36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 94
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HUNGARY
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| ISRAEL
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1405
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| ALEXI BÉRUBÉ, MP FOR A DAY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| CANADA-FRANCE PARLIAMENTARY DAY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| DR. MARY PERCY JACKSON
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1410
| PENSIONS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| MUSICAL GROUP HARM'MANIK
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| NATIONAL PRESS CLUB BOOK DRIVE
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| MOTHERS' DAY
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| ACOA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1420
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CBC
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1440
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1445
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1450
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1500
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1505
| PETITIONS
|
| East Timor
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Child Poverty
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Canada Post
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| The Debt
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1510
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Day Parole
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| National Highway System
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1515
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Motions Nos. 1 and 2
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motions Nos. 3 and 17
|
| Motion No. 22
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1520
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
|
1525
1530
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1550
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1555
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1600
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1605
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1610
1615
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
1620
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 22 deferred
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1625
1630
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1635
1640
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1645
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1650
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1655
1700
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1705
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1710
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1715
1720
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1725
1730
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
1800
(Division 1289)
| Motion agreed to
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Second reading
|
(Division 1290)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
| PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1825
1830
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1835
1840
| Mr. John Maloney |
1845
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1850
1855
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1900
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Parental leave
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1905
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1910
| Trade
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 94
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Fraser
Valley.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HUNGARY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the country of my ancestors, Hungary, the year 2000
marks a special anniversary. The Hungarian state is 1,000 years
old.
At Christmas in the year 1000 AD, almost 500 years before
Europeans stumbled upon the new world, Stephen, the first king of
the Magyars, was crowned with a crown sent by Pope Silvester II.
King Stephen later became St. Stephen, canonized on August 20,
1083.
Many celebrations are planned in Hungary for this historic
milestone. On May 19 and 20 in Budapest the Hungary 2000
Conference will be convened. The Canadian parliament will be
represented by a delegation of the Canada-Hungary Parliamentary
Friendship Group led by me.
I look forward to extending congratulations on behalf of all
parliamentarians as Hungary celebrates 1000 years of statehood,
the Magyar millennium.
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the
Minister of Justice said in response to the special joint
committee report “For the Sake of the Children”, “Canadians
agree that when families break down, the needs and best interests
of children must be the highest priority”.
Sadly, a year has elapsed and this high priority item is nowhere
to be seen. The minister has caved in to the bureaucratic
insider systems agenda of just leaving the Divorce Act as it is.
The concerns are the same wherever I go in Canada about the
shortcomings of the Divorce Act for the child-parent
relationship.
We need shared parenting put in the law. The act must serve
children's needs first and grandparents must be permitted their
rightful place in the law. Maintenance should reflect the
principle of ability to pay and demonstrated need. There must be
easier access to the superior courts and all orders must be
easily enforced, especially child access terms and parental
guardianship. The act must respond to false allegations.
On behalf of parents, grandparents and most of all the children,
I pray that the House of Commons does not have to hear a similar
plea for action on May 10, 2001 but rather, that the Canadian
Alliance government will have already acted.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of the House to a ceremony which took
place today. The Canadian National Railway donated a vast
collection of photos collected by it over the last 150 years of
railway building to the Canadian Museum of Science and
Technology.
From the Grand Trunk Railway to the National Transcontinental,
to the Newfoundland railway system and the Canadian Northern,
railways have been the building blocks that have made our
country.
These pictures are available to Canadians on the web. This
shows how the new technologies being learned by Canadians can
help celebrate our past history and culture.
On behalf of parliament, I would like to thank the CNR for its
contributions to making the stories of the building of our
country available to all Canadians so that we can appreciate the
struggle that has made Canada the great country it is today.
* * *
ISRAEL
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the 52nd anniversary of the establishment of the state of
Israel.
Israel is not simply the Andy Warhol of the international media.
Rather, it must be seen and understood as the drama and
development of civilization itself, as a first nation of
humankind.
In a word, the Jewish people are a prototypical aboriginal
people just as the Jewish religion is a prototypical aboriginal
religion and Hebrew an aboriginal language.
The Jewish people still inhabit the same land, bear the same
name, worship the same God, study the same Bible and speak the
same language as they did 3,500 years ago and whose abiding hope
and dream is to live in peace with the other indigenous nations
and peoples of the region, the Arab nations and Palestinian
people.
* * *
NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CANADA
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to advise all hon. members that the Nature
Conservancy of Canada invites them to a dedication of its latest
conservation project. This project is made possible with the
assistance of Shell Canada Limited and local partners in memory
of the late Shaughnessy Cohen, my friend and your former
colleague. This event takes place this afternoon from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m. in the dining room of the National Press Club.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, grassroots aboriginals continue to
phone me and send me faxes, e-mails and letters pleading that the
Government of Canada hear their concerns.
1405
These aboriginal men and women detest being treated like beggars
in their own communities by their own band councils while at the
same time being ignored by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. These desperate citizens want equal
treatment under local government as other Canadians enjoy. Their
neighbours in rural municipalities, towns and villages elect men
and women who must practise openness and accountability and who
know there are severe penalties if they contravene legislation.
All the natives ask is to be treated equally. They want
bondable licensed and trained administrators to handle their
financial transactions approved by the band council. They want
annual budgets and an annual external audit.
Why does the government show contempt to the petitions of
grassroots natives who are being denied time proven legislation
and the accountability and responsibility enjoyed by other
Canadians?
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. The MS Society of Canada has
led the way for people living with MS. During the month of May,
volunteers across Canada participate in fundraising and awareness
campaigns to support MS research and to provide services.
This year the MS Society of Canada hopes to build on past
successes and raise even more than the $19 million generously
gifted by Canadians from coast to coast. These funds enabled the
MS society last year to direct an additional $3 million to 13
potentially groundbreaking research projects and 36 research
scholarships.
Colleagues, please join me in urging all Canadians to join these
dedicated volunteers in achieving their goals. Congratulations
to the MS Society of Canada; you make an incredible difference by
helping the people living with MS.
* * *
[Translation]
ALEXI BÉRUBÉ, MP FOR A DAY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I am
pleased to welcome to Parliament Hill Alexi Bérubé, MP for a day
for Longueuil.
As the winner of the second “MP for a day” contest in the riding
of Longueuil, Alexi Bérubé, a secondary IV student at École
Jacques-Rousseau, distinguished himself out of some fifty
students in the national history course who participated in the
contest.
I must admit that the choice was not an easy one, because all 11
finalists, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, presented
worthwhile qualities. I want to congratulate the other ten
finalists for their excellent performance, as well as all the
other students who took part.
During his stay in Ottawa, Alexi, who is accompanied by his
teacher Jean-Paul Bohémier, will have the opportunity to
familiarize himself with the parliamentary duties of MPs.
With this contest I wanted to interest young people in the world
of politics, and to familiarize them with it, for they are the
decision makers of tomorrow.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I welcome Alexi and wish him an
enjoyable stay among us.
* * *
CANADA-FRANCE PARLIAMENTARY DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of this House
that today is the third Canada-France parliamentary day,
organized under the auspices of the Canadian group of the
Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, in co-operation with
the Fédération canadienne France-Canada, the Embassy of France,
and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Once again this year, the day will begin with a symposium on
“Cultural diversity and the new technologies”, at which French
and Canadian experts will exchange views and hold discussions
with participants.
There will also be a working meeting between the Canada-France
federation and our parliamentary group, and the day will close
with a dinner at which the Secretary of State for the
Francophonie and the Ambassador of France will speak.
As hon. members can see, France and Canada are collaborating
closely to promote cultural diversity in a changing world
characterized by new technologies and the globalization of trade
exchanges, within the enhanced Canada-France Action Program
signed in December 1998 by the prime ministers of France and of
Canada.
* * *
[English]
DR. MARY PERCY JACKSON
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Mary Percy Jackson, a
rural medical pioneer. Dr. Jackson passed away last Saturday in
Edmonton at the age of 95.
In 1929 Dr. Jackson was fresh out of medical school in England
and was looking for adventure. She found it in the Battle River
area of the Peace River country where she became the resident
doctor and made her rounds on horseback.
Her patients, who were mainly Cree and recent immigrants,
pitched in to buy her a horse. The working conditions were rough
and isolated. Supplies and provisions were scarce. In spite of
that she was successful and highly regarded because of her
dedication to her patients. She used her ingenuity to overcome
the isolation, transportation challenges and lack of medical
equipment.
In 1990 Dr. Jackson was awarded the Order of Canada in
recognition of her service.
I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Mary Percy Jackson and of
listening to her stories of practising medicine under tough
conditions. I debated health care issues with her when she was
almost 90 years old.
Her memorial service will be held on June 3 in Manning and Keg
River, Alberta.
* * *
1410
PENSIONS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, imagine
being a senior citizen having worked hard all of your life and
planned for a modest retirement on fixed income with just enough
money to pay for essentials and drugs with a little bit left over
to treat your grandchildren. Then imagine $2,000 or even $5,000
a year being yanked from your savings because the federal
government signed a treaty with Washington.
Eighty thousand Canadian retirees face that very problem. Until
1996 these pensioners were taxed on 50% of their social security.
Today it is 85%.
Last week I met with CASSE, a group appealing to their Windsor
MP and the finance minister to restore the 50% exclusion in
effect when they planned for their retirement. Because of the
sudden drop in income, seniors are being forced to move into
cheaper apartments, are being ejected from nursing homes and are
suffering erosion of their modest lifestyles.
I call on the finance minister today to restore the 50%
exclusion or at the very least grandfather this rule so that it
will no longer punish people who are already retired.
* * *
[Translation]
MUSICAL GROUP HARM'MANIK
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like today to honour the brilliant performance by the musical
group Harm'Manik, which has 70 members, students between the
ages of 15 and 17 who attend the Manikoutai composite high
school in Sept-Îles.
At the most recent New York Heritage Festival, held on April 28
and 29, they did so well that the jury gave them two firsts and
one gold and one silver award for the scores they received.
Their excellent performance earned the Harm'Manik group an
invitation to the Dallas Gold Festival in 2001, an honour in
itself. Of the 3,000 musicians taking part in the New York
Heritage Festival, only the Harm'Manik group was invited.
Speaking for myself and all the residents of Manicouagan, I
congratulate Harm'Manik and wish them every success in their
preparations for Dallas 2001.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB BOOK DRIVE
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the members of the National Press Club of Canada are
launching a book drive to help provide books for the community of
Cambridge Bay, Nunavut whose library burnt down in 1998.
The Cambridge Bay book drive kick-off is tonight at the National
Press Club. Anyone wishing to donate books can drop them off at
the press club at 150 Wellington Street until the end of May.
The recent book drive spearheaded by my colleague the hon.
member for Ottawa—Vanier resulted in an astonishing 125,000
pounds of books for the Aqsarniq Middle School in Iqaluit,
therefore enabling us to donate to every community in my riding
in Nunavut.
I thank the National Press Club for its interest and wish it
every success in its book drive and sincere thanks on behalf of
my constituents for everyone's generosity. Thank you,
mutna.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of a real success
story involving Canada's youth.
The national youth at risk pilot project initiative resource
collection “Open Your Mind—Open Their Lives” is the result of
nine national organizations, 28 communities and hundreds of local
partners in youth working together. Teen Express 2000 in
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is one of seven profiled as
extremely successful. Teen Express 2000 was established during
the summer of 1998 as a co-operative venture among the Pictou
County Women's Centre, New Glasgow Youth Centre, New
Glasgow/Westville Police Service, YM-YWCA of Pictou County and
Recreation New Glasgow.
Establishing partnerships and creating mechanisms for shared
information between organizations related to youth is the goal.
This is achieved by means of a four step process: building
awareness, gaining commitment, implementation and sustainability.
Communities and organizations form partnerships that will
provide support, leadership, expertise and the commitment needed
to develop a sustainable program for youth and children. Many
agencies and individuals are unaware of just how beneficial youth
networking can be in their community. Teen Express 2000 is a
shining example to all.
* * *
[Translation]
MOTHERS' DAY
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
coming Sunday, May 14, I will join Canadians in wishing happy
mothers' day to all mothers in Canada.
They showed their children the way, they supported their
husbands and they contributed greatly to the family's spiritual,
cultural and financial growth.
Today, I want to wish all mothers in the riding of
Verdun—Saint-Henri a happy and rewarding mothers' day.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
ACOA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister for ACOA seems to have a
dreadful addiction for fiction. Yesterday he said “Today and
for the past five years we have been giving only loans which have
to be paid back”.
I have a list here of 123 grants totalling more than $12
million. They are all grants. They were all in the last three
years when the Liberals were in power and all of them were
non-repayable. Why did the minister claim what he knew to be
false?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition stood
in the Chamber two days ago and for 15 minutes blamed ACOA for
giving money to the Clarenville sportsplex, only to discover that
they were wrong, that it was an infrastructure program that did
it.
Before that they blamed ACOA for spending all this money in
1997, only to discover that they were wrong and that it was
fisheries money. Yesterday they claimed we gave out grants to
businesses. They are wrong because they are only loans. I ask
the leader: What does it feel like to be wrong 100% of the time?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at lease I will feel free to admit it
when I have made a mistake. I would like to remind the minister
about what he said yesterday.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yesterday the minister said“ we have
been giving only loans which have to be paid back”. He talks
about infrastructure. Everyone thought that was sewer and water,
not sportplexes. He says ACOA is about loans but really over the
past five years 70% of ACOA spending has been on contributions.
Those are giveaways, as far as I know.
Why is the minister pretending that ACOA is simply a lending
agency when he knows that is not the case?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have said consistently is the
truth, that one cannot walk into an ACOA office anywhere in
Canada as a business person and ask for a grant. They will say
“We only have loans and they must be paid back”.
The information that the official opposition has is zero based
on facts and 100% based on fiction, pulp fiction.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are getting a little
close on both sides with the fiction, pulp or otherwise.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that golf
courses, let us use that as an example, would be equivalent to a
business. I thought they made money.
I have a list of four golf courses here that ACOA funded in
1998-99 under a Liberal administration to the tune of more than
$2.5 million. That is a business. It came under grants and
contributions. We see now that ACOA really did fund golf
courses. When it comes to golf courses, should not this minister
just improve his lie?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would say the hon. member
is pretty close to being out of bounds on that shot.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member said improve his
line. I think that was what she said.
To clear up the confusion in case the hon. member's research
bureau cannot do it, one can get grants, non-repayable
contributions, if one is transferring money to the provincial
government to do something that is a provincial government
priority in these agreements, or under infrastructure, or if one
is a non-profit organization, but there are no forgivable loans
for businesses. On these lines, if these lines keep up, they—
The Speaker: That is enough on lines for today.
1420
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the ACOA minister's storytelling abilities know no
bounds. I suppose that is necessary, since the details of ACOA
spending is one strange tale indeed.
However the little overblown agency that he has come to know and
love seems to have a very big problem with its bookkeeping. Since
the Liberals have come to power, ACOA has spent more than $19
million on projects they refer to as “rationale unknown”.
Why is it the policy of the government to hand out millions of
dollars of taxpayer money without knowing why or how that money
is being spent?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition gave an
example yesterday of this unknown category—
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are you going to answer the question?
Hon. George S. Baker: I am answering the question. They
gave an example as Bombardier ACOA grant unknown and then they
said Mirabel, Quebec. That was a loan. It has been paid back.
It set up a business in Fredericton, New Brunswick. It employs
over 30 people. The only unknown thing here is where the
opposition is getting this terrible information.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Well, Mr. Speaker, the similarities between the ACOA minister and
the human resources minister are becoming more obvious every day.
Both hand out millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Both kind
of know where the money went. They just cannot figure out why it
went to those agencies: $19 million under rationale unknown. If
ACOA cannot explain why the money is needed, why does the
minister continue to write the cheques?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they also claim that 58% of the money from
ACOA goes to big business.
Statistics Canada did a study in 1997. It examined over 6,000
ACOA clients. It found that 92% of the money goes to small and
medium size businesses. Who do we believe, the reform alliance
or Statistics Canada?
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
unbelievable that the Department of Human Resources Development,
which has an army of public servants, which has access to all
kinds of documents and which has the power to investigate and
audit, still paid $700,000 for the transfer of jobs.
How can the minister display so much ignorance and incompetence
in this matter, when a simple audit would have shown that the
payment of the $700,000 to Modes Conili was totally unjustified?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
last few days the party opposite has brought to the House's
attention some new information.
At the present time the department is reviewing that new
information. If any additional steps are necessary on this file
they will be taken promptly.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
us be clear. No one in the department was able to obtain letters
signed by the presidents of the two companies and received by
all the employees, the same employees who were laid off, who
applied for employment insurance benefits and who were hired by
the new company.
Is this not further proof of the total incompetence of this
government in the management of the Department of Human
Resources Development?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is trying to get a second day's news out of yesterday's
news.
This is exactly the information that we are now reviewing as a
department. Steps will be taken if the information suggests they
should be.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is both funny and sad.
There are always documents missing in the files obtained under the
Access to Information Act. In the case of Placeteco, it was the invoices
and in the case of Modes Conili it is the report that could
support the government's claims.
If everything is so perfect for the government, why does it not
have the documents to prove its claims?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the access
to information process is there at arm's length from the
government. The party opposite has chosen to go that route.
The member knows there are legal requirements that must be
followed when publicly releasing personal or business
information. I am confident that all the information the member
is requesting that can be released will be released, as is the
usual practice.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is much simpler than that. No jobs were
created at Modes Conili. Employees were simply transferred from
one plant to the other.
When will the government ask the recipient to repay the grant?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have
already said, the department is reviewing this information as we
speak. If action is necessary, it will be taken.
* * *
CBC
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. CBC's corporate plan states
“to be national one must first be regional”. Yet today English
regional television is being gutted: in Nova Scotia, 220 staff
reduced to 145; in New Brunswick, 48 to 9; P.E.I., 36 to 6;
Newfoundland, 85 down to 35; Hear and Now, Newfoundland's
highly successful local news program, gone.
