the United States: 63% of youth suicides,
85% of children with behavioural disorders, 75% of high school
dropouts, 85% of youth sitting in jails, 80% of rapists.
They are five times more likely to be poor and more likely to be
abusers of drugs and alcohol. Forty-one per cent of youth
showing anxiety, depression and physical aggression come from
fatherless homes and are twice as likely to get involved in
crime. They are also 11 times more likely to have violent
misbehaviours and more likely to have problems achieving intimate
lasting relationships themselves.
1320
It is very clear from those examples alone that divorce is child
abuse, and that is why as responsible legislators we cannot remain
silent.
What would Pierre Trudeau say today? I have no doubt that he
would not change his basic premise that the state has no place in
the bedrooms of the nation, but I would like to think that today
he would add the qualifier “unless it affects the business of
the nation, including the well-being of our children”.
Bill C-235 basically calls for court ordered mandatory
counselling prior to the granting of a divorce. The requirement
does not apply where the grounds are physical or mental cruelty,
where the court agrees that counselling is inappropriate or when
one party cannot be brought to counselling. It is therefore
estimated that only 10% to 20% of divorces would be affected by
such legislation.
The purpose of the legislation is not primarily to seek
reconciliation of marriages but rather two points. One is to
ensure there is a viable parenting plan in place which is child
centred and in the best interest of the children. Second, it is
to address the tragic prevalence of post-break up acrimony which
is far more likely to occur after separation.
Divorce has been described by many as being like a runaway
train. Parents are often ignorant of the facts and do not
understand the wide ranging consequences or ramifications,
particularly on their children. The related issues are much more
complex and touch virtually every aspect of our society.
Some would suggest, however, that parenting education after
divorce is quite frankly too late. However, when we consider that
75% of divorced persons remarry within five years and we
understand that children are the real victims of divorce, it is
never too late to mitigate the devastating impacts of divorce.
In a recent book written by Dr. David Royko called Voices
of Children of Divorce, he expressed his experiences with
children who had undergone mandatory programs as a result of
divorce. I will relay to the House some of the comments and
quotations from the children interviewed by Dr. Royko. Some said:
It gives me bad dreams. It hurts a lot. I cry a lot. If I have
to go back and live with mom, I'll run away or kill myself.
I'm totally caught in the middle. I felt sick a lot, like I
might throw up. I was scared. I thought that no matter what
happened someone was going to hate me.
You can go nuts after awhile. I feel pushed around by everyone.
If I had three wishes, the first one would be to be thin because
my parents fought about how much I eat. I heard my dad yelling
at my mom that if she had got custody, I'd turn out to be a fat
pig just like her.
My parents' fight for custody was the scariest thing in the
world and it made me realize that marriage is stupid and having
kids is something I'll never ever do.
If I had three wishes, I'd like to be a cop, I'd like to have a
machine gun and I'd like to have a nuclear bomb. It all makes me
so mad, like I want to kill everyone.
We have to listen to the voices of our children. Children are
the real victims of divorce and the impacts on those children as
a result of divorce are too serious to ignore.
The report of the special joint committee of the Commons and
Senate on custody and access, entitled “For the Sake of the
Children”, also recommended mandatory parenting education for
parents seeking custody orders of children. This is a major
change in the philosophy of parliamentarians, the legislators of
the Commons and the Senate, with regard to the Divorce Act which
for far too long has been parent centred and has not taken the
best interests of children to heart.
There are existing programs in place. In Alberta, for instance,
there is a program called Parenting After Separation which
began as a pilot project in Edmonton in February 1996. It is a
six hour, court mandated, education program for divorcing parents.
For those who would suggest that counselling cannot work, let us
look at what some of the participants had to say about their
participation in the Parenting After Separation mandatory
education.
The first participant said “The class helped me determine that
I would do everything to work things out ourselves for our
daughter's benefit rather than go to the court and be
adversarial”.
1325
Some said “Thank you very much. You have boosted my confidence
level in realizing that divorce doesn't have to mean war”.
Another said “This course is great. It should be mandatory for
all those who are separating to teach both parents about their
responsibilities toward their children. It helped me to get to
the real important issue”.
Another said “It makes me feel that I should not fight because
it hurts my child. This course helped me realize that things can
be worked out”.
