36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 29
CONTENTS
Friday, November 26, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1010
1015
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1020
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1025
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1030
1035
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1040
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1100
| TOBACCO
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| RIGHTS OF YOUTH
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1105
| CHECHNYA
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| THE LATE DOUG SAHM
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1110
| DEMOCRACY
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| FOOTBALL
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1115
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1125
| SUDAN
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BANKING
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1130
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1135
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
1140
| Hon. David Anderson |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1145
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1150
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1155
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TOBACCO
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1200
| RURAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| AIRPORT SAFETY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1991 AND 1992
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-347. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-348. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-349. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1210
| MAXIMUM SPEED CONTROL DEVICE ACT
|
| Bill C-350. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| WAGES LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill C-351. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| PRIVACY ACT
|
| Bill C-352. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| LAND TITLES ACT
|
| Bill C-353. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1215
| PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT
|
| Bill C-354. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
|
| Bill C-355. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
|
| Bill C-356. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INDIAN ACT
|
| Bill C-357. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
| Bill C-358. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
|
| Bill C-359. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| EXTRADITION ACT
|
| Bill C-360. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INTERPRETATION ACT
|
| Bill C-361. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill C-362. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
|
| Bill C-363. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-364. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-365. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-366. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1220
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-367. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| EXCISE TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-368. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| EXCISE ACT
|
| Bill C-369. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
| Bill C-370. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL JUDGMENTS
|
| Bill C-371. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-372. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
|
| Bill C-373. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill C-374. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1225
| CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
| Bill C-375. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| DEPARTMENTAL INTERNAL AUDIT ACT
|
| Bill C-376. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Bill C-377. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-378. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-379. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
|
| Bill C-380. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-381. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION ACT
|
| Bill C-382. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-383. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-384. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-385. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| IMMIGRATION ACT
|
| Bill C-386. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1230
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1235
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1240
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1245
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1250
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. John Bryden |
1315
| Mr. John Cannis |
1320
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1330
| WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1335
1340
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1345
1350
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1355
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1400
1405
| Mr. John Maloney |
1410
1415
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1420
1425
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 29
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 26, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act to to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
point. I understand appropriate discussions with other parties
have taken place and I seek the unanimous consent of the House to
complete the speaking period of my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request for unanimous consent from the hon. member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to rise and replace my
colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
My colleague and I are both in agreement to support Bill C-5, an
act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.
1010
As many members will already know, the Canadian tourism
commission was actually founded in 1992 after an extensive
consultation with various stakeholders in the tourism industry
across Canada. At that time, when the former government was
trying to get the commission up and running quickly, government
and industry agreed that the CTC should be created as a special
operating agency instead of a crown corporation.
Special operating agency basically means that it has all of the
responsibility and none of the authority. The CTC was responsible
for running the program but it was the deputy minister of tourism
who was responsible for the administration. Because of the
speech with which the CTC was originally created, it missed a
whole bunch of key points and operations were often held back
because of the bureaucratic nightmare that was created.
There were some marketing operations that had to sit around for
months because they were going through the bureaucratic sign-off
process which required 13 signatures. By the time they got to
their signatures circumstances had almost always changed.
One could spot the potential for problems a mile away.
Government contract issuance processes were just too slow to keep
up with the rapid changes that occur in the tourism industry.
Business does not have to be allowed to move much more quickly
whether it is in the private or public realm.
My colleagues and I in the NDP support the move from a special
operating agency to a crown corporation provided that the
government provide the tourism board the support it will require
to fulfil its objectives.
The development and accomplishments of the Canadian tourism
commission is a unique and promising model of a private-public
partnership. The tourism industry currently provides over
two-thirds of the funding for the commission's operations.
Labour relations will move from the Public Service Employment
Act to the Canada Labour Code, and while existing bargaining
units will be merged, there will be a one year transition in
eligibility for public service competitions and grievance
procedures.
The tourism industry supports the change, the provinces support
the change and the staff support the change. I believe that
today in the House we should be able to co-operate and put Bill
C-5 through the House as quickly as possible. One only wishes
every government policy with respect to tourism was as beneficial
for the industry as this one.
I take this opportunity to remind the House of the sudden and
hurtful changes which our two airlines made with respect to their
commissions for international ticket sales. This change alone
threatens some 7,500 jobs in small communities across the
country.
Basically the two airlines got together to set the new
commission structure and informed the travel agents. I repeat,
the two airlines got together to set the new pricing structure.