Why has the government abandoned its commitment to build a
strong national broadcaster by building on strong regional
programming?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not
abandoning the CBC at all. The government has stood by the
mandate of CBC.
I encourage the member of parliament opposite, her constituents
and the constituents of all members, if they have concerns about
the plans of the CBC, to express those concerns to the members of
the board or to the president of CBC before the decision is made,
because it has not yet been made.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
Canadians want to hear from the Prime Minister on this issue. He
must know that the Broadcast Act directs the national broadcaster
to reflect Canada's regions to regional audiences.
Regional broadcasting is not optional. In this Internet era and
with growing demand for local programming, centralization not
only defies the law. It defies the cry for nation building. What
is the government's response to the CBC proposals to abandon
regions like Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not
abandoning the regions. The government has stood by the CBC Act
and its mandate of reflecting Canadians in each region of the
country to each other.
I advise the member that her own critic has asked the heritage
committee to meet with the president of CBC, which the committee
agreed to do before the next board meeting, so that it could be
apprised of the concerns expressed by Canadians to some members
of the House. In the meantime, before the next board meeting
where decisions and recommendations will be—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
last 24 hours the Department of National Defence has confirmed
that at CFB Cold Lake there are five known cases where
tuberculosis skin tests have come back positive.
We thank God that none of these cases are active right now, but
as I stated yesterday we have been informed that there is at
least one active case in the military today.
Will the minister tell the House what percentage of the total
base population at CFB Cold Lake has undergone TB tests, and will
he call for all base personnel to be tested immediately?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all who go over to the Balkans where
there have been difficulties with tuberculosis are tested before
they go over and when they come back.
There are only five cases in Cold Lake where there has been a
positive skin test, meaning that there has been exposure to
tuberculosis.
It does not mean they have active tuberculosis. In fact, none of
the five have active tuberculosis. All of them are receiving
treatment for this. It is in fact totally 100% curable with
treatment.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad that the minister knows a little more today than he knew
yesterday, but two of the five cases were detected in regular
pre-deployment testing.
This situation was so serious that these two individuals were
not deployed out of the country. It is serious.
Since then, the minister should know that I received a phone
call from a lady by the name of Robyn Walters, a mother of
four, who now has tuberculosis and she was at—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Now we will have the short
answer.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would caution the hon. member on
becoming an alarmist because this matter is under control.
The fact that a person has been tested positive in terms of
exposure does not mean that they have tuberculosis or any
illness. It does not mean it is contagious at all. In fact, it
is all under control. In these five particular cases they are
receiving appropriate medication.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when confronted with still
another clear and flagrant abuse of $700,000 of taxpayer money,
the government used its tired and discredited line of pretending
that the money had put people to work. It often uses this tactic
to divert attention from suspicious circumstances surrounding one
of its grants. Unfortunately new evidence blew that excuse
apart.
Why was the House told that 162 jobs had been created when that
was not the case?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is mistaken. Yesterday I said that 162 people were
working at the firm that received the grant and that they had
applied for the jobs. This member, once again, is using her own
tactics to twist the facts.
I also want to say that on this file the department is reviewing
it as we speak. If action is necessary it will be taken.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is just unbelievable. Let us
examine the players in this unsavoury drama.
A Liberal MP ended up with a whopping $7,000 from a grateful
grant recipient. The HRD minister who approved the grant ended
up winning the riding that had just received his generous gift of
other people's money. The owner of Golf and Grants who brokered
this sweet deal ended up doing business with his fired and
re-hired workers.
Why did HRDC choose to ignore the evidence of political
patronage and likely fraud?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you and I
are old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings in the United
States in the fifties. We also know that certain people took a
set of circumstances and twisted them in a way that did harm to
many people. I would suggest that party and that member are very
good at that and would have fit in better in the fifties making
spurious accusations against members—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask members to
please tone down the rhetoric a little. We are getting carried
away on both sides.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when they were
in opposition not that long ago, the Liberals were calling for
the resignation of Conservative ministers for things far less
serious than what is going on at present within Human Resources
Development Canada. Today the government has announced “We are
going to audit this matter”.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that a government is
responsible for auditing first and paying out the money later,
not the other way around, as they have been so busy doing at
Human Resources Development Canada?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
the opposition is not listening. I did not announce an audit. I
said that at the present moment the department is reviewing the
new information and that if additional steps are necessary they
will be taken promptly. I did not announce an audit.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's behaviour in this matter is the greatest example of
incompetence I have ever seen.
How can this government, which came into power supposedly to
bring integrity back to public administration, today continue to
administer with a Minister for International Trade who is
responsible for what is going on, a Minister of Human Resources
Development who is still in her position, and a Prime Minister
who still dares to look people in the eye? This is incredible.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
odd that members opposite are talking about integrity if in fact
further action is needed on the files that they are obsessed
with. We could have moved sooner on them if only they had
shared their information sooner.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Modes Conili grant scam is a disaster. The MP for
Ahuntsic lobbied the government for a $700,000 grant for Modes
Conili and received a $7,000 donation from Modes Conili, the
single biggest donation to her re-election campaign. Then,
instead of creating new jobs, we see jobs transferred from Paris
Star to Modes Conili. There are people in prisons for scams less
serious than this one.
Why did the minister allow this to continue three years after it
was first discovered?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
we have these allegations of connections between political
donations and government grants. I would challenge that member
to say those things outside the House.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are clear. The truth is that $7,000 went to
the hon. member for Ahuntsic—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to
please go to his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the government gave out
money to this Liberal friendly firm. How can the minister expect
us to believe that she is serious about rooting out all the
scandals and problems in HRDC when they sat on their hands for
three years after they first discovered the shenanigans going on
with Modes Conili?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is correct in that we did do a review in 1997, but with
the information at that time, we could not establish that there
was anything going on that was wrong. It is the new information
that has been brought forward in the last few days that is
causing us to review this file again.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the CBC informed us that the Ontario government had
improved its compensation package for hepatitis C victims who
contracted the disease before 1986 or after 1990, who are
excluded from federal compensation.
1440
Initially, each victim was to receive $10,000. This has now
been increased to $25,000.
Will the Minister of Health agree that he should take a page
from the book of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec and
finally extend his program to all victims, regardless of when
they contracted the virus?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
already shown our compassion. We have already responded to the
needs of the victims of our blood supply system.
Almost two years ago, we announced a program to introduce, in
partnership with the provinces, services for those who were ill.
This is what is most important for victims.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has no compassion. I remind him that right now,
according to our information, only the lawyers of those who were
infected between 1986 and 1990 have received any money from the
federal government.
My question, clearly put, is this: When will the minister
finally decide to do something for the victims, who need this
compensation badly?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois' position is completely absurd. We have avoided
ten years of litigation. We have agreed with the provinces to
offer compensation to victims and, with the provinces, we have
established services for those who are ill. The measures which
are—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will listen to the answer, if
the Minister of Health wishes to conclude.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Export Development Corporation's alliance with the
London Guarantee Insurance Company reeks of patronage and
violates the spirit of NAFTA. By not tendering the contract, the
EDC has left the door open for a NAFTA challenge.
Why did the EDC chose patronage over trade rules?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not accept the allegations
of the hon. member, but EDC's strategic alliance with London
Guarantee is consistent with our NAFTA procurement obligations.
EDC is not listed in chapter 10, the procurement chapter of
NAFTA. Furthermore, insurance services are not covered by Canada
in chapter 10 of NAFTA. Nothing in this alliance stops Canadian
firms from insuring their sales with competing firms.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister told us that under NAFTA rules we cannot
discriminate against firms seeking business opportunities in
Canada but that is exactly what the EDC did by quietly awarding
its insurance business to its political friends. The government
chose to reward its friends and ignore our trade obligations.
Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the EDC had established 10
criteria for identifying the strategic alliance partner that it
needed. KPMG advised the EDC on that. As I just mentioned, the
EDC is not listed in chapter 10, the procurement chapter of
NAFTA. The EDC is not listed in that chapter.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
government's inaction on the matter of the GMOs, the Council of
Canadians, the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and
Policy and researchers Anne Clark and Bert Christie yesterday
submitted a request to the auditor general, asking him to review
the GMO regulations, labelling and approval process.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food realize that his
lack of transparency and his government's lack of action in the
matter of the GMOs are causing considerable harm to
biotechnology by discrediting it in the eyes of the public?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have stated before in the House, there is no
question that Canada has one of the best regulatory systems in
the world in registering food products, the products from
advancing technology, including those of biotechnology.
The Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment and
myself have put in place a blue ribbon panel of very esteemed
people to review the regulatory capability of our government in
order to ensure that we are able to continue to do that and to
continue to ensure Canadians that we have the safest food in the
world.
* * *
1445
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. I understand
that Canada recently received a request from the United Nations
to provide airlift support to the United Nations' mission in
Sierra Leone. How has the minister's department responded?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to that request I have today
authorized that an Airbus be dispatched to these countries which
will be providing troops to supplement the UN forces in Sierra
Leone. Within 48 hours an Airbus will be active and it will be
active for two to three weeks transporting troops into the area.
We have been receiving requests with respect to some protective
equipment. We are looking at other ways that we might be of
support in this endeavour.
As well, my colleagues, the Minister for International
Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are also dealing
with this issue in a diplomatic and aid sense.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport
announced the creation of a special commissioner to oversee
consumer complaints. While the minister claims that the bill
will regulate Air Canada and make sure consumers' interests are
truly looked after, the reality is that this commissioner has no
authority to resolve complaints.
Why does the minister think that consumer interests will be
better protected by the creation of a paper tiger than by
ensuring that there truly is competition?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of
agencies, associations and legal bodies that are involved in the
aviation industry in this country. Each and every one acts as a
watchman regarding the kind of service that the aviation industry
provides.
The bill which will come before the House in the immediate
future will guarantee that we have in place a system that will
provide for each and every complainant an avenue of access to
have their problems solved.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister prevents
serious competition by denying the increase of foreign ownership,
claiming that it is anti-Canadian. However, General Motors, Ford
and Chrysler are three of the five largest companies in Canada
and, despite being foreign owned, provide tens of thousands of
Canadians high paying jobs and offer Canadian consumers a choice.
If competition works so well in the automobile industry, why
will the minister not let it work in the airline industry?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the aviation industry is
fairly healthy in Canada. We are very optimistic regarding the
future development of competitive patterns. Competition is
taking place. As foreign avenues open up, competition will
increase. There is no doubt about it.
When it comes to foreign ownership, Canadians from coast to
coast have told us time and again that it has to be a Canadian
operation, a Canadian company, owned by Canadians and controlled
by Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, who
runs our military? Is our military accountable to Canadians
through this parliament, or is it really run by lawyers and the
judge advocate general? Has the defence minister appointed a
forces ombudsman purely for show, or is he willing to give him
the tools to do the job?
The non-elected judge advocate general appears to be using
stonewalling tactics to deny justice, treating military lawyers
as untouchable and slamming the door in the face of our Canadian
Forces ombudsman.
Will the Minister of National Defence instruct the judge
advocate general and all military lawyers to co-operate fully
with the forces ombudsman?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in the Canadian Forces
is trying to co-operate with the ombudsman. It is a new and a
unique vehicle for helping our personnel. I want it to succeed.
I believe it will succeed. There are numerous requests that have
been made to that office.
There is a difficulty with overlapping jurisdiction in some
areas and we are attempting to resolve that matter just as
quickly as we possibly can so that the ombudsman and all of the
other people who serve the Canadian Forces, the judge advocate
general for example as well, will be able to do so.
1450
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
Last year when the Nanoose Bay testing range contract was
renewed we were assured that there would be no nuclear weapons
in Canadian waters. Yet I have a document in which DND is
advertising for trainers of DND personnel in the use of nuclear
weapons components and construction and nuclear capable vessels
at Nanoose and at CFB Halifax. These are nuclear weapons, not
nuclear powered vessels.
Why this betrayal of the promise of no U.S. nuclear weapons in
Canadian waters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are nuclear powered vessels and
submarines. To my knowledge, there are no nuclear weapons.
There is certainly no testing of nuclear weapons that would be
allowed in that range. The United States navy never confirms or
denies whether any nuclear weaponry is aboard its vehicles.
We have operated this test range for numerous years. It has
always been done quite safely and quite successfully. We want to
take extra measures all the time to ensure safety.
The Speaker: Order, please. When questions are being
asked at one end of the House it seems that the noise from the
other side is almost overpowering. I would ask hon. members, so
that we can hear the questions and answers, if they have
conversations to please take them outside the Chamber.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, as you are well aware, the Government of Ontario has
recently announced an additional $25,000 for hepatitis C victims
in that province.
I know this sounds quite bizarre, but our victims, those who
fall under the Canada Health Act, have not received a nickel from
the federal government. In other words, not a cent has come from
the federal coffers.
How can the minister stand in his place and support lawyers who
got paid? The lawyers defending the case have been paid but not
the victims. Is it simply a case of lawyers come first, victims
later?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the settlement we reached in that litigation will save those
claimants at least 10 years before the courts. Those cheques
will be going out soon under court direction and management.
The real question is, why will Ontario not accept the offer we
made to provide money for services for sick victims? Instead of
photo ops with the victims' groups, that premier should be
accepting our offer, which could put millions of dollars into the
hands of the Ontario government to provide services for those
sick people this year. That is what Ontario should be doing. It
should be accepting the services we are providing for sick
people.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on another tainted issue, in the United States there is
evidence to suggest that about 80% of the active ingredients used
in prescription generic drugs come from third world countries.
Those active ingredients from third world countries have been
attributed to numerous deaths.
What assurances can the minister give us that the same situation
cannot and will not happen in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products in Canada is
done in accordance with exacting regulatory requirements to
ensure the purity of product and the safety of consumers.
* * *
WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government today announced a package
that will greatly improve the western grain transportation
system.
Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House
what that means for farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcement made earlier today by
the Minister of Transport, the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board and myself is a very good announcement for
Canadian farmers and for all those in the grain industry in
western Canada. It will mean $178 million in savings in
transportation grain costs to farmers in western Canada this
year. It will also mean that the federal government will
contribute $175 million over five years toward the improvement of
grain transportation in western Canada.
1455
The industry has said, and rightfully so, that we needed to make
some changes to the system to make it more efficient, more
competitive and less costly.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, according to reports today the health minister will
be hiring additional health spies to ensure that the provinces
adhere to the Canada Health Act. The premiers and provincial
health ministers have been crying out for communication and
federal-provincial co-operation.
How can the Liberal government expect to improve relations with
the provinces when it trusts them so little that it has to hire
more health spies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this would be a concept entirely foreign to the right wing
alliance that wants to destroy the Canada Health Act, destroy our
system of health care and turn it over to the privateers. The
Canadian public looks to the government as the guardian of the
principles of the Canada Health Act and that is exactly what we
will do.
I am happy to confirm to the House that we will indeed be
reinforcing the resources at Health Canada to ensure that the
principles of that act are respected throughout this country.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the army's
ombudsman said, the day before yesterday, that the problem of
domestic violence in the army is aggravated by the fact that the
women facing this problem are in a totally military environment,
for example, the doctors, the psychologists and other
professionals are all military men.
If he really wants to help these women, should the Minister of
National Defence not let community groups that help victims in
civilian society intervene to help the wives of military men
facing these problems so as to demilitarize the approach?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do that. We have family resource
centres. We have 42 of them across the country and overseas
where our troops are serving. They provide services for the
spouses and the families of our forces personnel. They help to
deal with stress related matters, health matters, matters of
domestic violence and abuse.
As I said yesterday in the House, we will go beyond that. We
will take the recommendations from the report that we received.
We will create an action plan because we do not accept domestic
violence. We do not accept abuse of our personnel, their spouses
or their families. We will not tolerate that and we will take
the necessary action.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank the members who supported changes to the EI program.
This parliament recognized the importance of such changes for
seasonal workers. Even the Prime Minister recognized their
importance at the Liberal Party convention in March.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he launch the
process of changing the EI program immediately, given that this
parliament voted 100% in favour, thus indicating that the
situation is urgent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered this question before MPs and members of the Liberal
Party at the Liberal Party convention held a few weeks ago here
in Ottawa.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
The minister should be aware that RCMP officers are in St.
John's today questioning students in advance of the Prime
Minister's visit to Memorial University of Newfoundland. Given
the way that the government has gutted funding for post-secondary
education, the word is out that students may be holding
demonstrations on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit.
Why are the RCMP questioning students in advance of the Prime
Minister's visit based solely on the fact that there may or may
not be demonstrations being held in the city of St. John's? Why
are the RCMP doing that?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is well aware
that it is the RCMP's responsibility to ensure the safety of the
Prime Minister, and in fact that is what the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police are doing.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
the past five years I have been working with various stakeholders
and DFO to secure annual funding of $8 million for the sea
lamprey control program. That is an $8 million investment for
over $80 million in direct returns.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today, why has DFO
failed to provide this essential financial support? When does he
intend to correct this oversight?
1500
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member
for Huron—Bruce. He has followed this subject very closely and
worked very hard on this issue. The government recognizes how
important the sea lamprey control program is for the health of
the Great Lakes sports fishery and we will ensure that we
continue to protect it.
From 1994 we have increased the budget for the sea lamprey
control program from $3.8 million to $6 million to make sure we
continue to play an important role.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: We have a special guest with us today
that I want to introduce to members. He is a gentleman who took
part in the Mercury space project. He was one of the first
astronauts and surely one of the first men to orbit the Earth. I
present to you a former senator of the United States and truly
one of the great heroes of the past century, Mr. John Glenn.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: For those members who want to meet Mr.
Glenn, I am told there will be a reception in room 216 a little
bit later on, hosted by the hon. Minister of Industry. All
members are invited to attend.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 20 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 third report of the Standing Committee on Finance
regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, February 29, 2000.
Your committee has considered Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15 under
finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 2001 less the amounts voted in interim supply and reports the
same.