Finally, one participant said “I was really ticked off that my
lawyer told me I had to take this course so I came with somewhat
of an attitude. Am I ever glad now that I came. I did not
realize how much I was hurting my children”.
Parenting education programs are not new but classes tailored to
the specific needs of divorcing families are a relevant recent
phenomenon in Canada and the U.S.
Fifteen years in the U.S. there was one program. Five years ago
there were dozens. Now there are hundreds. Mandatory
counselling is now required in 18 U.S. states and in Florida even
children of divorce are required to attend a program to help them
cope with the impacts of their parents divorce.
Parenting education programs are now available in every province
of Canada although they are mandatory only in Alberta and on a
pilot basis in B.C.
Effective June 1, 1998, the attorney general of B.C. introduced
mandatory parenting courses in Burnaby and New Westminster. It
is a three hour course and the parents take the course
separately. It teaches dispute resolution as well as the impact
of family breakdown on children. In his announcement, the
attorney general stated “This is not for parents. It's for
children. We want to reverse the adverse impact of the divorce
process on children”.
Not only is there broad reluctance for any intervention, but 95%
of couples ordered by the courts to take counselling do so with
great reluctance. Interestingly enough, 90% of those who go
through the program are grateful that there was a program. The
Alberta experience is that in 5% of cases the parents discover
that divorce is not going to solve their problem and reconcile
their problems and are dealing with them in a constructive
fashion.
When the custody and access joint Commons-Senate committee did
its one year study, consulting right across Canada, it found
three positive results from the U.S. programs. First, parents
participating in the programs were more likely to communicate
positively with their children about the other parent and
non-residential parents had greater access to their children;
second, parents demonstrated improved communication skills; and
third, programs lowered the exposure of children to parental
conflict and increased each parent's tolerance for the parenting
role of the other parent.
It is clear that constructive intervention at a time of high
emotion after parents have separated is very effective based on
actual programs running. It is not a wish, it is a fact.
Children do have rights. They have the right to the continuing
care and guidance of their parents and the right to a continuing
relationship with their parents. They have the right to know and
appreciate what is good in each parent without one parent
degrading the other. They have the right to express love,
affection and respect for each parent without having to stifle
that love because of fear of disapproval of the other parent.
They have the right to know that the parents decision to divorce
was not their responsibility. They have the right to not be a
source of argument between the parents. They have a right to
honest answers to questions about changing family relationships.
They have a right to experience regular, consistent contact with
both parents and to know the reason for cancellation of time or
change of plans.
They have a right to a relaxed, secure relationship with both
parents without being placed in a position where one parent is
pitted against another. They also have the right to be treated
as important human beings with unique feelings, ideas and
desires.
Children are the real victims of divorce and mandatory
counselling will provide reasonable guidance to ensure that there
is a viable parenting plan in place and that post-break up
acrimony will be mitigated as much as possible.
As I said earlier, the bill is not about parents. It is about
children.
Healthy outcomes of children mean stronger families and
ultimately a stronger country. For that reason, a constructive
intervention for divorcing parents not only makes sense for the
parents but for society as a whole.
1330
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in
the debate on Bill C-235, and act to amend the Divorce Act,
requiring marriage counselling before a divorce is granted.
I commend the member for Mississauga South for this initiative
and for his ongoing commitment and concern for family issues. He
has acquitted himself admirably in pursuit of issues to
strengthen the family and his contribution to issues
surrounding the welfare of children.
The family is the foundation of this nation. A strong family
makes a strong community. A strong community makes a strong
nation.
The bill before us is hardly one that should cause objection.
It is a straightforward and direct attempt to achieve
reconciliation in cases of potential marriage breakdown and
subsequent divorce. On this side of the House we would have
preferred to see a caveat in the bill that covered the aspect of
children and the requirement for counselling. Perhaps the member
for Mississauga South will have some afterthoughts that he will
want to add to this debate.
Divorce wreaks havoc on the spouses concerned and has been
likened to the death of a mini civilization. The repercussions
are devastating, particularly, as I said previously, when
children are involved.