Then, when the travel agents' association wanted to meet with the
airlines to discuss the rate structure, it was threatened with
anti-competition charges under the Competition Act by the very
same airline. In other words, the Competition Act could be used
by the airlines to bully small businesses, but where oh where is
that act now that the big airlines are in trouble? Talk about a
Liberal double standard.
Another point that I feel I must make in this debate on tourism
comes more in the form of a warning. The preamble to Bill C-5
sets out the vitality of the tourism industry to the social and
cultural identity of Canada. While I do not wish to necessarily
disagree with this statement, it must be somewhat qualified. It
is not tourism that is going to safeguard our identity. Instead,
it is our distinct social and cultural identity as Canadians that
will safeguard the continued interest for tourists in Canada.
Tourism can never be more than and certainly never less than an
integral part of our economy. A well-balanced and vibrant
economy of scale cannot be built upon tourism alone. I make this
point because it is extremely important for us in Cape Breton to
remember this at a time when our federal government is telling us
that tourism will be our saviour.
Tourism also rides economic roller coasters, the big economic
ones and the smaller seasonal variations. It is important to
note that while we acknowledge the increased dollar figures
generated in Cape Breton, from $211 million to $230 million this
year which will make tourism one of the important factors in
rebuilding our shattered economy, it is by no means the only or
the whole answer.
As some of my hon. colleagues may already know, we, the NDP
caucus members from Nova Scotia, have been working with tourism
operators across the maritime provinces. We are facing a
situation of a monopolistic food supplier if the Sobey's-Oshawa
group merger goes ahead. This merger could potentially spell
disaster for the restaurants, bed and breakfast establishments
and hotels that are price-takers from their food suppliers. If
the merger goes ahead there will be virtually no competition in
that sector. I think I could elicit support from just about any
part of the House that a situation where no controls or
competition is in place could spell disaster for the people who
depend on these suppliers.
1015
Nearly 77,000 people are directly or indirectly employed by
tourism operators in Nova Scotia. The fact that the government
has taken no initiative toward protecting the interests of small
businesses that will potentially be hurt by the merger is yet
another example of the federal Liberals abandoning the interests
of working people.
While I feel I must support the passage of Bill C-5, I do not do
this without some reservations with regard to the Liberal
government's policies toward tourism and tourist operators. I do
not feel that the Liberal government supports tourist operators,
especially those who are small business owners and employees.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for her speech. I would like to ask her how Bill
C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourist Commission, would
be different from what the Canadian Tourist Commission does now.
I will read a paragraph about what the Canadian Tourist
Commission is doing at the present time:
The CTC is industry led and market driven. It is a consortium of
Canadian private sector, provincial, territorial, regional and
federal tourism partners who collaborate closely to match
Canada's tourism products and services with customer
demand...both regional and global...and to focus the Canadian
industry's efforts as a whole. The CTC actively pursues
partnership opportunities for its marketing, research, and
industry and product development programs. Interested
organizations or individuals are invited to contact the
Commission with ideas and proposals. It should be noted,
however, that the CTC does not provide grants or subsidies, nor
does it act as a lobby group on behalf of the industry.
Could the hon. member explain how the new tourist commission,
under the corporate banner of being a crown corporation, would in
any way be different? Would it be more efficient? Would it do
the same kinds of things? Would it do things differently? How
does she see it operating? This is what is happening now. Is
that bad? Does she not like it? What is the real advantage to
forming a crown corporation?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite
simple. As I stated in my comments the tourism industry supports
the change. I respect the individuals in the industry and their
ability to decide what best suits them.
The industry supports the change. The provinces support the
change. The staff supports the change. I would only have to
question why members of the House would not respect individuals
in the industry who should obviously know what is best for their
industry.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my compliments to the member on her
speech. I have a concern that is perhaps a bit more general.
Just recently on November 1 we saw the Department of Revenue
Canada become an agency. While it is not entirely a crown
corporation, it is certainly moving in that direction.
The number of crown corporations is growing. For example, Nav
Canada took over the navigation services of Transport Canada. It
is supposedly a non-profit entity right now. It is interesting
the Museum of Nature is a crown corporation. These corporations
are arm's length from the government but their arms are about an
inch and a half long.
We have distorted the meaning of a corporation by setting up an
agency of the government, dependent on the government for
funding, with board members most often appointed by the
government. The distinction between a crown corporation and a
department or government agency is so small that it makes me
wonder why we are going through these motions.