* * *
1505
PETITIONS
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions today which are
signed by several hundred Canadians from coast to coast to coast
on the subject of East Timor.
The petitioners note that the Indonesian military occupied East
Timor for over 23 years in violation of UN Security Council
resolutions resulting in the death of over one-third of East
Timor's population.
They go on to note the participation of over 98% of eligible
East Timorese in a referendum voting for independence and the
ongoing human rights violations by the Indonesian military and
their militia.
The petitioners therefore request that parliament call for a
formal military embargo which would revoke all outstanding
military export permits issued for sales of military goods to
Indonesia, ensure that there are no new export permits issued for
sale of military goods to Indonesia, ensure that companies which
have already negotiated contracts to supply military goods will
be withheld, suspend all Canadian co-operation and ties with the
armed forces of Indonesia and would require consultation in
parliament before being lifted.
Finally, the petitioners request that parliament work for an
international military embargo against Indonesia.
BILL C-23
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition containing about 200 names mainly
from the community of Fort McMurray in my riding.
The petitioners ask the House to reaffirm a motion passed in the
House on June 8, 1999 to reaffirm the institution of marriage as
being between one man and one woman exclusive of all others, and
to reject Bill C-23.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to table today.
The first petition is from a number of constituents in
Fredericton calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
CHILD POVERTY
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition calls on parliament to fulfil the 1989 promise of
of the House of Commons to end child poverty in the year 2000.
CANADA POST
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition is from a number of residents in northern New
Brunswick calling on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of several hundred constituents in my riding of Skeena,
from the communities of Smithers, Telkwa, Moricetown, Hazelton,
Terrace, Kitimat and other communities, I have the honour to
present two petitions today which speak to child poverty.
Specifically, the petitioners call on parliament to fulfil its
obligations and to fulfil the 1998 promise of the House of
Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000.
CANADA POST
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions today.
In the first petition, the signatories ask that parliament
repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
[Translation]
BILL C-23
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition
signed by residents of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to withdraw
Bill C-23 and to confirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage.
[English]
THE DEBT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first petition refers to a falling debt burden which gives
Canadians new economic freedom so that resources can be used to
strengthen our health care system, provide tax relief, address
social challenges and invest in all areas that will enhance
productivity.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to ensure that
Canada's debt to GDP ratio remains on a permanent downward track.
1510
TAXATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon
parliament to announce a timetable for the elimination of the 5%
surtax.
ABORTION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today, on behalf
of my constituents, mostly from the Battlefords area, to present
two petitions.
The first petition decries the public funding of abortion in
this country. The petitioners say that this is something that
should be addressed very quickly.
DAY PAROLE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with day
parole, a very timely petition in light of what has just happened
in British Columbia.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from people in the Peterborough area who are
concerned about children and civilians in Iraq. They point out
that Desert Storm and the sanctions since have devastated the
Iraqi economy and estimate that it has caused the deaths of
5,000 children a month.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to stop the
suffering and death of the Iraqi people, and that excluding an
embargo on military matériel, other sanctions be lifted. They
urge Canada and the United Nations to vastly increase efforts to
provide food, medicine and funds for infrastructure
reconstruction in Iraq. They also ask that the compensation fund
taken from the oil for food program be suspended.
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to present
a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on the topic of the
Senate.
The petitioners point out that the Senate is a very expensive
institution, that it does not make sense in today's democratic
world, and the fact that it is an appointed House of
Parliament makes it a totally undemocratic institution.
They are calling upon parliament to simply take whatever
measures are necessary to abolish it once and for all.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on an unrelated
topic.
The petitioners, primarily from the Kamloops region, point out
their concerns regarding the production of child pornography.
They point out that a child has to be victimized in order to
produce child pornography, that child pornography hurts children
and therefore can never be justified, and that the possession of
child pornography perpetuates the production of child
pornography.
They call upon parliament once again to recognize the fact that
Canadians reject any effort to legalize the possession of child
pornography. They ask parliament to intervene in this matter
to establish and strengthen the laws relating to the possession
of child pornography to ensure that it will never, ever, ever be
legalized.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, on a topic that I
know you also have strong feelings about, the issue of a national
highway system. I should not put words in your mouth, Mr.
Speaker, I am just assuming that you, like most other members of
parliament, would be interested in this topic.
A large number of constituents point out the need for a national
highway system. They point out that a national highway
transportation infrastructure that is well developed leads to an
improved quality of life for Canadians because of greater
productivity, greater trade opportunities, greater job creation
opportunities and a real boost to tourism.
They are calling upon the federal government to take the
appropriate action.
* * *
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.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two questions on the order
paper, Question No. 28, which was first asked on March 23, 1999,
and Question No. 29, which was first asked on March 24, 1999,
which have never been answered. These questions go to the heart
of the mefloquine scandal which brought the Department of
National Defence somewhat into disrepute and the health
protection branch of our country as well.
I think the questions are even more compelling and the answers
would be much more useful given the current problems in Africa
and the probability that perhaps Canadian troops may again be
required to take mefloquine. I would like to know when I could
expect an answer to these questions.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the member quite properly is
seeking a more prompt response to his question.
1515
The answers to his questions are being prepared as I have
indicated to him in the House. I understand some modifications
have been made to initial drafts to the answers to take account
of the realities of the background and perhaps some changes that
have evolved. I must tell the hon. member that the answers to
his questions are imminent.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-5 in the name of the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris.
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, e-mail, memos and
correspondence within the Department of Agriculture involving an
analysis of the inadequacies within the agriculture income
disaster assistance, AIDA, program.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the
agricultural income disaster assistance program was to target
assistance to those farmers in the greatest need. The federal
government is confident that the principles of AIDA remain a
sound basis on which to design a disaster program for
agriculture. Therefore the government, and the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food in particular, has not produced any
document on the inadequacies of the program.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
answer that came back on the motion for the production of papers
is totally inadequate and I will not be withdrawing my motion. I
will be transferring the motion to Private Members' Business.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask that the other Notices of Motions
for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 23 motions in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-16.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 17 and 22.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 4 and 5. Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 6
to 8, 15, 16, and 18 to 21. Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 9 and 23.
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 10 and 14.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 17 and 22 to the House.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been some discussions among representatives of all
parties. I think if you were to seek consent of the House that
the House might consent to put all the motions at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all the motions
will be put to the House now in the order in which they are
grouped?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 30 on
page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to
22 on page 4 with the following:
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 8, be amended
“8. (1) Subject to section 8.1, the Minister shall, on
application, grant”
(2) For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue
to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions,
including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of
adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the
adoption of a child.
8.1 The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a
minor child adopted outside Canada by a citizen domiciled or
ordinarily resident in Quebec, although the adoption procedure
has not yet been completed in accordance with the laws of Quebec,
if (a) the adoption is not intended to circumvent the
requirements under any enactment for admission to Canada or
citizenship; and (b) the adoption proposal has been approved by
the administrative authority designated for that purpose by the
minister of the government of Quebec responsible for
international adoptions."
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 22 with the following:
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 12
to 38 on page 27 with the following:
“55. Proceedings in relation to an application made under the
Citizenship Act, chapter C-29 of the Revised Statutes of Canada,
1985, pending on the day on which section 72 of this Act comes
into force, must be dealt with under that Act.”
1520
The Deputy Speaker: With regard to Motion No. 4, notice
was given by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park but there
were other movers. Is the hon. member for Lakeland moving this
motion?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 16, be amended
“16. (1) Where the Federal Court—Trial Division, on a
proceeding commenced by the Minister under prior legislation or
an action commenced by the Minister under this section, or the
Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada in the
case of an appeal or appeals, has finally decided, on a balance
of probabilities or by default, that a person has obtained,
retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false
representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material
circumstances, the Court shall make an order revoking the
citizenship of that person or the renunciation of citizenship by
that person if it has not already been revoked under prior
legislation.”
(b) by replacing line 14 on page 7 with the following:
“that the Court specifies in the”
(c) by replacing line 16 on page 7 with the following:
“(3) For the purposes of this Act and prior legislation, a
person”
That Bill C-16, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 26
to 43 on page 7 and lines 1 to 8 on page 8 with the following:
“17. (1) A decision by the Federal Court—Trial Division under
subsection 16(1) and a decision by any person, body or court
performing similar functions under prior legislation, that a
person has or has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed
citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly
concealing material circumstances, may be appealed to the Federal
Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal Court of Appeal.
(2) Where citizenship or a renunciation of citizenship has been
revoked under prior legislation and the Federal Court of Appeal
or the Supreme Court of Canada finally decides, on a balance of
probabilities or by default, on an appeal with the leave of that
Court, that the person in question did not obtain, retain,
renounce or resume citizenship by false representation or fraud
or knowingly concealing material circumstances, that revocation
shall be deemed not to have occurred.”
That Bill C-16, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 43
to 48 on page 11 and lines 1 to 6 on page 12 with the following:
“24. (1) With the consent of the Prime Minister of Canada, the
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader
in the House of Commons of each party having at least 12 members
sitting in that House, the Governor in Council may appoint a
retired judge of a superior court for a period of three to five
years to perform the duties and have the powers and functions of
a Review Committee described in subsections 23 (4), (5) and
(6).”
That Bill C-16, in Clause 31, be amended
“31. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Governor in
Council may”
“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall not appoint a person
who has been convicted of an offence under section 39 or 40 as a
Citizenship Commissioner.”
That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 37 on
page 16 with the following:
“32. Subject to the approval of the standing committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to
citizenship and immigration, the Minister may designate a
Citizen-”
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 40 on
page 21 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 18 on
page 22 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 31 on
page 22 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 34
on page 22 the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 40
on page 22 the following:
That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 23 the
following new clause:
“43.1 The coming into force of any regulations made by the
Governor in Council under paragraph 43(c) is subject to approval
of the regulations by the committee of the House of Commons that
normally considers matters relating to citizenship.”
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 33, be amended by adding after line 21
on page 17 the following:
“(2.1) The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony
shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a
representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new
citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and
an explanation of their purpose:
(i) the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11);
(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12);
(iii) the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and
(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and
Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.”
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.) moved:
That the oath of citizenship in the Schedule to Bill C-16 be
replaced with the following:
“In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among
Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold
these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of
speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of the law.”
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 25
and 26 on page 19 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 29
and 30 on page 19 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 33
and 34 on page 19 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 44 on
page 20 and line 1 on page 21 with the following:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 4
and 5 on page 21 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at report stage
debate on Bill C-16.
This bill has come up twice before, having started through the
process and having failed for various reasons. It was started in
this parliament again at first reading which was a surprise. It
had been through committee once before but there was need for a
lot of change. Unfortunately not nearly enough change was made
to the bill to make it acceptable.
Many of the motions I propose today will improve the bill. If
they are all accepted, they will improve it to a point where
maybe we could support the bill. It is certainly in need of
change. I start by speaking to the Group No. 1 amendments.
Motion No. 1 deals with the issue of citizenship at birth for
people born in Canada. For the past several years any child born
in Canada automatically becomes a citizen. Whether or not one of
the child's parents was a citizen, whether or not one of the
child's parents was a landed immigrant, it did not matter. If
someone was just here on a visit or in our country illegally, it
did not matter; if the child was born in Canada the child
automatically obtained Canadian citizenship.
This remains in the new act in spite of many concerns raised
which I will talk about. Any child born in Canada, even if born
of a person who is in our country illegally, will automatically
become a citizen.
1525
This concern has come up several times before. I deal with this
concern in my amendment. My amendment would ensure that a child
would only become a citizen if one of the parents was either a
landed immigrant or a citizen. My proposal will ensure that the
child will take the citizenship of a parent. Most Canadians see
that as being reasonable.
Most Canadians understand that there is a lot of abuse of the
current system. People come to our country as visitors or come
here illegally and have children born in our country knowing that
those children will automatically become Canadian citizens. That
has an impact in particular because of the Mavis Baker case to
which I am going to refer in detail. Due to court rulings and the
inaction of the government, there are situations where
people claim that because they have a child who was born in
Canada, even though they were here illegally at the time the
child was born, it would be wrong to remove the parent from the
country because the child is a Canadian citizen.
This issue was taken to court by Mavis Baker last year and the
courts ruled on it. Mavis Baker was in the country illegally for
years and had been ordered to leave the country on several
occasions. She had children born in Canada. These children
became Canadian citizens. In spite of all that, the court ruled
that Ms. Baker would be allowed to stay in Canada. One of the
main considerations was that her children were Canadian citizens.
The court did not seem to consider that Mavis Baker could return
to her home country, that the children would be citizens of that
country and that they could live together as a family in the
country of origin. The court did not consider that.
As a result and because of inaction on the part of the
government, this situation will lead to a lot more abuse in the
country. More people will come to our country illegally, have
children and then use the argument that because they have a child
who is a Canadian citizen they should be allowed to stay. I do
not think anyone would deny that argument has been used for being
allowed to stay in the country when people otherwise would not be
allowed to stay. It is a problem.
I only have to refer to a recommendation of the House of Commons
standing committee in 1994. Of course since 1993 House of
Commons standing committees have had a majority of government
members, as did that committee. The committee recommended that
children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one
or both parents is a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen.
Did the government listen to the recommendation of that
committee back in 1994? It was a very strong recommendation. The
committee strongly encouraged the government to take it to heart
and put it into law. That was in 1994. Here we are six years
later and the government has ignored what the committee
recommended.
That was not the only group that was really here at the will of
the government. Again, that committee had a majority of
government members. In voting the committee said that it wanted
the law changed so that a child born in Canada would only be a
Canadian citizen if he or she was born to one parent who was
either a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant.
Also, the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group was set
up by the government in 1997. In its report “Not Just Numbers:
A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”, it made a comment
on this issue.
This is a quote from page 40 of the LRAG “Not Just Numbers”
report which stated:
In our consultations across the country we heard concerns about
the abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting
automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil. The
government should collect data, study the real effects and
determine whether current policy should be changed.
1530
That was three years ago, and still the government has not taken
this recommendation to heart and put it in legislation. I think
this change is long overdue and will remove some of the abuse in
our immigration system.
Back in 1998 during a press conference on Bill C-63, which was
almost the same legislation as Bill C-16, the bill we are now
debating, the former minister of immigration said that she made
no changes to this clause because no research was done on how big
the problem was. They had not done the study after six years and
they would not make the change because they did not really know
just how big the problem was. She knew that the committee was
set up on behalf of the government and that the committees have
said there was a problem. She did not know how big the problem
was so she would not make the change.
That change was not made, which is very unfortunate. That is
why I brought this amendment before the House today so that the
change would be made and we would respect the will of Canadians
expressed through various consultation processes.
The government has a terrible reputation for ignoring
consultation when it consults. That is a sad commentary. People
become very cynical about government when they see that time
after time the results of its consultations are completely
ignored. That is what has happened here.
The former minister acknowledged that this was a problem. On
May 12, 1999, during a committee meeting discussing the
legislation, Greg Fyffe, assistant deputy minister for policy and
program development, was questioned on how long it would take to
gather the data needed. He replied:
We're looking now at a pilot project with the provinces to see if
we can collect the data properly. I think when we discussed this
we were talking in terms of approximately three years, plus or
minus, before we would have enough data to make a declaration on
this
Here we are in 1999 and the minister and her department are
saying after six years since the House of Commons committee
reported, three years since the commission set up by the
government reported and both recommended change, that they will
establish a study to see just how big a problem it is. This is
shameful.
The government should have made the change and then do the
study. If it felt it had made the wrong change, if need be it
could change it. Canadians supported the change so I doubt it
would be wrong. I certainly do not believe it would be wrong.
There are several more motions in this group to which I would
like to speak. However I will count on other of my colleagues to
cover these issues since my time is up.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today to Bill C-16, particularly as we begin the debate on
the motions in Group No. 1.
First of all, I deplore the fact that we are here debating this
bill at report stage while the minister is appearing before the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. There is
something rather odd about that. But, as parliamentarians, we
must be flexible and we will adapt to these realities.
1535
Several members of this Parliament, like my colleagues on the
committee, will remember the battle I led in committee with
regard to clause 8, particularly on April 11, 12 and 13. Those
who read the minutes of proceedings from the committee will
notice that I raised a number of concerns about clause 8, which
deals with international adoption.
Legal counsels for the Department of Immigration were present at
the time. They had the opportunity to provide their
interpretation of the impact of clause 8, but I expressed a
number of reservations.
Why so many reservations when it comes to international
adoption? There are, basically, two reasons, three even. The
first is that it must be kept in mind that this is primarily a
provincial area of jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. The
entire issue of international adoption comes under the
jurisdiction of Quebec. I had indicated at that time in
connection with this that, as long as there was no amendment to
confirm Quebec's jurisdiction, it was clear that we would be
bringing in amendments to clause 8.
At that time I said that I was concerned enough to think twice
about supporting Bill C-16. On April 12, I raised my first
question and expressed my first concern.
The second concern I expressed to the Immigration Canada legal
adviser involved the specific nature of Quebec and one of the
things that distinguishes it, namely the Civil Code, which is
not, unfortunately, taken into consideration in Bill C-16,
particularly in clause 8. I therefore expressed a second
concern: the fact that the bill did not take the Civil Code into
consideration.
My third area of concern was the discrimination I feel will
affect Quebec children, and of course Quebec parents, during the
processing of the adoption.
I must point out first of all that, under its legislation,
Quebec is responsible for adoption, which is allowed only once
the process is complete. The process is complete when the child
arrives here in Canada, and more specifically on the territory
of Quebec, and when a Quebec court hands down a decision.
That is part of the system, of the reality and of the distinct
nature of Quebec.
However, the bill, as it is worded, states that the adoption
will be complete once the following criterion has been met, that
the adoption “was in accordance with the laws of the place where
the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence
of the adopting citizen”.
Clause 8 of the bill has a direct effect, because we think it
discriminates to some extent against the children and the
parents of Quebec. We also feel that there is some loss of
benefits for the children and the parents. It is clear,
moreover, that Quebec parents will not benefit, as will parents
in the rest of Canada who decide to adopt abroad, from the same
rights and benefits.