Premarriage counselling is mandatory in some faiths, such as the
Mormon faith. In certain faiths couples will not be joined in
matrimony until they have completed a marriage preparation
course. I believe that is true in certain U.S. states. As I
understand it, the success rate of marriages where couples have
participated in the course is very good. In today's world, with
all of its stresses, diversions and temptations, why not equip
those thinking of marriage with all the possible tools to handle
the difficulties and stresses that marriage brings. Similarly,
why not attempt to salvage a marriage that is on shaky ground by
way of counselling before a final decree is registered granting
divorce. This seems to me to be the least that society should do
to prevent another divorce.
Last December a joint Senate and House of Commons committee
tabled a report on child custody and access entitled “For the
Sake of the Children”. The report was greeted in most circles
as a compelling and cognitive effort to come to grips with the
realities of what divorce means, in particular what it means to
children and other family members left in the wake of marriage
breakdown. As I said before, divorce has been characterized as
the death of a mini civilization.
The joint report contained some 48 logical and progressive
recommendations and received all party support, with some
refinements and additions by the Reform Party.
Members of the joint committee, the hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, the hon. member for
Cariboo—Chilcotin and the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who is
the Reform Party's critic for family affairs, did a marvellous
job in putting facts together for the sake of children, families
and this nation.
A number of members of the Reform Party took the time and effort
to work on the special joint committee.
We on this side of the House care a great deal about families and
children because, as I said earlier, the institution of the
family is the foundation of this great country. A strong family
makes a strong nation.
1335
The justice minister will again study this issue. She is slow
in bringing the provinces along in order to reach a consensus on
what we can do for families, and children in particular. We can
strengthen our families, but the Liberal justice minister's idea
of doing things in a timely fashion is to drag her feet.
We have watched her do this with the youth criminal justice
system. We saw the government drag its feet. In fact it tried
to dig in its heels, while the opposition humiliated it into
compensating the victims of government controlled tainted blood.
I hope that the justice minister will listen to a member of her
own party on this issue.
Overall this report was endorsed and applauded as a realistic
approach to deal with marriage breakdown when children are
involved. Recommendation 29 of the report called upon the
federal government to extend financial support to programs run by
community groups for couples wanting to avoid separation and
divorce or seeking to strengthen their marital relationship.
My understanding is that this recommendation stemmed from the
fact that the committee wanted to support troubled couples,
particularly couples who had children and wanted to avoid
separation.
The initiative before us today is a further refinement and a
more direct attempt to salvage a marriage. It puts emphasis on
the lawyers and the courts to ensure that a marriage counsellor
is involved in the process before any decree of divorce is
granted. It calls for more than the perfunctory questions which
divorce lawyers are responsible to ask before they proceed with
divorce papers. This is a very good thing.
I am pleased that the bill recognizes the lack of benefit and
perhaps harm that can be caused if the parties to a potential
divorce are in a situation involving physical or mental cruelty.
I agree that there would be no benefit in putting those parties
in any further situations where further harm to either party may
ensue. There is obviously a point of no return, as sad as that
may be.
I again commend the member for his sense of realism and
compassion in this regard. This approach and attempt to provide
spouses contemplating divorce with some form of reconciliation is
sensible, but there is little use in forcing a situation. Again,
I wonder if there is some way of augmenting this marriage
counselling undertaking to give it more impact and force when
children are involved. Perhaps there is not a way to achieve
this.
In response to the comprehensive work undertaken and delivered
by the joint committee in the report I spoke of earlier,
regrettably we will see no further movement on the issue of
divorce law changes for perhaps three years.
The Minister of Justice has responded to 16 of the
recommendations in the report and has stated that she will now
undertake further study and consultation on the issue, as she
usually does.
It is again regrettable that she cannot accept that the issues
of divorce and child custody have received comprehensive study
and cogent recommendations.
The official opposition is pleased to see a member of the
government, an hon. member of the House who contributed to the
work and deliberations of the joint committee, step forward with
this bill today to begin the process of divorce law changes in
Canada. It is a start and it will be a fundamental part of any
21st century approach to a tragic and growing situation in
Canada.
All provinces should be involved.
I understand that the province of Alberta has produced a video
for couples. Similar things should be done by other provinces.
1340
I encourage the member for Mississauga South to continue to
carry this flashlight for the government, particularly the
Minister of Justice, so that the 47,000 children a year who are
subject to custody decisions under the Divorce Act will get
relief and the institution of the family will be strengthened to
make Canada a stronger nation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are debating Bill C-235. For the benefit of those who may have
tuned in to CPAC, I will take the time to read the very short
summary of that bill. It reads as follows:
This enactment amends the Divorce Act to require spouses to
attend marriage counselling before a divorce is granted. This
requirement does not apply where the grounds are physical or
mental cruelty—
Lucky for us. My colleague from Mississauga South was elected to
the House in 1993. In fact, I have known him since that date.
Someone looking at the bill would be very surprised to learn
that the sponsor belongs to the government majority because his
approach to the harsh reality of divorce is more conservative
than liberal in nature.
The bill is not a votable item, but if it were, we could not
vote for it. Let me outline some of the reasons why we would
oppose it.
We would oppose it because we believe that, when a couple is
seriously contemplating divorce, it is useless to force them to
see a marriage counsellor in the hope to make them change their
minds. It is very rare that a couple decides to divorce on
impulse.
That decision usually arises out of a long series of events. To
“require” individuals to do something totally disregards the
freedom of those concerned, their right to see things their own
way. Note that this is not the first time we see something not
make sense.
This morning, the government came up with a draft bill designed,
for all intents and purposes, to force Quebec to remain part of
Canada. This no longer makes sense.
Divorce is a federal jurisdiction. When the Special Joint
Committee on Child Custody and Access tabled its report in 1998,
the Bloc Quebecois presented a dissenting opinion to recognize
and stress that the responsibility for family, education and
social services comes under the provinces, and that it is an
anachronism to have the Divorce Act still under federal
jurisdiction.
I will quote what Senator Beaudoin, an eminent constitutional
expert recognized as such by just about everyone, wrote in 1990
about the Divorce Act, and what he said is interesting:
One may wonder why the constituent of 1867 granted to parliament
exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It seems that
it was for religious reasons. Under section 185 of Lower
Canada's civil code, marriage could only be dissolved by the
natural death of one of the spouses. That principle was accepted
by the overwhelming majority of Catholic Quebecers—
I might add “practising” Catholic Quebecers.
Even at the time, there was a clear difference between Quebec
and the rest of Canada.
Hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives
exclusive jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada over marriage
and divorce.
1345
What may have been appropriate back in 1867 no longer is.
Religion does not have as much importance as it used to, and our
legislation should reflect this reality.
Let me quote again Senator Beaudoin's remarks:
The question begs to be asked: Should the jurisdiction over
marriage and divorce be given to the provinces, so that Quebec
could have more control over its family law, an important part
of its private law which is different from that of other
provinces?
That is another difference that should be considered.
Some experts see advantages in leaving this jurisdiction under
section 91. Decentralization here would be a paradox, in their
view, while our neighbours to the south appear to be moving
toward centralization. Americans are not alone. Our friends in
the west would also like to centralize.
Concerning centralization and standardization of divorce laws,
they may be forgetting—and the prime minister should also be
reminded of this—that we have to different legal systems in
Canada, and the arguments supporting their position may be a
little less convincing in Canada. That is what Senator Beaudoin
was saying back in 1990.
The Bloc Quebecois did participate in this joint committee,
because the problem of children in family with relational
difficulties is indeed a serious issue.
But our opinion is that the whole jurisdiction over divorce
should be given back to the provinces. Quebec's family law
reflects its own circumstances and meets the needs of its
citizens. Counselling has been available to couples for a long
time. Spouses freely choose to use these services. In this area
just like in so many others, things can change only if people
really want them to change.
I am sorry to inform the House that Bill C-235 will not be
supported by my colleagues or by the Bloc Quebecois.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take
part in this debate.
The member for Mississauga South raises an issue which deserves
our consideration. Bill C-235 proposes to amend the Divorce Act
to provide counselling to spouses before a divorce is granted.
The marriage counsellor would act as a mediator between the
spouses. Fortunately, a few exceptions worth mentioning were
included in the bill.
Counselling would not be provided in cases where the grounds for
divorce are physical or mental cruelty, in cases where the court
is satisfied that counselling would be inappropriate or serve no
purpose and in cases where one party refuses to take part in
such counselling.