1540
This amendment is fair, because I had already made the committee
aware of it, on April 13. The deputy minister was in attendance
at the hearings, and I was assured there would be bilateral
negotiations, that Quebec's views, the Civil Code and Quebec's
jurisdiction in the area of international adoptions would be
respected.
The department's legal counsel went even further addressing this
issue of bilateral work. It was not new.
I remind the House that the international adoption secretariat,
especially for Quebec, had made requests. It had indicated that
it hoped bilateral work would be undertaken so that Quebec would
be consulted in the various stages of the process, before the
federal government granted citizenship.
It is not new. The minister woke up and her officials woke up
two weeks before the passage of this bill, when the Bloc
Quebecois said in committee that there was a problem. So things
had to be activated and negotiations initiated.
Quebec gave negotiations a chance. As late as yesterday, the
deputy ministers were talking. They wanted amendments to be
made, they wanted the government to respond to the wishes
expressed by the Government of Quebec so that Bill C-16 could
conform to the Quebec Civil Code and the Quebec reality.
Now, close to 12 hours after these negotiations have failed, we
have no other option. In committee, I told the minister that I
would be patient and that I would not propose amendments. I said
we would give bilateral negotiations a chance.
As members know, it is sometimes better to have a negotiated
solution than direct proposals. Today, we have no alternative
but to present this motion at report stage. That motion, which
seeks to amend clause 8, reads as follows:
For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to
have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions,
including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of
adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to
the adoption of a child.
We also proposed the following:
The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a minor
child adopted outside Canada by a citizen domiciled or
ordinarily resident in Quebec, although the adoption procedure
has not yet been completed in accordance with the laws of
Quebec, if
(a) the adoption is not intended to circumvent the requirements
under any enactment for admission to Canada or citizenship; and
(b) the adoption proposal has been approved by the
administrative authority designated for that purpose by the
minister of the government of Quebec responsible for
international adoptions.
The amendment that we are proposing has already been submitted
to the deputy minister.
It was also communicated to the Minister of Immigration very
recently, on May 9, in a letter from Minister Robert Perreault.
It is our hope that, even though negotiations have failed, the
government will support this amendment, which only seeks to
ensure respect of Quebec's Civil Code.
1545
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a few comments in response to the motions brought
forward by my colleague from Lakeland with respect to Bill C-16,
beginning with Motion No. 1, which would amend clause 4.
While the intent of the motion seems to be reasonable, the
reality is that the member is calling for quite a shift from the
way Canada has been doing things for over 100 years and what many
democracies around the world have been doing.
I do not understand the motivation for his motion, which would
deny a child born in Canada the right to citizenship. The member
is indicating that there is a problem. Aside from the very few
cases that have been reported in the media, I do not believe
there is a problem.
Many people were born in Canada while their parents were
visiting or on a diplomatic assignment to our country. When
these individuals returned to their home countries, many of the
children turned out to be people who held high positions in their
country's government and they became very good friends of Canada.
On many occasions when I served as a parliamentary secretary I
came across people who were very successful in their own
countries. The only link to Canada which these individuals had
was the fact that they were born here, and they are very good
friends of Canada.
Many Canadian diplomats and tourists travel abroad and give
birth to children in foreign countries. Their children require
citizenship in those countries.
This issue cuts both ways and I do not see it as being a
problem. I do not consider it to be a major issue that we need
to be concerned about. I hope to God we do not spend a lot of
money studying the magnitude of this issue because I believe it
is not a major problem.
I also want to make reference to Motion No. 2, which would amend
clause 6 of Bill C-16. If a refugee claimant claims refugee
status in Canada, he or she would be required to wait up to 365
days for citizenship.
I believe that what we have in place at the present time is
fairly efficient and fairly good. A claimant who has already
been accepted as a convention refugee can accumulate that period.
I do not think that amendment to the legislation would make any
sense at all.
I find that the two amendments put forward by my hon. colleague
are a bit odd, a bit out of place and just do not fit into the
bigger picture.
The member indicated in his first amendment that a child would
have to be born to a person who is either a Canadian citizen or a
landed immigrant. What would happen in the situation where
someone is a convention refugee and his child is born here?
Would that mean we would have to start a process for the child in
order to process the child through the system? That would create
a huge amount of unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary
complications.
It is my hope that the House will not support those two motions.
[Translation]
With respect to Motion No. 3 brought forward by a member of the
Bloc Quebecois, the member for Rosemont, new clause 8(2) is
unnecessary because provincial jurisdiction over adoption is
already provided for in the Constitution. The Citizenship of
Canada Act in no way interferes with Quebec's authority in this
regard. In addition, clause 8(c) stipulates that citizenship
may not be granted until the adoption is in accordance with the
laws of Quebec.
If we were to approve the motion, citizenship would then be
granted even though an adoption was not in accordance with the
laws of Quebec.
1550
In addition, the motion introduces the new concept of “domiciled
or ordinarily resident”, which is incompatible with the
definition of residence in the Citizenship of Canada Act, which
requires physical presence.
The proposal does not take into account the criteria in clause
8, which were developed so as to cover both the best interests
of the child as well as international adoption fraud.
Clause 8 has been drafted in such a way as to treat the
provinces and territories on a equal footing, while ensuring
that their respective adoption laws are respected without
interference from the federal government.
We note the difference between the “laws of the country of
residence” in the English text and “lieu de résidence” in the
French. The English is the equivalent of the French. The
applicable law involves all of a country's adoption legislation.
The term is general and was chosen because it was also necessary
to take into account the adoption of a child in another country
by a Canadian resident.
For Canada, “laws of the country of residence” can only refer to
laws of the provinces and territories, because the Constitution
has expressly given them full jurisdiction over adoption.
For all these reasons, the government will not be supporting
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that Canada is
a country of immigrants. I too am one generation from an
immigrant in that my American mother was born in Missouri. My
oldest brother was born in North Dakota. At that time, of
course, when immigration was taking place in the west, we did not
experience many difficulties. We did not have all of these rules
and regulations that we are discussing today.
It is of interest to know what we would do to our own citizens
under this act. I refer to a border area where there are a lot
of marriages on each side of the border. A lot of people move to
the U.S. and are married by a justice of the peace. By
necessity, a lot of people rush to hospitals in the U.S. because
they are closer than the hospitals in Canada. Therefore, when
they give birth in the U.S. the child is automatically a Canadian
citizen by birth. There are problems.
We penalize our young people in this country who marry someone,
particularly from the United States. It is more difficult perhaps
in other areas. Let me cite two cases which I have had to deal
with.
There is a young girl who lives not too far from where I live
and she is going to a special school. As young people do, she
fell in love. There is nothing new about that. She decided to
get married. The complications that this girl faces in moving to
the United States are unbelievable. It is a story book in
itself, not just from the Canadian side but from the American
side as well. There has to be a better way.
Let me give the House an example of the most recent case. There
is a young fellow who has found a girl, I believe in Wisconsin.
They fell in love. Guess what? They want to get married.
Immediately the young fellow living in this country applied to
bring his fiancée to Canada.
1555
When I got married I was not asked how much money I had. If I
had to measure up to Immigration Canada today I probably never
would have been married because I never made that much money.
When this young fellow applied to bring his spouse to Canada, the
Department of Immigration said “No, your T-4 slip says you are
not making enough money”. That was bad enough, but the young
fellow had to put up $500 or $600 with his application. When he
obtained proof that in the year 2000 he would be making
considerably more money, Immigration Canada said he would have to
resubmit his application. That represents another $500 or $600.
What I am saying to the House and to people across Canada is
that when we mention the words citizenship and immigration they
have bad connotations in many areas. People think of refugee
status, the smuggling of refugees and people smuggling, and
the inability to deport. Yet when it comes to our very own
citizens, people of high quality, young people, we impose
restrictions on them that should not exist.
I wish we could become more amenable to the idea of looking at
people and their character and why they want to marry and live
with their spouse without having to be married and then separated
for a period of almost a year. That happens. That ought not to
happen. There is no reason for that to happen. I have dealt
with a case in which it took a man over a year to bring his wife
to Canada, and there was no good reason for the delay.
We can discuss this bill all we like, but we have to look at
what is happening within our country. All of the motions, all of
these things, will not mean too much if we do not deal with
reality. I am speaking particularly of our young people who
choose a spouse outside Canada.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the amendments in Group No. 1 to Bill C-16 put forth
by the critics for citizenship and immigration. I am not our
party's critic for immigration. The critic for our party is the
member for Compton—Stanstead, but I am glad to have the
opportunity to speak to the amendments.
In dealing with the motion put forth by the member for Lakeland,
our party does not agree that either the father or the mother
should have to be a citizen or a permanent resident for a child
to have Canadian citizenship. Citizenship in this country is
precious and should not be thrown around frivolously. However,
if someone is born on Canadian soil, he or she should be
recognized as Canadian. It is for this reason that we have a
problem with this amendment.
Concerning Motion No. 2, we do not feel that an individual
should claim time toward permanent residency status after having
made a refugee claim. When an individual makes a claim there is
not even a guarantee that he or she will achieve refugee status.
We support the present provision in the act, which states that a
person begins claiming time toward permanent residency status
once he or she has been determined to be a convention refugee.
With respect to Motions Nos. 3 and 17, the hon. member for
Rosemont has been quite concerned about the adoption provisions
for some time. The amendments he proposes solidify the fact that
adoption is a provincial area of jurisdiction. We support the
autonomy of the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction and
would gladly support the hon. member for Rosemont; however, he
specifies only jurisdictional powers over adoption for the
province of Quebec. If the motion had specified all of the
provinces in Canada we would have supported it.
1600
We support Motion No. 22 put forward by the hon. member for
Lakeland. During the course of debate on Bill C-16, this party
raised concerns about the coming into force of this act. It
stipulates in the bill that all citizenship cases will fall under
the new act once it is proclaimed. We did not like this. What
kinds of extra paperwork and headaches will this cause for cases
which are smoothly making their way through the system under the
current act? There should be some sort of cut off point for
cases presently going through the system. Perhaps there could be
a period of one year to give the department and applicants alike
time for adjustment.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is one
aspect of the bill on which I must insist, and it concerns
international adoptions.
Under this bill, an adopted child could be granted citizenship
even before arriving in this country. This goes against current
practice under the Quebec Civil Code.
What worries me here is not current practice in Quebec, which
could be changed since the Quebec National Assembly has full
power over its Civil Code.
What I find troubling and even shocking here is to see a federal
bill that goes completely against a practice under the Quebec
Civil Code.
Quebec has the indisputable right to decide upon it own
legislative practices under the Civil Code. It has always
exercised that right. It is free to change its legislation as
and when it sees fit. It does not have to follow dictates set
out in federal legislation.
This is the fundamental problem I see with this bill. It is not
the substance of the bill as such, but rather the tone of this
federal attack on Quebec's civil legislation. With this bill,
the federal government is interfering in an area that is beyond
its jurisdiction.
Ultimately, this bill, if passed, could even be challenged on
this point in the courts, because it oversteps the jurisdiction
of the federal government.
Provincial governments have rights that are guaranteed by the
Constitution and by tradition. The Civil Code, the content and
form of which were recently revised in Quebec, forms a
longstanding tradition going back two and a half centuries to an
undertaking given by the British crown to the French crown that
it would respect the French civil legislation known as the
Napoleonic Code.
The rights enjoyed by Quebecers today are acquired rights dating
from two and a half centuries ago, rights over their own civil
legislation, and their own Civil Code, which differs from the
British common law applicable in other provinces.
These rights were agreed to by the British crown at the time of
the conquest; they are rights which continue to apply, rights
which the Confederation has guaranteed, rights which, to all
intents and purposes, are constitutional.
1605
What we are seeing today with this bill is an intrusion in a
jurisdiction that belongs to Quebecers and to the National
Assembly of Quebec.
My problem is with the approach, not with the issue of adoption
itself. This approach is unacceptable. If this bill, as it
stands, were to be passed by a majority of the members of this
House, which would not include us, it would clearly leave itself
open to a court challenge. We certainly do not want this for
adoptions.
The Government of Quebec, in correspondence of May 9 to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration signed by the minister
of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault, proposed
amendments that, without changing the essence and merits of the
bill before us, would permit it to respect Quebec jurisdictions
and avoid potential legal problems.
If this bill were to be passed, clearly Quebecers wanting to
adopt a child abroad would not be able to take advantage of the
measures otherwise available to them.
I appeal to the common sense and good judgement of this House.
Whatever is necessary will have to be done to ensure that this
bill honours the constitutional rights of the National Assembly
of Quebec and the rights of the citizens of Quebec, my rights.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak
on immigration issues. It has been some time I dare say since I
held the portfolio of immigration critic.
I suppose, when we analyze it, not a whole lot has changed as
far as cleaning up some of the problems within the immigration
ministry as it reflects down to the immigration offices located
in the various regions of the country, right down to the
communities.
The first group of motions deal with a burning issue for a lot
of people in our country, both for immigrants and those who were
born here. Many of those immigrants who arrived years back, and
even some more recently, struggled to reach the level required to
be admitted into the country. While they were happy to have been
accepted, they continued to struggle to meet the requirements of
citizenship.
Another issue that has always been of concern to both them and
others who have been established here for a long time, is the
issue of children being born to visitors in our land and being
granted citizenship at that point.
The minister is well aware of that particular issue. She was
aware of the issue when she took office. The previous
immigration minister was also aware of the issue when she took
office, and so on down the line. I could go all the way back to
when Sergio Marchi was the immigration minister. He was very
well aware of the issue of children being born in Canada to
parents who were not Canadian citizens but visitors.
Each one claimed that they would look at the issue. They also
agreed that it was an issue to a degree, but that they needed to
know how important it really was.
1610
When I served as the immigration critic, the matter came forward
and the immigration minister at the time was going to examine the
problem to see how significant it was; in other words, collect
some data and make a decision. That was good because that was
the way it should be done. In his two years in that portfolio he
did absolutely nothing. I do not know if he even collected any
data even though it was not very difficult to collect that kind
of data. That has been the case with every Liberal immigration
ministers since I have served in the House.
It is shameful to think that a minister or ministers
procrastinated, stalled, refused and ignored those requests
raised by both the opposition and Liberal backbenchers. I am
sure there are members in the government who have raised this
issue with their specific ministers. I do not think that is the
response that should be coming from a minister.
I know the present minister stated that she made no changes to
this clause because there was no research done on how big a
problem the citizenship at birth issue really was. She further
stated that hospital records do not request the nationality of
parents and changing this would require provincial co-operation.
Why does the minister not take a little trip over to the city of
Vancouver? It is well known that a hospital there is a target
for those visiting this country to do that very thing, to
register their births in that hospital and with the province. One
hospital in particular handles a number of them.
If the minister was truly concerned about collecting data, and I
believe that the data is already there, she would make that
effort and do it forthwith. Obviously, she does not want to do
that. She does not want to question status quo immigration
policy.
I have a problem with that. We must question status quo
immigration policy. We have an immigration document or an
immigration code that gets thicker every year. We bring in more
and more legislation but none of it really corrects the problems
that exist. If it is poor legislation or inadequate legislation,
why are we here? Is it just so we can add to the immigration act
year after year?
I have to shake my head at the ministers sitting across the
floor who do not seem to want to correct some of the major or
glaring issues of the day, specifically the immigration policy
which is often generated from legislation. This is a great
shortfall and there are series of flaws in the process and in the
legislation. That it does not address serious problems concerns
a number of Canadians.
I will make the reference again. When I say “a number of
Canadians”, I mean those who have come here as immigrants and
have had to wait and wait in line and those who were born here.
1615
I am in a quandary on how to get a point across to that side of
the House on very significant issues which have been expressed
time and time again and are of concern to Canadians in general.
There has been no action taking place over there in spite of the
fact that it has been raised numerous times. We have had five
immigration ministers since 1993, the length of time reform and
now the alliance has been in the House.
The government pointed out that it likes consultations. I can
remember as an opposition critic for immigration that we were
involved in consultations. The consultations consisted of
dropping around to various spots in the country and talking to
people in the department, to advocacy groups, to lawyers and to
consultants.
We had consultation after consultation. Yet shortly after all
the consultations took place, lo and behold an interdepartmental
survey landed on the desks of several opposition members. That
survey clearly outlined all the problems within the immigration
department and even recommendations on how to fix them. There
were not only serious breaches of policy but serious flaws within
the act and how it was carried out.
I rest my case. The bill before us is inadequate. The issues
of concern to most Canadians will not be addressed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
1620
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 3 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motion No. 17.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 22 stands deferred.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day the motions in Group No.
2 were previously moved and seconded. This group contains
Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Motions Nos. 4 and
5 which are before the House. The proposed legislation that is
outlined should be addressed to its fullest. It is quite
significant when certain groups of people can be excluded from
the advantages of our legal system. Not that I say our legal
system is all that great, but if there is an entitlement there
should be an entitlement. It means having access to legal
opinions of the courts of our country as citizens and another
group not having that access. We will support Motions Nos. 4 and
5.
The proposed legislation does not allow individuals equal access
to the legal system in spite of the fact that they may be granted
citizenship. Even if there were fraud I think there is
entitlement. I find it passing strange that this provision is in
the bill when a judgment was made in the Supreme Court of Canada
in 1985 which declared that refugees have complete and total
access to our legal system . That was under the Singh decision.
First they were allowed or permitted an oral examination. Then
a process was set up which I think was unnecessary, but be that
as it may we have it right now. It could be changed. A process
was set up whereby they could fight the matter in the tribunals,
in the courts, all the way up to the federal court and tie up the
courts for long periods of time fighting cases to which there is
never any conclusion, except the federal court will say whether
or not they are refugees.
Then it goes through the tribunal process again with the legal
minds jumping into the fray. The lawyers all line up, just like
they were when the Chinese boat people ended up lined up on a
dock on the west coast wanting to fight their cases. They knew
there was a legal entitlement and a battle to be fought.