The summary of Bill C-235 says that this amendment would require
spouses to attend marriage counselling before a divorce is
granted. However, this requirement is not stated in the bill
itself. I hope the sponsor of the bill will be able to clarify
this point in his reply at the end of the debate.
Divorce is a real problem in Canada and the main victims are not
the adults, but the children. I sat on the Special Joint
Committee on Child Custody and Access, which did a comprehensive
study of the issue of divorce.
Starting in December 1997, this committee, made up of
parliamentarians from both Houses, set out to meet a formidable
challenge, namely to consider issues relating to child custody
and access arrangements after a separation or divorce, focusing
mainly on the needs and the best interests of the children.
1350
Bill C-235, however, proposes that action be taken before a
divorce is granted. The members of the special joint committee
hoped that their report's recommendations would promote the
emergence of a sensitive culture in order to avoid conflicts
instead of worsening them.
Our colleague from Mississauga South also wants to avoid this
kind of conflict. He wants a mediation system to be put in place
before a divorce is granted, and not after.
Therefore, the intent of the member for Mississauga South is
very praiseworthy. If we can reduce the number of family
breakdowns in Canada, we will have accomplished much good,
particularly for the vulnerable ones, our children.
On the subject of children, the Special Joint Committee on Child
Care discovered that, according Statistics Canada, because of a
high divorce rate, more than 47,000 children were covered by
custody orders pursuant to the Divorce Act, in 1994 and 1995.
Consequently, many children saw their home life changed. When
parents get remarried or find new partners after a divorce,
things get even more complicated for children. Close to 75% of
divorced men and women get remarried, and the children from
their first marriage have to develop new relations with their
stepparents.
Here is another statistic worth mentioning: 13% of divorces in
1992 marked the failure of a second marriage. Incredibly, some
people think that such instability will not affect children.
The mental health literature, and testimony by young people
especially, convinced the joint committee that divorce has a
deep, and at times disastrous, impact on children.
I believe that most members in this House are aware of the
harmful effects of separation and divorce on the younger members
of our society. Although the solution does not entirely rest
with governments, they can make a difference.
In Quebec, since September 1, 1997, we have had an act similar
to Bill C-235. It makes it compulsory for divorcing couples who
have children to attend at least one information session on the
benefits of mediation. It should be noted that this is an
information session, not a mediation session.
If the parents agree to mediation, the Quebec government pays
for up to six sessions.
In certain cases, for example when there is a history or a risk
of family violence, the Quebec act allows the parties to forgo
both the information sessions on mediation and the mediation
itself. The individual who declines to attend such sessions only
has to sign a consent form that will be forwarded to the court.
Although the Quebec act is specifically geared to future
divorcees, it shows how useful mediation can be as a dispute
resolution mechanism for couples. In Quebec, the results of
mediation are impressive. Between September 1, 1997, when the
act came into force, and September 30, 1999, close to 20,000
couples with children took part in mediation sessions.
According to the available data, in at least 73 % of the cases,
mediation was successful in resolving disputes between divorcing
or separating spouses.
We are of course dealing here with spouses who cannot agree on
the terms of the separation or the divorce agreements and on the
future of their children. However, the mediation process could
without any doubt help the spouses who are involved in the
disputes to stay together for the benefit of all the family
members.
One of the major advantages of the mediation system is that it
helps both parties to avoid the more adversarial court
proceedings where both parents, accompanied by their lawyers,
are more likely to start making accusations. Accordingly,
chances of reconciliation are much lower there than with a
mediator.
Bill C-235 proposes a mechanism to help families to stay united.
As long as the legislation does not force a man and a woman to
undergo mediation against their will, the Progressive
Conservative Party would be in favour of Bill C-235.
An in-depth study will have to be made on that subject some day.
It would be interesting to hear what the experts in the field of
mediation and even professional mediators have to say on that.
The Quebec experience in this field is worth looking at. Some
people also believe that divorce legislation should come under
provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to
look into that for now, because the bill proposed by the member
for Mississauga South will not be considered by a parliamentary
committee.