Yet we have provisions in this bill that even though citizenship
is granted and then for some unknown reason fraud is found or
misrepresentation determined they are not permitted to fight the
case on legal grounds.
1625
There is an irony in this part of the bill. On the one hand we
see abuses taking place within the immigration process where
those fighting their cases with legal representation are caught
up in a whirlwind. They are constantly going around and around
with nothing ever being resolved. This costs taxpayers hundreds
of millions of dollars and in fact billions over time.
That is acceptable, but on other other hand someone who may have
committed some act is still entitled to legal representation by
the mere fact that he or she has been granted Canadian
citizenship. Is that not somewhat of a paradox or a
contradiction? I think it is a contradiction.
Even a judge listening to a case, despite the fact there may
have been fraud or there may have been suspicion of
misrepresentation, could make a decision on whether there is
fraud and could say that the individual after being found guilty
is no longer entitled to legal representation. It is clear that
she or he has committed fraud, and everybody goes on his way.
However that is not what the bill provides.
There are lawyers sitting across the way. It is odd that we do
not hear too much from them. Many times there are charter
arguments surrounding the issues of which we speak, but there has
been substantial silence on that side of the floor. I find that
passing strange.
The point in question is the issue of citizenship. My hon.
colleague from the Vegreville area, the critic for immigration,
put it quite eloquently. Once citizenship is granted it must be
assumed to be genuine. Once it is revoked then another matter
must be dealt with such as deportation.
There is no mention of that in the bill at all. We deport
people who commit fraud, who lie, who misrepresent. That is not
even mentioned in the bill although I would assume there are
provisions in another part of the act which might deal with that.
When there is a violation of the law as blatant as a
misrepresentation or a fraudulent application, it should be
spelled out here that a course of action will be pursued against
the individual. It all comes back to the fact that there should
be an entitlement to fight the case and to present the evidence.
It has to be adversarial.
Unfortunately that side of the House has either overlooked this
point or maybe wants some other legal entanglement which will
take off in a new direction in our courts. The Immigration Act
is fraught with all kinds of weak areas that continually require
argument in our courts and tie up our courts.
It is about time we had some good, clear policy and legislation
that can be easily interpreted without the courts so that
everyone knows where he or she stands. When there are arguments,
which would be fewer by far, they could be settled in the federal
court. I find the whole proposal lacking.
On the other hand, my colleague, the immigration critic, has
addressed those issues in Motions Nos. 4 and 5, and I fully
support them.
1630
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me
first say that I support the bill before the House because it
would give greater value to citizenship for those Canadians who
are citizens by choice and not by birth.
When we look at Bill C-16 we notice that clause 12 talks about
people who become citizens by choice having all the rights and
responsibilities of every other Canadian. I am one of those five
million to six million Canadians who are citizens by choice. Let
me tell hon. members that it is a very central part of my
identity as a person.
When my family left Hungary in 1957 we came through mine fields.
I was a young boy. There has to be something pretty desperate to
motivate a family to cross mine fields. The situation has to be
pretty bad. When I arrived with my family in Canada I could say
that we felt we had arrived in heaven. It is important for
Canadians to know that.
The problem with the present act in dealing with the revocation
of citizenship pertains to the fact that it is the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, who, under section 17, could proceed
on grounds with a notice stating that it is believed an immigrant
at some point in time obtained citizenship by fraudulent means.
The person has 30 days to respond from the time the minister sent
the notice, not from the time of receipt of the notice.
If the immigrant wishes to dispute the allegations of the
minister, there will be a hearing before a federal court judge in
the trial division. What is important to understand is that
there is not an opportunity to appeal the decision of that judge.
Think about it. The whole history of jurisprudence in Canada
and the western world is based on the right to appeal. It is the
recognition that no one judge is infallible. If judges were
infallible we would not need courts of appeal, nor would we need
the supreme court. The fact of the matter is that judges are
human and they are prone to error. It is the ability to appeal
the decision to revoke somebody's citizenship to a higher court
that really underlies the judicial system in its finest sense.
Under the present system there could be a case of an individual
who got here by fraudulent means, whom the crown strongly
believes got here by fraudulent means, but a judge could make a
mistake and say that the immigrant did not come here
fraudulently. The crown would not have the option to appeal.
Conversely, if a judge makes a wrong finding and says that an
individual is guilty of coming here by misrepresentation, the
immigrant would not have the right to appeal.
What happens is this. The minister is the prosecutor in the
case. She goes to the federal court trial division. The
decision of the federal court trial division goes to the
minister, who, under the present act, has to act as an appeal
court and also has to make a report to cabinet. The cabinet
makes an order on revocation.
1635
As a Canadian by choice who values his citizenship, like many
other Canadians by choice, if I am to lose my citizenship I want
to have the due process of law. My family came across mine
fields because we wanted to be in a country that is ruled by law,
not where the politicians or the prime minister of the country
decide what my rights are as an individual citizen.
This is a good motion. It reflects the views of all of the
people who made presentations before the committee on Bill C-63,
which was the predecessor to Bill C-16. They included people
from right across the country. We had the B'Nai Brith. We had
the Ukrainian Congress. We had the Immigrant Lawyers'
Association. We had the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
What was so unique about it was that they all agreed that there
should be the opportunity to appeal.
The motion before us was prepared mainly through the work of
Kenneth Narvey, who is a legal researcher for the Coalition of
Concerned Congregations on the law relating to war crimes and
crimes against humanity, including those of the holocaust. It
captures the spirit put forward by the B'nai Brith and the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as well as the Ukrainian
Congress—all those groups representing people across this
country, who are in many cases citizens by choice.
The law on revocation goes back to 1920, which is one of the
darkest periods of our immigration history. If we think back, we
had the Asian exclusion act. We did not want Asians coming to
this country and we made laws to keep them out. We had the head
tax to keep the Chinese out.
We had the time of the Komagata Maru, a ship from Asia
which arrived legally. The popular belief was that we did not
want those kinds of people in this country and laws were passed
to turn them around and send them back.
It was not long ago that we had a policy in this country that
related to Jews which said “None is too many”. We only have
to go back to the second world war. To our collective shame in
the western world we turned away the SS St. Louis, which
had almost a thousand Jews on board. They were sent back to the
gas chambers. That is the timeframe in which this piece of
legislation concerning the revocation of citizenship goes back
to.
The right to my citizenship as a citizen by choice is only as
good as the least popular among us in the country.
We have made some great strides heading into the new millennium.
We have a premier of British Columbia who is from India. We
have a governor general who is from Hong Kong. We have a
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is Jewish.
I urge my colleagues in the House to go the rest of the way. Let
us get rid of this archaic piece of legislation on revocation.
If we are going to revoke citizenship, let us revoke it by the
due process of law, let us trust our legal system that we have
built and supported, and let us not have second class citizens in
this country.
1640
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
Human Resources Development; the hon. member for Québec,
Parental Leave; and the hon. member for Mississauga South,
Trade.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am glad I was in the House to
hear the parliamentary secretary speak. He certainly did a fine
job in helping us to relive some of those things. He also
experienced great danger in coming to Canada. I have talked to
many people like him. It is always very emotional when
individuals have the desire to live in Canada. People like the
parliamentary secretary inevitably make good citizens.
My area of Canada is much younger than that of Ontario. We are
still very much akin to groups of people who came over in this
century, even as late as the twenties, who still maintain their
nationalist ties. One of Canada's few Romanian settlements is
located some 20 miles north of where I live, and there is another
settlement about 100 miles from my home. These people are very
proud Canadians today.
The hon. gentleman mentioned some of the dark periods in
Canadian history. I think about the time of Confederation when
we became a nation. That was the time of the plight of the
Irish. I can remember Irish people during the famine trying to
immigrate to Canada, but there were people in this country who
were quite willing to send them back. That is another dark
story, another era in our Canadian history of which Canadians are
not very proud.
I think my hon. colleague is also somewhat taken back by the
number of illegal immigrants who somehow get into Canada. All of
the people I know who have immigrated to this country are
concerned about the way in which people get here, how long they
stay and how they abuse the name of the legal immigrant. These
people, like me, are concerned.
I want it understood that I am not anti-immigrant. I am not
against the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am,
like most Canadians, which has been shown in poll after poll,
against the policies of the government which do not tighten up
the immigration policy. Not too long ago most of the crimes
being committed in certain areas were being committed by illegal
immigrants.
I say to the hon. gentleman that he should take his case and his
story to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. If we
have people of his calibre applying to enter Canada, then for
goodness sake let us speed up the process and bring these people
in. We have not done that.
We have been home to too many people who have been here for
years and years. In some cases these individuals have committed
crimes and have never been deported. Our whole immigration
policy, our whole citizenship department, has taken on a very bad
name.
1645
There were three people in my office not too long ago. They
were all immigrants within the last 10 years. That was exactly
their complaint, that they were finding it difficult because of
the headlines flashed across the papers and stories about a very
lax policy toward immigrants coming into Canada. They were taking
the brunt of the jokes in society. That is not right and we
could do something about it.
The other day one of the members opposite referred to the member
for Calgary Northeast as being anti-immigrant. I am not
anti-immigrant. I have tried my best in every case to speed up
the process when I knew it was legitimate. I am against the lax
deportation and the inability to deal with people who are abusing
our Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
The hon. gentleman has presented a very worthy case. I want to
support him and I want to support this. However, I want to put
the idea out there that we need to honour those people who are
legitimate immigrants. We need to move very quickly and deport
those people who are not legitimate immigrants and not follow the
practice we have right now.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to talk about
an issue that is very important to Canadians and to Canada, the
idea of citizenship and immigration, and to reiterate some of the
thoughts that my colleagues have expressed when it comes to the
proposed changes. I also want to talk about how strongly we feel
about citizenship and immigration.
We are basically in agreement with the government on Motions
Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in Group No. 2. When it comes to giving rights
to citizens in this country, and once they obtain citizenship,
they should be treated equally, as my colleague just mentioned.
Specifically we cannot take those rights that are given to
Canadians once they receive citizenship lightly. They have to be
taken very seriously and treated equally.
Before I carry on in addressing these particular motions
pertaining to the bill, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague
from Lakeland who is our immigration critic. He has worked
tirelessly to make sure that the Liberals are kept accountable,
that our immigration system works as best as it can, that people
from across the country give their feedback on the changes we are
debating and that there is the most involvement possible. I know
my colleagues would agree that immigration and citizenship is
something we should all take an interest in. We should not take
it lightly. It is very important to take a moment to
congratulate him. He has worked tirelessly on the bill and on
the changes that have been proposed.
As I said, the official opposition wants to support these
particular motions. As two of my colleagues mentioned in this
round of debate, currently the proposed legislation does not
provide individuals who have been granted Canadian citizenship
full access to the legal system if their right to citizenship is
challenged, that is due to misrepresentation or fraud or any of
the particular cases where someone's citizenship can come up for
question.
From what I understand, during the course of the committee
hearings department officials insisted that this clause was not
of serious concern. However, the issue caused great concern to
members of the committee and a vast majority of the witnesses. I
started out by saying when citizenship is granted to any Canadian
we have to make sure their rights are treated equally if any
possibility of suspicion or misrepresentation comes up
surrounding the granting of their citizenship.
1650
We cannot just have the minister being able to revoke that
citizenship without any discretion. That is the big concern we
have with this part of the bill and the motions put forward. We
are happy to see that the Liberals as well realize this in this
part of the debate and do not want to leave that kind of blatant
discretion in the hands of the minister, but instead allow the
proper legal channels to work in the case of suspicion of
anyone's citizenship or any fraudulent activity when it comes to
citizenship.
The alliance agrees that once citizenship is granted, it must be
assumed to be genuine because hopefully the person who has
obtained the citizenship has gone through the proper channels to
obtain that citizenship. The revocation of citizenship is not
something to be taken lightly and must be done only under
complete and thorough scrutiny by the Canadian legal system. That
is the point of these motions. We have to go through the proper
channels. There cannot be the blatant ability for any person, or
any minister for that matter, to revoke someone's citizenship
unless the person has been proven guilty.
The only thing I found a little odd during the course of
reviewing the committee hearings and especially in raising this
point of debate is that during the course of the committee
hearings my colleague from Lakeland tabled an amendment which was
very similar to the two Liberal amendments. I think it is in
clause 17. There were a few Liberal members on the committee who
wanted to support that but in the end for some reason it was
voted down. That is unfortunate.
I will take a moment to review what is being done on committees.
I sit on the environment committee and I often want to see a
sense of co-operation and collaboration. If there is any member
on the committee who brings forward an amendment to government
legislation to make it better, one would think the government
would support it and still take credit for it anyway.
It seems to me that the partisanship in this place gets to be
too much to handle for all of us. We forget that we are here to
make legislation better for Canadians, not just to make ourselves
look good. I think that is why most members of parliament got
involved in the business they are in.
It would be nice once in a while to see the initiatives of the
opposition when it comes to making legislation better supported
by committee members and especially by the government. A
committee is supposed to be a non-partisan effort to make
legislation better. I have seen in many cases during my short
experience here sitting on committees that that very rarely
happens. In the case of my hon. colleague from Lakeland, his
amendments, which are almost identical to the motions, were voted
down at the committee level, which unfortunately was not a good
thing.
Now that we see that these amendments are virtually the same, we
want to support these amendments. As I said we do feel, and my
hon. colleague from Lakeland attempted to bring this before the
committee, that these amendments will help to protect citizens
who are under suspicion of having fraudulent citizenship. They
will protect those people who are innocent but are under the
suspicion of having fraudulent citizenship. It will take the
discretion out of the hands of the minister.
If we put this part of the bill into perspective of how many
revocations of citizenship there are in the overall scheme, I
think there is usually fewer than one per year. It is not
something that happens very frequently, thank goodness. At least
on that level citizens of Canada can rest assured that when
citizenship is given to them, it is something that is taken
seriously. However, in the problems which do come up from time
to time, if there is suspicion of any fraudulent activity when it
comes to citizenship, people can rest assured that their rights
will be protected. The equality of all citizens and Canadians
will be taken very seriously.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is with great respect for my colleague on this side of the
House and his poignant remarks on our history and his personal
experience that I reluctantly stand.
I do not support these motions. I want to correct the member
opposite who just spoke.
In fact the Liberal government is not sponsoring these two
amendments. They are being sponsored by the Canadian Alliance.
1655
I speak as one who has a riding of 40% immigrants. Those
immigrants are law-abiding, hardworking, productive members of
society. I also speak as someone who does not have the story my
colleague beside me has, but I come from immigrant stock from
eastern Europe. My grandmother chose to be a Canadian by coming
from Poland in a cattle boat separated by one thin wall between
the cattle and herself in the bottom of the boat.
I have read the amendments carefully and I do not support them.
I would like to give my reasons.
I would like to speak on behalf of the almost 100%, as just
pointed out, of legitimate immigrants who would not support
citizenship for those who have entered this country through
stealth, or acquired citizenship through lying or any other means
that were other than honest.
I am going to use the previous immigration critic's own words.
I find it passing strange that his party supports lengthy court
referrals. He talked about it as being a paradox and a
contradiction. He has in the past, and so has his party in one of
its previous incarnations and its current incarnation, not
supported putting too much power in the hands of the courts. As
a matter of fact this has been a hue and cry of that party.
Now members of that party are talking about putting power back
into the hands of the courts and taking it out of the hands of
parliament. They also railed against too many lengthy procedures
when the Chinese boats arrived off the shores of Vancouver. They
were most vociferous that those people should be deported
immediately. Therefore, I am again finding this whole argument
coming from the opposite side of the House passing strange, a
paradox and a contradiction.
Let us be clear about what the motions would do. The motions
would make citizenship revocation solely a court proceeding. The
revocation process under Bill C-16 is the same process that has
been government policy for over 20 years, tried, true and
reinvestigated. The federal court makes a determination of facts,
deciding whether the person obtained citizenship by
misrepresentation or by concealing material circumstances.
Following that determination the minister makes a report to the
governor in council and the governor in council decides whether
to revoke citizenship.
The motions before the House would remove the roles of the
minister and the governor in council and would leave the decision
of fact and of whether to revoke citizenship to the courts.
Again, the party opposite has constantly said that we are giving
too much power to the courts.
Revocation of citizenship is a very serious matter that the
federal government does not take lightly, but a pillar of
parliamentary tradition—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member opposite has indicated that this motion was not a
Liberal motion when in fact this motion was given to the clerk by
the member for Parkdale—High Park. When it came time for the
member to move the motion, she was ordered not to do so. I did
it as a co-signator.
I want to clarify that for the member. The motion did come from
the government originally. It is a good motion and she should be
supporting it but I will talk about that in my debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That certainly
clarified things for me but it may have got the rest of us even
more confused.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and
I will agree to disagree as we do on many things.
I wish to go back to my point. Revocation of citizenship is a
very serious matter that the federal government does not take
lightly. A pillar of parliamentary tradition is the principle of
responsible government. A decision to revoke citizenship should
remain with cabinet which itself is accountable to the Canadian
people through parliament.
Further, adding appeal rights or giving exclusive power to the
judiciary to decide revocation will lengthen the revocation
process of suspected war criminals and terrorists, people who
were never entitled to Canadian citizenship in the first place.
Let me also add that the revocation process under Bill C-16
guarantees due process for persons undergoing revocation of
citizenship and many opportunities to state their case. The
motions before the House would also allow any revocation done
under the 1977 or 1947 acts to be appealed to the court of appeal
or the supreme court.
1700
If that appeal results in a finding that the person did not
obtain citizenship by misrepresentation or concealing material
circumstances, the revocation would be deemed to have not
occurred, that is the decision of the governor in council would
be overturned. This would be a radical shift in the way
citizenship revocation is done.
Now is not the time to make a radical shift in citizenship
revocation. Now is the time to pass the new citizenship act
which has been 15 years in the making. It has been reviewed
extensively across the country. There has been much
consultation, particularly with immigrant groups. Again I would
like to state that the government does not support these
amendments.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as I start my comments on the motions in Group No. 2, I
feel I must respond to what the member from the Liberal Party
just said.
She said that she does not want to support these motions because
they would be making a substantial change to the current
citizenship act when in fact the replacement act we are debating
today has been in the process for 15 years. I do not understand
the logic in that. It seems ludicrous if there is a change that
makes sense.
There is a change in a motion which was originally put forth by
a Liberal member of parliament. He was not allowed to actually
read the motion today so I as a co-signator put it forth. It is
a good motion, supported by members of the party opposite. Some
have told me they will to support the motion so I will assume
they will. The argument this member put forth is that it is just
too much of a change to put into the new citizenship act which
has been in the process of being amended for 15 years. I cannot
understand the argument.
The second issue to which the member spoke was the issue of too
much power in the hands of the court. That is interesting in
that right now the revocation of citizenship is in the hands of
cabinet. We have several members of our party who were not born
in Canada. If I, a Canadian Alliance member of parliament, had
come from another country and if the cabinet had a political
reason for wanting to expel me from the country, the ultimate
power is with the cabinet, the way it has been laid out in the
new citizenship bill.
That is unacceptable. That is old style. That is something one
would expect from the 1920s, perhaps, because democracies were
not as well developed then. Back in 1920 is exactly when it was
put into the act originally. With modernization of democracy
surely it is time to make a change so that it is wrong when
someone is threatened with revocation of citizenship, which is an
extremely serious thing to have happen, and when the ultimate
control is in the hands of cabinet.
I fully support the motion that has been presented. It would
give that ultimate power to the courts so that a less partisan
body would be making the ultimate decision. That is what the
motion is meant to do.
The member will have to answer to her constituents. Many of
them will be upset by it. Anyone who has come to our country and
is in Canada now should be concerned about it. They should be
asking this member and all other members of the government why
they did not support a motion which would put that authority in
the hands of the court rather than in the hands of cabinet.
I cannot believe the member made this argument. It looked as
though she had been given a speech by the minister or by the
particular public servant who is responsible for that. She read
it, but she should have looked at it first. Some members have
already spoken in support of the motion from the government side
because it is a good one.
As to the power in the courts, the government for some reason
does not have any particular desire to interfere with power given
by the courts when it comes to the Singh decision. I do not
believe it is a correct interpretation. It leaves a situation
where anyone coming to our country who is not a Canadian citizen
or a landed immigrant and has no status here is entitled to the
full protection of the charter of rights and freedoms, including
the complete judicial process.
1705
They seem to be happy with that. It is something that no other
country offers. In the new immigration bill that has been
proposed they do not even have to be in Canada to be offered
charter protection. If they want to apply to come to Canada and
are not citizens, have no status and live in another country,
they will have access to the protection of our charter.
Yet the government refuses to grant the same protection to
people who have become citizens of our country during their
lifetime. It is an absurd concept and I expect the government to
have to answer that concern, not to me but to citizens in its
constituencies.
I have heard from many constituents, as have some of the members
opposite. I would be very curious to hear how the hon. member
responds to that and how members of the government who brought
forth this new Citizenship Act and yet refuse to make this
change, which is a good change, can live with themselves when
they wake up in the morning and look in the mirror. I really do
not understand.
The Citizenship Act is very important. It could lead to
individuals being thrown out of our country when they have become
citizens. It is all wrong that the ultimate power is going to
cabinet.
The two motions in this group both deal with this issue. I
encourage the government to reconsider. I believe some members
will support them. I encourage them to talk with their
colleagues and change their minds. If government members decide
to change their minds on this issue between now and when we vote
on these motions, I can guarantee that there will not be one bit
of heckling from this side of the House. There will not be one
negative word from this side of the House.
Instead there will be congratulations because they will have listened
to a good idea which has come from the opposition but originated
with members of the governing party. I give them credit for
that, but they will not let it pass. I encourage them to change
their minds and I look forward to their doing exactly that.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up much time in this
debate, but I want to use it as an opportunity to raise an
important issue for my constituency.
It has to do with a family from the former Yugoslavia that has
been trying for some time to enter Canada. These folks have
experienced extreme persecution in their country. They have
lived a period of horror in terms of their personal lives.
Unfortunately they have been trying, I must say unsuccessfully,
to enter Canada. I have recently asked them to put their case
clearly on the record so that I could present it to the Minister
of Immigration, which I have done.
I asked the minister of immigration to involve herself and make
a decision based on compassionate and humanitarian grounds to
enable this family from the former Yugoslavia to enter Canada and
to join with extended family members who have been here for some
time and have integrated very successfully into the fabric of
Canadian society.
I am fortunate to know one of the families that has been working
very hard on behalf of extended family members in the former
Yugoslavia. While all sorts of people are using various ways to
get into the country, these people have chosen the legitimate
way, the honourable way, the correct way, the appropriate way.
They have gone through all the appropriate channels.
They have been informed by our foreign service people abroad,
particularly those responsible for immigration, that the former
Yugoslavia from which they come, and particularly the
neighbouring area of Macedonia, is not an area of serious
problems.
These people on a personal basis have experienced severe
persecution and extreme harassment. The spouse of the head of
the family has been threatened with rape. Their children have
been threatened in the school yards with repeated beatings
because they happen to be of the wrong ethnic group in this case.
1710
I am not sure this is the appropriate time to do it, but I will
use this occasion to raise their plight and concern. I hope and
pray the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will see fit to
grant this family entrance to Canada based on compassionate and
humanitarian grounds so they can join extended family members
here. I know they will make a very positive contribution to life
in Canada and will be able to leave a very unfortunate
circumstance behind them in Europe.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A recorded division
on Motion No. 4 stands deferred. The recorded division
will also apply to Motion No. 5.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day the motions in Group No.
3 were previously moved and seconded. This group contains
Motions Nos. 6 to 8, 15, 16 and 18 to 21.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 2. I
want to talk about what has been happening with regard to the
government and its management of the House.
We have the citizenship bill in report stage before the House
today and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in
committee at exactly the same time. Also at the same time the
government makes an announcement that it has finally managed to
deport a small portion of the 600 people who arrived illegally by
boat this year.
That is the way the government seems to manage. It cannot
co-ordinate things even in the House. The minister cannot
co-ordinate her own time. She should be here. She is the
minister responsible for citizenship. I will not say whether or
not she is here but she should be. The minister should be taking
part in this debate and listening to this debate. Her time
management and the way she manages herself and her department are
so poor that she has three things going on at the same time. That
is completely unacceptable. Many members who would like to be
taking part in the report stage debate of Bill C-16 are at
committee. That is unacceptable.
Motion No. 6 deals with consultations between the Prime
Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of any
party recognized in the House, in other words any party with over
12 members, on the issue of appointing a retired judge who in
certain cases will take the place of the security review
committee. This would be done on very serious issues, usually
security issues. The minister would be asked to appoint a
retired judge to preside over the hearing. For some reason the
government does not want the security review committee to do
that. To add some measure of protection in the act, it has said
that the minister must consult with all party leaders. This
motion would require the minister to get agreement from all party
leaders that this judge is an acceptable person and that he or
she will be able to deal with security issues or a very touchy
issues. I do not think that is too much to ask.
1715
I do not believe any of the party leaders, current or in the
future, would let partisan politics stand in the way of such an
important appointment when dealing with the security of our
country and an issue that affects human beings in such a serious
way. I do not understand why the government would reject Motion
No. 6, and I hope it will not.
Motion No. 7 points out that in this legislation there are no
provisions preventing the appointment of a citizenship
commissioner who has been found guilty of an offence under clause
39 or 40 of this bill. I will run that by members again, because
it is important to take careful note. The government has put no
protection in this proposed new citizenship act against
appointing someone as a citizenship commissioner who has a
criminal record as a result of breaching this proposed new act.
It is unbelievable that would be the case.
I pointed this out in committee on several occasions and yet the
government insists that it wants the minister to decide on the
appointment. It is an unacceptable process. The minister is
willing to allow someone who has breached the new citizenship
act, the very serious clauses 39 and 40, to be appointed to the
position of citizenship commissioner in spite of having committed
these serious crimes. One has to wonder why.
Is the government suggesting that it has political friends whom
it would like to appoint to these positions? Everyone in this
group is a political appointment. That is why they are grouped
together and that is why I have brought forward these motions.
The government seems to be so concerned that it cannot find
enough of its political friends, who have not breached the
citizenship act, to appoint to this position of commissioner that
it has to open it up to those who have broken the law under the
very bill we are debating today. It is unbelievable. Any other
government would turn red-faced or maybe white-faced at this type
of thing going on and someone pointing out that it should be
changed. I would hope that the government members would support
this motion but I doubt very much that they will.
Motion No. 8 deals with another instance of patronage. It is
the same type of thing. The Canadian Alliance understands that
the government wants to ensure that the senior citizenship judge
who is appointed reflects the government's principles and way of
thinking. I am talking about only the top dog here, and I
understand that. I am not saying that there should not be a
political appointment at the top. I am saying that in this
position the government naturally would want someone who reflects
its values.
All we are asking for is that the appointment be at least
monitored and scrutinized by the appropriate standing committee
of the House. Does that not make sense?
1720
When the Canadian Alliance forms the government in a year or a
year and a half, which I hope and believe it will as there is a
good chance of it, we will take this act and completely overhaul
it. The person who ultimately will be responsible for the
granting of citizenship will reflect the principles of the party.
All other members will not be patronage appointments. This
government has left dozens and dozens of patronage appointments
in this citizenship act so it can give its political friends
these lucrative jobs. That is unacceptable.
We are saying that it is okay for the top person to reflect the
values of the government, but that a House of Commons standing
committee should scrutinize the appointment. That is all Motion
No. 8 does. It is completely reasonable. We will see whether
the government supports the motion or not, although I doubt it.
It just does not seem to want to support anything that comes from
anyone other than itself. If it steals the idea from someone
else and passes it that is okay but if it misses that
opportunity, which it often does, and an idea is brought forth by
someone else, then it is not a good idea. That is not the way
government will be when we are in power, which will not be that
far from now.
This is the last chance I have to talk about Motions Nos. 15,
16, 18, 19, 20, 21. They all deal with the fact that too much is
left to regulation in different areas of the bill. This is
something this government is guilty of on more occasions than I
can say. In fact, the new immigration act, Bill C-31, which was
tabled by the minister a few weeks ago, is so full of holes that
we could navigate one of those rusty illegal migrant ships
through it with no problem.
I had to run out of here today to go to committee in order to
take part as the official opposition immigration critic. When I
asked the minister some questions about the new act, she said
that it was not really a new act, that it was a framework act.
She knows that it was so full of holes it will not work.
The Liberals have left everything in Bill C-31 up to regulation
which is the same thing they have done with Bill C-16. Too much
is left to regulation. In no way should the minister, civil
servants or the department be making decisions on such critical
issues as who can make an application on behalf of a minor, on
how a relationship between a parent and child should be defined,
or on what is in the best interests of the child. They are all
found within the new act but that have no definition and there
are not guidelines.
In no way should this government or any civil servant be left to
decide what constitutes adequate language knowledge or other
knowledge in order to be eligible for citizenship. However, that
is what this new act will do. These proposed motions would say
that this cannot all be left to regulation. We will put it in
legislation so at least the principle of the new act can be
understood. That was not done and that was what we wanted. I
encourage the government to support these motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I would
like to indicate that we will support the motions in Group No. 3.
These motions deal with a couple of topics, including of course
the whole issue of the citizenship commissioner.
This is a fundamental issue. Why are we asking that the standing
committee have a say in these appointments? It is to ensure that
the work of the commissioners is done in all fairness, but also
in a way that will respect the legal character of citizenship.
Under the law, citizenship is based on rights and
responsibilities, but we, in the Bloc Quebecois, want it to be
even broader. We want it to allow various groups, individuals
and new Canadian citizens to be aware of the importance of the
democratic rights that have been shaped in Quebec over the last
few years by our own charter of rights and Election Act.
1725
We want the commissioners to be able to pass on this information
and the standing committee to have a say in their appointment.
The proposed motions deal more specifically with clause 43, the
regulations clause. Our motions call for these regulations to be
made, subject to ratification by the House of Commons. In our
opinion, this is fundamental.
As my colleague from the Canadian Alliance has said, there is a
tendency for this government to govern and pass legislation on
the basis of regulations that cannot be debated by
parliamentarians. In a democratic system, if a government does
not bother informing parliamentarians of what it is doing
through clauses in a bill, I believe it is a basic requirement
that such regulations be debated in the House.
To give an example, clause 43(a) reads:
When Bill C-63 was being looked at in the standing committee,
adoptive parents from Quebec made recommendations and proposals
to it.
What they wanted to tell us was that they wanted medical
evidence, records of medical examination, to be transmitted
before the proposal of adoption, so the parents could be aware
of the child's medical status. This is fundamental.
In the regulations there is reference, among other things, to
the best interests of the child. Some of the motions are aimed
at defining what the child's best interests are.
If the prospective parent is not aware of the results of the medical
examination, does not know the child's health status, this might
to some extent affect the child's best interests. It is
important that the parent be aware of the child's health status
in order to ensure that his or her vital needs are being met. If
information on the health status of the child is not provided
within a reasonable length of time, the best interests of the
child might be compromised.
In this bill, nothing tells us what the expression “in the best
interests of the child” means. There is no definition. There is
nothing specific as to when the results of the medical
examination of the child must be given to the parents. We do not
know if it will be before of after the proposal. Adoptive
parents were clear on this issue.
When the bill was studied in committee, a number of proposals
were made. We wanted these fundamental aspects to be considered.
I think that, for the sake of transparency and due to the fact
that the government refused to include in the bill certain
details regarding the regulations, we must have a debate in this
House on all the regulations pertaining to this bill.
I will conclude by saying that my party will vote in favour of
the motions in Group No. 3.
1730
I will have the opportunity to speak to the motions in Group No.
4 some other time. That group includes a very important motion.
I wanted to propose it, but my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had already done so. It deals with the oath
of citizenship.
* * *
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from May 9, 2000 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-5.
Call in the member.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mercier
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 58
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Peterson
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-24, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act,
1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court
of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-24.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion, with the exception of the hon.
member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant who had to leave to attend
another meeting, be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian
Alliance will be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party
will be voting no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, members of the solid
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no on this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote no on this
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 125
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wayne
– 75
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Peterson
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 6:04 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[English]
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, section 163 of the Criminal
Code should be amended to reflect a new definition of obscenity
as follows: “For the purposes of this Act, any matter or thing
is obscene where a dominant characteristic of the matter or thing
is the undue exploitation of any one or more of the following
subjects, namely, sex, violence, crime, horror or cruelty,
through degrading representation of a male or female person or in
any other manner.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my Motion No. 69
regarding the issue of pornography.
Today in Canada sexually explicit material generally
characterized as pornography is more available, more explicit and
more violent than ever before. Most Canadians support the
prohibition or restriction on what is considered beyond society's
level of tolerance. Pornography is viewed as amoral and that it
portrays sexes and their relationship as basically repugnant. It
is also considered to cause harm and as a result, strong
legislation is considered appropriate.
On the other hand, there are those who would argue that there is
no convincing evidence of any causal relationship between
pornography and actual physical harm significant enough to
justify infringement on the constitutionality guaranteed—
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Could the hon. member just indicate the number of the
motion so that I might follow the debate carefully?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is Motion No. 69.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 69 is a private
member's motion. It is non-votable which means that this matter
is here for debate tonight. I want to take some latitude simply
because the issue of pornography, particularly child pornography,
has seized Canada with regard to a particular case which has now
been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Canadians generally support prohibitions and restrictions with
regard to pornography. There is some concern that there is
direct causal harm. The problem is that there are others who
argue very strenuously that there is no significant evidence that
there is a causal relationship between pornography and actual
physical harm significant enough to justify infringement on the
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. That is the
issue, freedom of expression.
I believe that in our laws today, freedom of expression and the
rights of the individual continue to be promoted by the courts.
It continues to be argued that individual rights in fact are now
in conflict with the greater good, the greater right, and of the
society as a whole. That is a serious issue.
Harm is said to flow from pornography in two ways. First, it is
theorized that there is a direct causal link between violent
pornography and violence against women so that such material can
act as a trigger to aggression. Second, it is said that
pornography contributes in a general way to the myths about
sexuality and about women which ultimately makes violence and
degradation more acceptable to a society as a whole. It can
however be difficult to find objective proof of the harmful
effects, according to some.
There are three potential sources of proof available. The first
is anecdotal evidence. Police or press reports may say that a sex
offender was a habitual consumer of explicit material or victims
may claim that their assailants had been influenced by
pornography. The second is statistical evidence which attempts
to show a correlation between the prevalence of pornography and
the incidence of violent crime. The third is experimental
evidence, accounts of experiments which attempt to measure the
reactions of individuals to the stimulus of pornography,
particularly aggressive or violent material.
Anecdotal and statistical evidence suffer from the defect of
being unable to establish a causal link between pornography and
violence. The Library of Parliament produced a little report for
me. It notes that the presence of such material may be merely
symptomatic of antisocial behaviour rather than its cause. It
also points out that some research has purported to show that
many rapists report having little exposure to pornographic
material.
1810
As for statistical evidence, rates of sexual assaults have
increased but not significantly more than those of other forms of
crime. In any event, establishing a statistical link of this
sort is extremely problematic.
As I was researching this subject matter I came across an
article in a publication of Focus on the Family called
“Citizen”. It talked a bit about the harm effects. The
article which is dated May 1999 states:
Pornography is a root of all kinds of evil. A 1988 study by
Queen's University psychologist Dr. William Marshall found that
86% of convicted rapists and 77% of convicted child molesters
admitted to being regular or habitual users of pornography.