1355
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for Mississauga South and add a
little praise for some of the work he has done in the House,
particularly on Bill C-235. Sometimes we know the parliamentary
secretary is anxious to jump up to get rid of a bill and tell us
why we cannot vote for it. This is actually a non-votable item
so it does not really matter what the parliamentary secretary
says or what anyone says.
It is important in life for people to obtain counselling for
divorce, family or any other matter. They need the ability, not
necessarily in legislation, to sit down with someone who is clear
thinking and talk about their problems.
I was disappointed that the statements today of a couple of
people who did not do any counselling bordered on no one being
welcome in Quebec unless he or she speaks pure French, even
though 42% of Quebeckers have Irish backgrounds much like myself.
Back in my early years as a member of the parole board I do not
believe I counselled anyone over there so I do not have to worry
about them. At that time I looked at the problems of
incarcerated people, people who had been sent to jail. Before
sitting down I would read the case files and note that they came
from broken homes, that they were abused as children, that they
dropped out of school at very early ages, and that they were
suffering some type of substance abuse whether drugs or alcohol.
That provided me with a catchment.
Very early on in my career here I was asked to speak at a
breakfast meeting in Ottawa. I was not sure I was capable of
speaking at it because it was the Parkdale Baptist Church. It
sent around a topic that I was to speak on: the cost of being a
Christian member of parliament.
I looked at it and thought as a Christian and family oriented
person that perhaps I could speak to it, and so I did. I did
some research which showed that at one point in time previous to
1993 the divorce rate among members of parliament elected for a
second term was at about 75%. I thought that was pretty high
compared to the rest of the country. The last time I checked it
was still hovering around 72% to 75% as a result of a couple of
issues.
As a rule members of parliament are elected at a later stage in
their lives. They are moved away from the family unit and
operate in a vacuum in this building and in the area that
surrounds it. Their lives become run by the whip's offices, by
the various bills that are presented, and by the pressures of the
media surrounding them. Probably members of parliament, more
than most people, need counselling and help in coping with
everyday life. Certainly when they are away from home five days
a week it plays havoc on the family.
The basic premise of what the member for Mississauga South has
brought forth both in the book he has written and in the bills he
put before the House is that counselling is very important to the
life cycle, that counselling is probably at the heart of talking
out one's problems.
The member has come forward with a bill that encourages people
to have counselling before they get divorced.
In fact, before they get married there should be counselling.
1400
My wife Marilyn and I took part in the premarriage encounter
course in my hometown of Lindsay. We were worried the first
weekend that we spent at the church with a group of young people
all full of vim and vigour ready to get married. We were shocked
when we found that three couples broke up that weekend. The
ministerial association was delighted and said, “What we have
done and what this course has done and what this counselling has
done is it has prevented divorces. It has prevented broken
homes. It has prevented people from starting a family before
they realize they are not compatible, that they have nothing in
common, they have nothing that they can actually associate
with”.
In life, as we know, as soon as people start going together
society starts to pull the couple apart. Whether it is boy
scouts, girl guides, the women's leagues, baseball or sports, the
forces that people have to deal with start to pull couples apart.
They have to look at how they are going to handle that.
Couples that are getting married in the church are now told that
they have to attend a premarriage encounter course. That course
involves human sexuality, the legal aspects and spiritual aspects
of marriage and all kinds of things that are important to what my
friend from Mississauga South is trying to get at. When a family
is established and is functioning as a unit, there are
differences. Every family, whether it is brothers and sisters,
husbands and wives, grandparents or in-laws, has differences.
Most of the minor things can be talked out before they become
major things.
The member's bill would cause the government to look at what it
is in law that should be standard to allow families to stay
together. Whether it is a certain type of tax deduction which
allows more counselling in marriage or which allows persons to
spend more time at home, all of those things have to do with
mental health as married couples or as common law couples. Fewer
people are getting married and more people are living common law
but they suffer the same problems. Counselling also has
advantages in their lives.
The member for Mississauga South has brought forward something
that causes us as parliamentarians to take a look and say, yes,
counselling is important, marriage is important, common law
relationships are important. People can deal with each other in
situations as a family and go to counselling and talk out their
differences. Bill C-235 is important.
Mr. Speaker, that is either a Roman ordering five beers or you
are telling me my time is up. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for indicating that.
Parliamentarians should keep in mind that 75% of all marriages
among people elected for a second term end up in divorce or split
homes, split marriages. Members should call home if they have
not lately. They should make sure that they spend some time with
their family so that they do not need the type of legislation the
member is bringing forward and they do not need the type of
counselling that is going to come out of a marriage split-up.
I agree in some ways that divorce may be the end of a long
process. If people talk at the very start, that process ends up
being a very short process but also a very sweet and loving one.
I thank the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward
Bill C-235. I know the member for Scarborough Southwest has
something to say on it, so I will end my speech now.
1405
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the consideration of Bill
C-235 today. I take perhaps a different and more personal
perspective on this matter.
I should begin my remarks by saying that prior to becoming a
member of parliament I was a lawyer. The bulk of my practice was
civil litigation. A portion of that civil litigation practice
pertained to matrimonial law. Within that matrimonial law
sphere, I did my share of divorces. It was early in my practice
and early in the experience of the Divorce Act newly passed.
There were certain obligations placed on lawyers at that time and
they are still in the act.
One of the members opposite characterized the duties of the
lawyer as perfunctory. When I was practising law, I considered
those duties to be anything but perfunctory. I thought they were
very important.
It was my obligation as an officer of the court to bring to the
attention of my client, who was either responding to a
matrimonial situation or initiating it, that reconciliation
counselling was available. I had to ask if the client had
considered reconciliation counselling and more to the point, to
provide the names of reconciliation counsellors, the names of
arbitrators and that sort of thing in order to keep the peace
within the breaking up family.
That is what I did—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest but
I had forgotten that this bill is non-votable. Therefore the
mover will get the last five minutes. If the hon. member for
Scarborough Southwest would give the parliamentary secretary two
minutes to get his oar in the water, we could do that as well.
That would give the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest another
three minutes, but it is up to him.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I will do as you suggest, of
course. Just give me that ordering five beers signal, as my
friend said earlier, and then a countdown on one so I know where
I am going.
Unfortunately I am one of the statistics that my hon. colleague
has talked about. I am separated from my wife and have been for
over two years. There are no divorce proceedings instituted
between us, so this bill would not help us in any way because
this bill pertains to the Divorce Act.
This is one of the points I want to make. While lauding my
friend from Mississauga South and all the efforts he has made
with respect to the issues he is talking about, one of the
problems with jurisdiction and the fact that the federal
government has jurisdiction over divorce but not over family law
per se is that by the time people come to use the Divorce Act, in
many circumstances sadly it is already too late.
The hon. member exempts, for example, mental and physical
cruelty from his bill. If there are grounds, for example, of
adultery or some other matrimonial offence, people are so angry
at that point they are not thinking about reconciliation. A one
year separation is now grounds for divorce but when I was
practising it was three years. By then in many instances it is
too late.
The other thing I would like to mention very briefly about the
reconciliation issue is that when the hon. member for Mississauga
South was speaking, he was talking about this being for the
benefit of children. It is absolutely critical that that
principle be recognized, that it is for the benefit of the
children.
In his bill the member talks about the marriage counsellor
visits “with a view to assisting them to achieve a
reconciliation”. I want to draw to the attention of the hon.
member that there is in fact no mention of children in his bill.
Perhaps it should read “assisting them to achieve a
reconciliation and/or to facilitate the lives of the children
with respect to the unfortunate break up of the marriage”. I
draw that to the hon. member's attention because I know that is
his primary concern.
1410
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have heard today from many parliamentarians on the merits of
counselling, and the government takes no issue with that. The
issue is mandatory counselling. In order to consider the merits
of Bill C-235, we have to compare the current Divorce Act to see
what it would add.
There are currently several sections in the Divorce Act that
already refer to reconciliation. For example, section 10
requires the court to assess the possibility of a reconciliation
of the spouses that come before it.
Pursuant to subsection 10(1), the court must satisfy itself that
there is no possibility of reconciliation of the spouses before
the court can even consider the evidence on the matter.
Subsection 10(2) provides that if it appears at any stage of the
court proceedings that there is a possibility of the spouses
reconciling, the court must adjourn the proceedings and nominate
a marriage counsellor to assist the spouses to achieve this
reconciliation if it is possible.