According to one journalist who covered the trial of Paul
Bernardo, convicted in 1995 of kidnapping, torturing and brutally
murdering two teenaged girls in Ontario, “the most frightening
realization” was the appetite he had developed for hard core
pornography as a teenager, to the point that he eventually
graduated “from using it to doing it. Bernardo's trial was, in
part”, she concluded, “a trial about pornography”.
These are the kinds of things which I suspect motivated me to
bring this issue to the House in a way in which it would promote
discussion and maybe some thoughtful consideration by members of
parliament about the issue of pornography.
In the Criminal Code of Canada the word pornography is actually
not there. It is the word obscenity. I would like to read into
the record what constitutes obscenity In the Criminal Code of
Canada. It states:
For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant
characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of
sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime,
horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.
It is legal language but it basically says that violence, crime,
horror and cruelty in themselves are not obscene. It says that
if there is a sexual activity and it is in conjunction with
crime, horror, cruelty and violence it shall be deemed to be
obscene. It struck me that it is very difficult to segregate
obscenity on the basis that there must be sexual content.
As a consequence, I drafted an amendment to the existing
criminal code definition of obscenity which tried to do a couple
of things. I have had some input from others that maybe some of
the language is not absolutely necessary. The principal change
within the definition that is being proposed is that it makes
obscenity, whether it is undue exploitation of any one or more of
the following subjects, namely, sex, violence, crime, horror or
cruelty, through degrading representation of a male or female
person or in any other manner.
I am well aware that this is a significant change in the
definition. The issue for me has more to do with social values
and the tolerance and standards which society establishes for
itself.
Evidence has clearly shown that the prevalence of pornography in
our society continues to grow. Consider what has happened in the
past 20 years. We have evolved to a point where pornography
involving adults is broadly acceptable within society, but add a
child to it and the entire country is outraged. It is amazing to
me that to achieve the age of 18 would all of a sudden somehow
change the social acceptability of pornography. I do not think
so. Yet socially, adult pornography has been a massive industry.
I wanted to raise this issue with the House of Commons because I
felt that the whole question of dealing with child pornography
had to take into consideration the social realities with regard
to adult pornography.
1815
I have raised it and I will be interested to hear members'
questions, but I want to leave it at that, only because it is now
on the floor and in the hands of the members to deal with if they
want to talk about it.
I want to make some comments about the B.C. court case in which
John Sharpe was acquitted of possession of child pornography. It
spawned an outrage right across Canada.
Members of the House will know that the consequence of the
original decision was basically to strike down the laws with
regard to the mere possession of child pornography in the
province of British Columbia. At the same time, the laws of
Canada remained intact and were in place in all other provinces
and territories. However, that did not matter because the laws
of Canada were under attack. As a consequence, there was an
immediate appeal to the B.C. courts on the same matter.
Again, after all of the consideration and after all of the
outrage that was expressed by Canadians, the B.C. appeal court
upheld the decision of the lower court and basically tore down
the law. It did not sustain the law of Canada with regard to the
possession of child pornography. The case is now before the
Supreme Court of Canada.
The case was originally heard in January 1999. On June 30 the
B.C. court of appeal upheld the decision. It was a two to one
decision. Madam Justice Mary Southin and Madam Justice Anne
Rowles felt that the current law was an unreasonable violation of
the guarantee of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression contained in the charter of rights and freedoms.
Here we are back to the fundamentals. It is the rights and the
freedoms of the individual in conflict with societal values and
the tolerance level for what constitutes an undue exploitation,
in this case of children.
There has been much written about this case. Much of it refers
to the legislation that was put in place in the 34th parliament
with regard to child pornography. It was admittedly a rushed
piece of legislation. It was a piece of legislation which many
criticized as being so broad that it would even constitute a
violation if a person had certain thoughts. Certain things
written in a diary could be subject to problems within the law.
This is a very serious situation. I wanted to raise this aspect
of the discussion of pornography because in a short time we will
hear from the Supreme Court of Canada and I have some fears about
that.
In the B.C. appeal court Chief Justice Allan McEachern disagreed
with the other two judges. He believes that the harm caused by
child pornography justifies handling the law. This question of
cause and effect and is there harm is a very serious issue.
I had an opportunity to discuss this issue with the justice
minister so that I could better understand some of the nuances of
the law and the judicial system. My view is that the protection
of children is enhanced by the prohibition against simple
possession of child pornography. I cannot state it any more
simply. I believe that the protection of children comes before
the rights and freedoms of the individual guaranteed by the
charter of rights and freedoms.
It is in conflict, I suppose, in terms of a statement; but in
terms of a value system I believe that the starting point in this
discussion, the starting point with regard to the legislation,
has to be with the children.
In the event that the supreme court appeal is not successful—in
other words, the decision of the B.C. lower court and the court
of appeal that Mr. Sharpe is not guilty because it was an
intrusion of his rights and freedoms—we have the opportunity to
do something under section 31(1) of the charter, commonly known
as the notwithstanding clause.
The Minister of Justice, in response to the B.C. court of
appeal, said that the notwithstanding clause should only be used
as a last resort and only after every available legal recourse
has been exhausted.
I tend to agree with the justice minister. I believe that the
notwithstanding clause is for extraordinary circumstances. I do
believe, though, that should the supreme court render a judgment
which does not uphold the laws of Canada, it should be dealt with
by a swift response of the government in invoking the
notwithstanding clause and then dealing with the points of law or
legislation which the courts have identified as leading them to
render those decisions and make those corrections.
1820
I do not believe it would be appropriate for us simply to accept
the supreme court decision and continue to study or ponder the
consequences. I do not believe Canadians would tolerate a
protracted consideration of a negative supreme court decision.
I want it to be dealt with promptly. I believe I have the
support of colleagues in this place. I believe that members in
this Chamber would say that the notwithstanding clause is our
first available option with regard to a negative supreme court
decision. I hope we will be able to have that consensus in this
place so that we can act swiftly when a decision comes down.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the
member for Mississauga South and I welcome the opportunity to
participate in the debate on Motion No. 69.
Just a few minutes ago members of the House were in the
Speaker's office shaking hands with John Glenn, a man who has
gone up into space twice, once as a younger man and once as a man
in his seventies. That proves that in this world we can do
anything we want to do.
This type of legislation is something we should support. With
respect to the pornography issue, if we do not get a favourable
decision from the supreme court, I agree with the hon. member
that it may be the first time this parliament will have to use
the notwithstanding clause. It should be used if the supreme
court does not make the proper decision.
Motion No. 69 calls for an amendment to section 163 of the
criminal code and would broaden the definition of obscenity. The
member's motion states, in part:
For the purposes of this act, any matter or thing is obscene
where a dominant characteristic of the matter or thing is the
undue exploitation of any one or more of the following subjects,
namely, sex, violence, crime, horror or cruelty, through
degrading representation of a male or female person or in any
other manner.
I should say at the outset that I see no problem with this
amendment to section 163. In fact, it is more reflective of our
times. After all, the definition of obscenity in section 163 of
the criminal code was written in 1959. Surely times have
changed, particularly the manner of transmission of obscene
material.
I believe the impetus for this motion by the member for
Mississauga South comes from the leading supreme court case on
the issue of obscenity. I am talking about Regina v Butler. In
that case the supreme court upheld the ban of obscenity as
constitutional. In essence, the court ruled that banning
obscenity would be an infringement of the freedom of expression,
but is saved by section 1 of the charter as a reasonable limit.
Sex that is degrading or dehumanizing will be considered undue
because it is harmful to society, particularly women. However,
material which offends against community standards could be saved
if it was necessary for the serious treatment of the theme. The
stronger the inference of the risk of harm, the lesser the
likelihood of community tolerance.
Sex with violence will almost always be undue exploitation.
Explicit sex that is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if
the risk of harm is substantial. Explicit sex that is
non-violent and non-dehumanizing will almost always be tolerated.
That seems to be the manner of law in the interpretation of
obscene.
The member for Mississauga South does not appear to be objecting
to the supreme court case involving Butler. For background, the
Butler case involved an individual, Mr. Butler, who was a
purveyor of hard-core video tapes. In the first case the court
said that charges of obscene were inappropriate and that the
video tapes were acceptable. The court of appeal did not agree.
The supreme court used the harm test and agreed that the tapes
were obscene.
In Motion No. 69 the member's definition of obscene still
contains the word undue, which leads to the community tolerance
test.
I believe the member for Mississauga South has picked up the
notion of degrading for the genesis of his motion.
The effect of this motion is simply to make undue exploitation of
violence, crime, horror or cruelty as obscene even if no sex is
involved. For example, if I have interpreted the member's
rationale correctly, under his proposed definition beating
someone to death in a degrading manner, torture without
exploiting the person sexually, no rape, would be obscene. If
that is the case I have no problem with this step forward in
amending subsection 163(8) of the criminal code. In fact, I
would welcome this new definition.
1825
Some may say that it goes too far and may unduly restrict the
publication of photos by legitimate media sources. I do not
believe this could happen. In light of the defence of serving
the public good, which is contained in subsection 163(3) of the
criminal code, it seems unlikely that any legitimate media would
be threatened by Motion No. 69.
I am also pleased to see any reference made to amending section
163 of the code. As I said previously, that section dates back
to 1959. I have always believed that the code is an evolutionary
document which must reflect the times.
If we take a close look at section 163, which is entitled
“Offences tending to corrupt morals”, we will find some archaic
and startling sections more reminiscent of the 1950s. Paragraph
163(1)(b) states that it is a criminal offence to make, print,
publish, distribute, sell or have in one's possession for the
purposes of publication, distribution or circulation a crime
comic. Yes, Mr. Speaker, a crime comic. Surely this is a bit
out of sync with the times and suggests to me that section 163
needs a complete review and a complete overhaul.
Paragraph 163(1)(d) states that anyone who advertises or
publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine,
drug or article, intended or represented as a method of restoring
sexual virility or curing venereal disease of the generative
organs, is guilty of a criminal offence. This is another example
of the 1950 attitudes existing in our criminal code.
Surely we have moved beyond that thinking. Section 163 is out
of touch with our times. That is why I have no objection to
Motion No. 69, which seeks to amend subsection 163(8) of the
criminal code.
Motion No. 69 reflects the need to deal with the issue of
degrading and reflects community standards and norms of today. It
is in step with the times, which I support.
I would like to close by once again talking about the
notwithstanding clause. It comes up many times in the debates of
the House. Sometimes it is said that we should only use it in
extraordinary circumstances. The constitution of the country was
drafted by people from across the country. There was a very good
reason the premiers in certain segments of the country insisted
they would not sign the constitution, the bill of rights, unless
it contained the notwithstanding clause.
We have never used it in this House and I find that rather
strange. It lets the supreme court and any other court in the
country know that the elected members of the House form the
supreme body of this country. We have gotten away from that.
I had a debate today with a reporter who said “No,
you are wrong. The supreme court runs the country”. He was
serious. He really believed that the supreme court had the final
say. When I brought the notwithstanding clause forward he said
“But you have never used it”. He is correct.
Perhaps now is the time. The member for Mississauga South
talked about the child pornography case. If a ruling comes down
which is not agreeable to the majority of members of the House, I
would hope we would have the courage to use the notwithstanding
clause to make a law that the majority of members of the House
would agree with. We know what the majority feel. We saw it in
a letter from a number of members on the Liberal side to the
Prime Minister about using the notwithstanding clause in this
particular case. Yet they voted the way they had to vote when we
put the motion before the House.
I know there will be a public outcry on this issue if the
supreme court allows this case to go the way it has been going
through the other levels of the courts, even though it was not
unanimous in those courts. I read the minority decision of the
Chief Justice of British Columbia, Allan McEachern. I have a lot
of respect for him as a lawyer and as a judge, not only in this
case but in other cases before him in British Columbia. He
disagreed with the other two honourable justices in that case.
1830
I hope his view is the one that the supreme court will take. If
it does not, we must let the supreme court know that this is the
supreme body of Canada, the body that makes the laws which the
majority of people in the country want.
We will support the bill. We also look forward to support from
the other side when that pornography issue comes down, if it is
not the right decision by the supreme court.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would echo much of what has already been said in
terms of the timeliness and the importance of this debate. I am
very pleased to participate in a debate of such a very
significant nature.
I want to begin by commending my colleague, the hon. member for
Mississauga South. I know he has been a tireless worker with
respect to issues such as this one. I know the particular motion
comes from a very purist and principled motivation to protect
children. I could not embrace in a more enthusiastic way
anything that we as legislators and we as members of parliament
do that will enhance protection for children.
The motion would amend subsection 163(8) of the criminal code.
It would basically tighten up an existing definition. Without
casting any aspersions at all on what the hon. member is trying
to accomplish, that current section sets out significant
protection for individuals who would be victims of exploitation
under this type of activity. However, as has been referred to,
there is certainly a need to have clarity in this type of
legislation and in some cases to provide some direction for
judges who might interpret too broadly this type of activity.
The references to the case that is pending before the supreme
court, Queen v Sharpe, was highly publicized and received a great
deal of response nationally although it arose out of a court in
British Columbia. It has sparked very much a debate and a need
to revisit this type of legislation. Anything that would depict
children in such a way as to be defined as pornography or
exploitive is something on which we have to move swiftly and very
starkly to oppose.
My only regret, as this case has progressed through the courts
and has been argued before our justices of the supreme court, is
that the Minister of Justice did not act in a more swift and
decisive way to refer the case immediately to the supreme court
so that the decision would have been made and the signal would
have been sent.
Any suggestion that the possession of child pornography, let
alone its production and distribution, is constitutionally valid
is asinine. Any type of activity that leads to the production of
child pornography obviously has to be what has created the
opportunity for someone to possess it. It is not beyond logic to
follow that someone had to produce it for a person to be in
possession of it. We have to send a clear message that it is
absolutely offside.
The current practice is to let these matters progress through
the courts. As the hon. member has stated there may very well be
the need in the near future, if things do not go as they should
in the supreme court, for the government to act swiftly and to
invoke the notwithstanding clause. We know that is a very
severe intervention and it is one that is very rarely
implemented. It is the equivalent of a legislative nuclear bomb.
It brings in a legislative bar on further discussion on the
particular issue and suspends any further litigation in that
area.
This issue is of importance. I agree very much with the
commentary we have heard already on the subject matter before us.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is a perfect example of something
where parliament should very much consider, if need be, invoking
the notwithstanding clause. I know we can all speculate and that
there is not a great deal of merit in doing so at this time, but
let us hope that step will not be necessary.
When we are dealing with issues that involve charter rights it
is something that we have to contemplate carefully.
There are fundamental freedoms which are very much protected by
our charter. I am sure the Chair would agree that the charter
has also led in some instances to very perverse decisions where
community rights are used to stomp on individual rights and vice
versa. Individual rights are often displayed in such a way that
the majority of people are very much taken aback by a court's
decision.
1835
The law is and has been referred to many times as a living tree.
We have to be careful when we cross into the area of legislators
telling or restricting judges in what they can and cannot do. I
for one still have a fair bit of faith in our judiciary. We have
some very talented judges. Just like it is not popular to defend
politicians, it is sometimes not popular to say that we have some
very able and very competent judicial minds.
However, there is ample evidence to suggest that when it comes
to children and the protection of children there are times when
it is incumbent, not just our responsibility but our absolute
right, to intervene on behalf of children. I can think of many
instances where that is the case. One that comes to mind quite
quickly is the potential change to the criminal code with respect
to conditional sentences.
Conditional sentences should not be handed down by judges when
it comes to sentences for sex offences, offences of violence or
offences against children. That is something that should not be
contemplated. I am sure it was not contemplated when the
legislation was passed. The government should very much consider
revisiting the particular issue.
Similarly I think we can do more to protect individuals from sex
offenders. I have a private member's bill before the House that
would amend the conditions of probation which attach under
section 161 of the criminal code with respect to putting a bar on
a sex offender attending a private dwelling house when a child is
present.
There are more examples of what we can do to tighten up and very
much close in on anyone who would cross that line and harm a
child. It goes without saying that the harm done to a child by
even the mildest display of violence or sexual intrusion carries
with that child for life. It is a life sentence imposed and has
absolutely drastic and far reaching effects on the life of a
child.
This type of debate is very useful when it comes to looking at
these types of issues, examining what more we can do. We in this
place are tasked to do everything we can to protect young people,
people of all denominations, ages and creeds across the country.
I believe the hon. member would very much agree that we should
have a national strategy to combat child pornography. We should
be doing more to study this area. We should have a national
databank with respect to those who are convicted of pedophilia
and crimes of such a nature.
We could do a great deal more if we had a national sex offender
registry that would inform those who are most at risk. We know
that the use of the Internet, the use of modern technology,
allows us to expand the horizons of information and availability.
Technology has broken down many barriers in terms of making
information available.
There is much to be done. We should have legislation that would
allow for testing of sex offenders for communicable diseases such
as AIDS. That is another suggestion I am sure many members of
the House would embrace.
Fundamental changes can be made. I think the hon. member is
moving in the right direction with his suggestion under this
motion. Obviously a lot can be done. One of the greatest fears
against which we have to be guarded is the creeping complacency
or apathy that exists, desensitization by the prevalence of
pornography and violence and its perpetration as some form of
art. We have to do more to ensure that this is not the case in
the House. That is not what Canadians expect us to do. Although
I am very quick to point out that freedom of expression is
something we always have to be conscious of and respect, freedom
of expression never involves the exploitation of a child.
I have no doubt that we will be discussing the Sharpe case again
at some point in the future.
As I have indicated, I hope it will not come to pass that it will
be incumbent upon this government or any government to intervene
with the notwithstanding clause. Should that happen, I expect
that the hon. member will echo the remarks he has already put
forward. I support him in that. The charter is there as a
shield and a sword. Similarly we have to be prepared to use the
particular piece of legislation when it is necessitated, when it
is incumbent and when it is proper.
1840
I support the hon. member in his efforts. I commend him and
congratulate him again for bringing the matter forward. Debates
of this nature help Canadians to understand the issues. They
help in furthering the drafting and presentation of legislation
that would improve the protections which currently exist in our
criminal code. In conclusion, I support the matter and I fully
hope that all members of the House will do likewise.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak to
Motion No. 69 introduced by the hon. member for Mississauga
South.
The motion seeks to amend the current definition of obscenity as
it appears in subsection 163(8) of the criminal code as follows:
“For the purposes of this Act, any matter or thing is obscene
where a dominant characteristic of the matter or thing is the
undue exploitation of any one or more of the following subjects,
namely, sex, violence, crime, horror or cruelty, through
degrading representation of a male or female person or in any
other manner”.
[Translation]
I praise the member for his efforts to protect Canadians from
any material containing violence. He is well known for his work
in this area and I congratulate him. However, I am not sure the
aim of the motion is clear enough.
[English]
First, let us examine the effect of the proposal before us. The
proposed definition of obscenity would extend the notion of
obscenity beyond the bounds of its common understanding. The
current code definition requires the undue exploitation of sex or
the combination of sex and at least one of violence, horror,
crime or cruelty in order to be considered obscene.
Obscenity is understood to include some notion of sexual
immorality or indecency. The proposed definition of obscenity in
the motion would include materials that unduly exploit violence,
crime, horror or cruelty alone. To include within the definition
of obscenity strictly violence, horror, crime or cruelty would
not fit in within the common and legal understanding of the
concept. Other changes to the current definition of obscenity
proposed by the motion would have little or no effect on the
manner in which the term is currently applied.
The replacement of the word publication with matter or thing is
not necessary. The courts have already held that the definition
of obscenity in subsection 163(8) applies to all matter whether
or not it is a publication. There is no need therefore to make
this change.
Second, the addition of through degrading representation of a
male or female person is also unnecessary because it is included
within the judicial interpretation of the current definition of
obscenity.
As has been referred to tonight, the Supreme Court of Canada
said in R. v Butler that material which depicts explicit sex
without violence will usually also have to depict degrading or
dehumanizing treatment in order to be constitutionally
prohibited.
As mentioned by the court, explicit sex that is not violent and
not degrading or dehumanizing is generally tolerated by society
and will not qualify as undue exploitation of sex. Where there
is undue exploitation of sex alone, therefore, it is unnecessary
to specify that it includes degrading representations because
that is implicit in the context of undue exploitation based on
the interpretation given by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The motion also proposes to add the phrase “in any other
manner” as a qualifier of undue exploitation. The type of
manner contemplated by this wording is unclear but it would
appear unnecessary as well. For reasons similar to those I have
already referred to, the provision as it currently appears in the
code leaves the notion of undue exploitation unqualified so as to
allow for more flexible interpretation.
The definition proposed in the motion would qualify the phrase
undue exploitation with through degrading representation of a
male or female person, with the result that the possible
interpretations of the phrase would be narrowed.
It then attempts to broaden the definition with the addition of
the phrase “or in any other manner”. This addition is
unnecessary and needlessly complicates the current wording with
the possible result that judicial interpretations of the new
definition may not turn out to be what the motion seeks to
realize in proposing this definition.
1845
[Translation]
Just like the hon. member, we want to protect children from the
harmful effects of material containing violence. But there may
be other, more efficient ways to go about it than to legislate.
[English]
First, we must trust the conscientiousness of Canadian parents
to adequately supervise the activities of their children and
regulate the types of materials to which their children are
exposed.
In addition to parental supervision, the broadcasting industry
has adopted a voluntary code regarding violence in television
programming to respond to the public's concern over the issue of
violence in the media and in society in general. The voluntary
code states that:
It is the responsibility of the broadcaster, the regulator, the
cable operator and cable delivered programming services, in
conjunction with parents, teachers and individual viewers to work
cooperatively to inform and educate society on how to best
manage this technological revolution which has created an endless
video buffet of programming choices.
While the government must certainly play a role in protecting
children from the harm occasioned by violence in the media, all
sectors of society must work co-operatively to achieve this goal.
The criminal code is a blunt instrument. It is not the sole
instrument or even the most effective instrument available to
deal with social or moral behaviour. It may be used to deal with
certain discrete types of behaviour but we must resist the
tendency to rely too heavily on it as a panacea for all that we
wish to repair in our society.
In conclusion, I would also like to join with other members in
thanking this hon. member for his contribution to the debate on
this subject.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to say, particularly to those
people looking in across Canada, that they indeed should pay
tribute to the hon. member for Mississauga South for bringing
this motion before the House. No other issue has brought more
attention from across Canada than this issue.
Frankly, I totally disagree with the parliamentary secretary.
What he is doing is giving credence to an issue that goes beyond
any reasonable doubt about the content and how the courts should
act.
We have an issue that the lower courts and the supreme court of
B.C. have agreed on. It is now before the Supreme Court of
Canada. The question Canadians want answered is, what happens if
the supreme court agrees with the two lower courts? Canadians
from coast to coast are worried about that. Is it not the
responsibility of the House to draft new legislation? It cannot
be any clearer than it is now.
The only recourse we have is the notwithstanding clause. If
that clause was to be used only on rare occasions, then this is
that rare occasion. How can any elected official in this House
not know full well that when those pornographic films are made
somebody's child or grandchild is being abused? I cannot believe
the defence of the system. It simply goes beyond my imagination.
The motion introduced by my hon. friend is a new definition for
obscenity. Obscenity takes place in many different ways. How
far does freedom go when the two lower courts of B.C. based their
dismissal of the case on the grounds of freedom of expression?
1850
Let us take freedom of religion. If we look around the House we
see people of different religions. No one for one moment would
accept a member of the House criticizing a Jewish member and
using degrading representation or degrading remarks. The member
would be called totally out of order. However, out in society
and in the media it is fair game to attack one religion, that
religion being Christianity, and it is all done in the freedom of
expression. It is even creeping into the House.
A reporter came up to me the other day and asked me what I
thought about the baggage a leading politician was carrying. I
told him to wait for a minute and then I asked him what he
thought about the baggage I was carrying. He said that I was not
carrying any baggage. I told him that I happened to believe in
God, in prayer and in fellowship, and that I too volunteered my
time as an administrator for a private Christian school. He
asked me why I called that baggage. We are allowing this in many
different ways.
The supreme case under the charter of freedom of expression has
allowed two court decisions to make a mockery out of decency and
a mockery out of everything that this country has ever stood for
since Confederation. We cannot pass the buck by simply saying
that we have to train the parents or we have to stop it on TV. We
have to say to the courts that this House is supreme when it
comes to decisions like that.
What will we do, I would ask the hon. member? I congratulate
him for bringing this forward. I have never had so many cases of
representation.
I would say to the hon. parliamentary secretary and government
members opposite that if they had a free vote they would bring in
the notwithstanding clause just like that. They would bring it
in tomorrow if they had to. This is not a party thing. It is a
thing of principle, of morality and of decency. However, here we
are in limbo. We will let the courts decide.
In the meantime, possession of pornography is legal, and by
information that I have been able to acquire, it is growing. Why
would it not grow? If it is legal in B.C. it will soon be legal
all over the country. Hon. members should ask the RCMP and their
police forces. It is growing.
Hon. members may think I am carrying some baggage. They may
also think that what is happening in this country is all right.
We know about the interference with the clergy at the Swiss
Airlines memorial. We know that people were told what to do.
That was interference in the freedom of religion. Now, under the
guise of freedom of expression, we sit here as legislators with
the possibility of the supreme court agreeing with the two lower
courts on this terrible issue.
After the passing of the charter of human rights, one of the
supreme court judges said that they would finally get a chance to
make laws.
Our whole democratic system is built on the principle that there
is a big stone wall between the legislature and the judiciary,
but we are quite willing to let the judiciary do its thing and
make rulings that affect the lawmakers of this land.
In closing, I want to congratulate the hon. member.
When the decision comes down and then comes before the House, I
know where he will stand. He will stand in defence of children.
He will stand against child abuse. He will stand against
pornography.
1855
When I was home in Saskatchewan for the weekend I experienced a
big debate in the provincial legislature on pornography. This
debate was not about child pornography. It was about a crown
corporation and the government giving money for the production of
a pornographic film of gays and lesbians to be shown at
government expense. This is freedom of expression. This is
wrong. Nobody can defend it.
I want to say to the House and to people across Canada that they
should rise up and take control. Canadians elect us. They
should say that it is not up to anyone but the people in this
place to make the laws. They should say that it is up to us to
protect the people with the laws, not to interpret according to
some feelings of the people needing to be politically correct.
We are so worried about being politically correct that we have
become obscene within ourselves. Let us face indecency,
corruption and immorality the way we should. We should not be
passing the buck. It is our responsibility to do it in this
place.
My hon. colleague in the Conservative Party and my hon.
colleague in my own party have spoken. There will be no change.
I say to the member for Mississauga South that when this issue
comes up again he can bank on my party's full support in what he
is doing.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank all my colleagues who took the opportunity to participate
in this debate on an issue that will unfortunately continue to
seize this place.
I know that the question of the Sharpe case will certainly be
one that we will be waiting in anticipation for from the supreme
court. It is certainly our wish that the court will uphold the
laws of Canada to make possession of child pornography illegal
and that we will be sustained.
Hopefully, from all three levels of the courts, we will have
received input with regard to those areas of the existing
legislation which may lead to this kind of problem where there is
some ambiguity as to whether or not those laws are an unnecessary
and undue infringement on the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Some things that were said in the House today were useful and
constructive. From that standpoint, I feel that Motion No. 69
served a purpose.
The parliamentary secretary took me to one other dimension of
this whole issue. He talked about the role of parents. There is
no question that we all have to be part of the solution. We
cannot legislate morality. We cannot legislate behaviour. All
we can do is provide some of the thinking and some of the
principles under which we should guide Canadians.
Let us look at the case of David Trott, the 20 year old B.C. man
who has been charged with the murder of Jessica Russell, a nine
year old child. This is a very tragic case. We have to look at
the facts not at the victim, which in itself is a terrible
tragedy.
When we look at the accused, he is somebody who is 20 years old
and has a criminal record that would make anybody understand that
this is a serious problem. He is also a person who was sexually
abused as a young child. It is linked to this debate.
1900
What happened? This 20 year old Canadian was born with fetal
alcohol syndrome. He is a person for whom there is no recovery.
He has permanent brain damage. He is a person who was physically
and sexually abused. He is a person who dropped out of school
and abused drugs. He is a person that anybody who has known him
throughout his life has said that he is a bomb waiting to
explode. They could see it.
Why have we failed in society to help people who cannot help
themselves? As a consequence the tragedy is amplified by the
tragic death of young Jessica.
These are the kinds of things I want to talk about here and I
know many members want to talk about it. I throw it back to the
parliamentary secretary and say engage parliamentarians in some
of the principles that have to guide us in making the laws. Not
only can we make good laws, but those laws can also be an
inspiration to parents to provide the guidance to their children,
and for those in society who are in the company of those children
and for those parents to step forward and intervene in a
constructive fashion as appropriate to make sure that these
tragedies do not happen.
We have an opportunity to be a part of the solution. That is
why Motion No. 69 came forward. It has been a constructive
debate. I thank hon. members for their kind comments.
We know that the starting point is children. We know that the
notwithstanding clause is the tool that parliament has in the
event that parliamentarians do not agree with an unfavourable
decision. We have to look at that seriously.
I raise this as another dimension of the debate on Motion No. 69
from the standpoint that as time goes on the House may find
itself in recess when this decision comes down. I want to be
absolutely sure that people start thinking today about what
happens when that decision comes down and it is unfavourable.
Have we got a clear understanding of the views of this place? If
not, maybe we should.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today on the subject of parental leave, further to a
number of questions I have raised with the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The government's intentions with regard to making the system
more flexible and to extending it to pregnant women and parents
wanting to take maternity or parental leave are unclear. The
minister talks of her desire to expand parental leave by
doubling it. It would increase from 25 to 50 weeks.
In her answers, the minister says that the Government of Quebec
broke off negotiations in 1997. We ask her to be of good faith
in this exercise, to truly want to help parents by giving them
parental leave, to extend a hand to the Government of Quebec so
Quebecers may be entitled to parental leave as sought by the
Regroupement pour un régime québécois d'assurance parentale.
This group represents Quebec organizations.
1905
I want to provide some information to the minister, because it
is very nice to want to double the length of parental leave and
let women look after their children for a year at home, but one
must have the means to do so and be able to qualify for that
leave.
We asked the minister to reduce the number of hours of work that
is required. The minister says she wants to give more
flexibility to her parental leave policy, but she should first
take a look at the working conditions of women. Just take a look
at the current reality in the labour force: women hold
non-standard, temporary and part time jobs.
The figures confirm our concern about who can qualify. How many
of those who qualify will be able to afford parental leave? We
all know that the 55% provided under the federal parental leave
program is totally inadequate. If women hold non-standard, part
time or temporary jobs, their income is small; so, 55% of their
salary during a year spent at home is totally inadequate.
Obviously, the Minister of Human Resources Development did not
look at the whole issue of parental leave.
The figures speak for themselves. Since 1997, when the changes
were made, 10,000 fewer women than before have qualified for
maternity benefits. Why? Because 700 hours are now required to
qualify. That number has been reduced by 100 hours, but it had
gone from 300 to 700 hours and, in the last budget, the
government only reduced by 100 hours the requirement to qualify
for parental leave. This is totally inadequate.
It is nice to be generous, but everyone knows that only 49% of
women who are eligible for maternity leave take advantage of the
additional parental leave, because they either do not qualify or
cannot afford it. Very few women take the whole parental leave
because they cannot stay at home too long, as their income is
essential to balance the family income.
Who will be able to afford it? Those who work full time, those
who have fringe benefits. Once again, a large percentage of the
female population will be excluded.
I ask the minister to examine the whole issue of parental leave,
to show openness and to negotiate, so that Quebec can finally
implement its parental leave policy, which is far more generous.
The federal government could have responded to Quebec's request
for extended parental leave for self-employed women who want 70%
of their income. That is the whole issue with regard to parental
leave.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maternity
and parental benefits are a longstanding part of the Government
of Canada's commitment to children and families. These benefits
are provided to Quebecers like all other Canadians.
In October 1999 the government indicated that it would extend
these benefits to provide greater flexibility to parents to
better balance work and family needs. Our priority is to
implement our improved parental benefits.
The recent budget announcement on the extended parental benefits
now allows parents up to one year of leave instead of the
traditional six months. We have also made parental benefits more
accessible by lowering the eligibility threshold to 600 hours,
about four months on a 40 hour week and five months on a 30 hour
week, and giving more flexibility to parents by removing the
second waiting period.
In 1997 the Government of Canada did enter into negotiations
with Quebec so that it could establish its own parental leave
plan. At that time we made a fair and equitable offer to the
Government of Quebec but the Government of Quebec walked away
from these negotiations. For our part, at the moment our
government is focused on providing extended EI maternity and
parental benefits to Quebecers and to all other Canadians.
1910
TRADE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is May 10 and a couple of our colleagues have birthdays today. I
want to wish them a happy birthday. We are going to share a
dinner. They cannot share it with their families at home because
they are here working. I want to let everyone know that we are
still trying to remain whole even when we cannot be with our
families, but we hopefully will make it up in other ways.
Recently I had an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister
for International Trade. He is the Minister for International
Trade not of international trade. It is a fine distinction. He
pointed out to me at a trade exposition in Mississauga a couple
of weeks ago that we are for trade.
In preparing for my intervention tonight I pulled out the annual
report of the Export Development Corporation which has been
getting a lot of attention in the House of late. I wanted to
look at the section on increasing Canada's competitiveness. It
states:
Canada is enjoying renewed prosperity. Unemployment is at its
lowest point in 20 years, inflation is low and under control;
private spending is up and fiscal deficits are down. Canada is
experiencing robust growth, which is expected to remain strong in
2000. The economy is continuing its shift to the high-tech and
services sectors that look set to dominate the 21st century
economy.
The combined impact of trade liberalization and growing trade
integration within North America have heightened Canada's
dependence on trade—
It is that wording, our dependence on trade, that triggered the
question. I asked the Minister for International Trade to give
us some indicators of how we have benefited from trade and also
to deal with the myth that somehow what we produce in Canada for
export is ostensibly either low value added or in fact raw
materials or commodities and that maybe we are not getting the
amplification or the leverage from high quality export trade.
The minister gave some very interesting statistics. He said
that our exports now total 41% of Canada's GDP versus 27% just 10
years ago. He also clarified that in fact our commodities
exports were down from some 60% some years ago to a low 30%.
In that regard could the parliamentary secretary provide a bit
more information about how vital trade is to Canada and possibly
how this is going to translate into Canada being more competitive
in a global economy?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade has said in the House that among the G-7
nations, Canada benefits the most from trade and therefore is the
most open to trade of the G-7 economies. Our exports plus
imports add up to the equivalent of over 80% of our GDP. The next
closest to us is the United Kingdom at less than 60%.
More of our production at home depends on export markets than
any other G-7 country. By the same token we have made the global
market our market to a greater extent than any of our
competitors.
Finally, we have to see the importance of global markets to
Canada's emerging new economy sectors. Our trade numbers show
that we are having some success. Some of our new economy exports
such as earnings from royalties and licences and research and
development have consistently been the strongest components in
our services exports. These grew by 16.8% and 15% per year
respectively since 1993. Services are the key to the new economy
and we are starting to do very well here.
It is true that we ship a lot of rocks and logs. We have and
will continue to have a strong comparative advantage in many
resource sectors. The numbers show that the relative size of the
resource sector in total Canadian exports has fallen over the
years. But the good news is that we have not been losing our
resource sector. Rather, we have been gaining vibrant
manufacturing and services sectors that have become world class
competitors in their own right.
This points to what I think is the most significant way in which
trade and investment are benefiting Canada. Our integration with
the global economy is not type casting us as producers of raw
materials.
It is paving the way for Canadians to enjoy the benefits of a
vastly more diversified economy with more knowledge based
economic activity and more rewarding jobs than an inward
orientation possibly could offer.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)