Bill C-235 does not refer to section 10 but rather proposes to
replace section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. As I have already
noted, section 9(1) currently creates a duty for all legal
advisors to inform spouses of the available marital counselling
services.
Specifically, section 9(1) requires every barrister, solicitor,
lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of the spouses
in a divorce proceeding to do two things: first, to draw the
attention of the spouse to the provisions of the Divorce Act that
have as their object the reconciliation of the spouses; and
second, to discuss with the spouse the possibility of
reconciliation and to inform the spouse of the marriage
counselling or guidance facilities known to him or her that might
be able to assist the spouses to achieve reconciliation. This
duty is imposed unless the circumstances of the case are such
that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so.
There may also be constitutional and cost implications
associated with requiring mandatory marriage counselling for all
divorcing couples. Counselling can be expensive and would impose
an additional cost on parents. Provinces and territories could
also be reluctant to co-operate if they viewed this legal
requirement as a federal intrusion into matters of provincial
jurisdiction. There would be a strong expectation that the
federal government would provide the financial funding for those
counselling services since this legal requirement would be
imposed on them by the federal government and it could be very
costly.
I commend the member for Mississauga South on his initiative and
his continuing crusade to support family and children. He is to
be commended for it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would like to
thank hon. members for being so considerate of each other.
The last five minutes of the debate will go to the mover of the
motion, the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank all hon. colleagues who participated in the debate.
It is an important issue to keep bringing before the House. This
is the third time I have had this bill before the House. I want
to address some of the comments made by hon. members.
I want to thank the member for Surrey Central for his kind
remarks and support for the intent of the bill. I stress intent
of the bill because certainly as a private member's item it is
quite difficult for an individual bill to be as comprehensive as
say, for instance, the special joint Commons-Senate committee on
custody and access. This is certainly only one part of it.
I thank the Bloc member for Laval Centre for her participation.
We worked very well together in a number of areas. She made
reference to the freedom of individuals. This is one of the
reasons why the Divorce Act has to be amended.
Presently, the Divorce Act is structured for individuals,
individual rights for the parents. What it does not do and what
the Commons-Senate committee said it should do, is shift the
paradigm and start being child centred and in the best interests
of the children. That is where we disagree on the thrust of
divorce law.
I also point out that I had Quebec particularly in mind on this
because the divorce rate in Quebec is around 70%, whereas it is
less than 50% in the rest of Canada.
I also thank the member for Shefford for her comments. I know
how hard she has worked on the special joint committee. She
raised with me the issue of whether it was mandatory or
obligatoire. In the report of the custody and access committee,
recommendation No. 10 recommends that all parents seeking
parenting orders be required to participate in an education
program obligatoire; custody and access report.
So the member should be clear, this is mandatory counselling. It
is already in the existing law.
1415
I think it is outstanding with the breadth of knowledge and
experience that we have in this place that members such as the
hon. member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock can rise and share
the experience he has obtained from his work before he came to
the House. I really appreciate his words of encouragement and
his support for some sort of constructive intervention.
The member for Scarborough Southwest is one of the most
knowledgeable people regarding legislative crafting. I take his
comments constructively. I hope the issue will continue to be
alive. When I bring this issue back to the House, I will be sure
to consult with the member to ensure that children will be
foremost in the bill.
I understand the points the parliamentary secretary has raised.
I understand that the government has already indicated that it is
supportive of educational programs for children. I find that
very encouraging.
Unfortunately, this bill is not votable. The important thing is
that the bill raises the importance of children and the impact of
divorce and family breakdown on them. I think it is always a
good time to bring this issue before Canadians.
I want to conclude my comments simply by quoting from a review
of the book The Divorce Culture by a woman who is quite
experienced in this. She said:
You think your kids will bounce back from divorce? Guess again.
Divorce is less like a cold for children than a serious chronic
disease. You think you will eventually repartner and create a new
family unit and kids will live happily ever after? Forget
it....Not all children of divorce are doomed but in just about
every way we have to measure such things, divorce has hurt
children.
Again, I thank all hon. members. I look forward to bringing
this bill back before the House and the Canadian people in the
best interests of our children.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the item is dropped from the Othis order paper.
It being 2.17 p.m.,
the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)