As we look at Bill C-5 it strikes me that we are going through
much the same motions, as though we are singing the hit tune of
the day. What will the consequences be for the government in
establishing these corporations? More particularly what will be
the consequences for these corporations and those they serve when
in fact the government is still running the show under a
different guise?
1020
Could the member respond to my dilemma with setting up crown
corporations which are so close to the government that arm's
length is a meaningless term?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, we have to be clear.
Reform has always taken the position that if there is a
government connection it is no good.
As I asked the colleague who questioned me prior, who are we to
tell individuals in the industry what is good for them? We in
the House are supposed to listen to the people we represent and
bring their concerns here, not vice versa. We are not supposed
to inflict our personal beliefs on individuals within industry.
When I hear that the staff supports it, the provinces support it
and, more important, the people in the industry support it, that
is certainly good enough for me and my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does a
pretty good job of turning the question around, and I compliment
her on that.
Has she ever asked why the industry is supporting this approach?
Why is the staff supporting this approach? Why does this seem to
be something different? Is it better? If the functions are the
same, if the objectives are the same and if the CTC is operating
effectively now, why would a crown corporation be more effective
than the present commission?
Judd Buchanan, present chairman of the CTC, was a very strong
Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau regime. He does his work
for $1 a year. If the crown corporation is established, does
that mean that the president of the corporation will work for $1
a year? Is one of the reasons the staff is supporting it that
their salaries will rise? Why is it supporting it? Could the
member answer that question?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I have real concerns
with where Reformers keep coming from with respect to their
questions. We are talking about the creation of a crown
corporation. We all know, certainly those of us from Cape
Breton, the Reform position with regard to Devco. If Reformers
had their way they would fell all crown corporations and leave
all Canadians on their own. Those that survive, great and those
that sink, too bad.
An hon. member: Free enterprise.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: The member says “free
enterprise”. What, then, is our responsibility to individuals
in the industry? In my home town in Cape Breton a number of
individuals depend on the tourism industry for their bread and
butter. The member asks why they feel this is better. As I have
said before, they are the people in the industry.
I am not a tourist operator. I respect why they are saying this
is best for them. I do not understand why Reformers would take
the position that they do not think it is good and therefore
inflict their beliefs on the industry.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain very specifically
why we in the Reform do not think this is a good bill.
The reason that individuals are supporting the crown corporation
concept is simple. It is likely that a lot more money will be
spent on the institution but there will be less accountability.
When members of parliament try to get information from the access
to information department on crown corporations, we run into a
virtual roadblock because crown corporations do not have to be
accountable for the way they run their business.
I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that
private business can do a job better than government can. Under
the current set up we have a program that is directly responsible
to parliament through the Department of Industry. We do not want
to see that taken away from us. We do not want to see the
accountability taken out of this place and given to an
untouchable board.
1025
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon.
colleague make the remark that the creation of a crown
corporation would mean more money.
We on this side of the House do not have any problem at all in
investing in small businesses across the country. When I listen
to members of the Reform, their position has always been let us
sell off everything in the country and allow those who can
survive to survive and those who cannot to waste away.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to an issue that is fundamentally vital to the Canadian
economy, the issue of tourism. Bill C-5 is an initiative that
will see the Canadian Tourism Commission transformed from its
present status as a special operating agency into that of a crown
corporation.
The Canadian Tourism Commission was originally set up in 1994 by
order in council and under the guidance of the Department of
Industry. Its mandate is to manage, plan and implement programs
that generate and promote tourism in Canada.
The bill before us represents an evolutionary step in the
process by turning the agency into a crown corporation. Such a
change will result in many fundamental differences, all of which
are designed with the intent of providing greater flexibility to
the CTC, thus allowing it to better serve the tourism industry.
Most of the components contained in the bill are without
controversy. For instance, there seems to be broad support
offered by the provinces. This support is predicated upon
several factors.
First, the act gives a legislative mandate to the function of
marketing Canada as a tourism destination. That mandate
specifies a significant role for industry, provinces and
territories in national tourism marketing. This role of the
provinces raises a few questions as to why we are not respecting
the equality of all provinces in the bill, but I will touch on
them later.
The second reason provincial governments seem inclined to
support the bill centres around the restrictions placed on the
CTC specifically. The commission may not initiate or finance
programs involving the acquisition or construction of real
property, immovables or facilities related to tourism. This
ensures that the commission's interest will be focused on
marketing. In the past federal tourism funds have somehow been
used with mixed success on facility development programs.
The third and most important reason has to do with the perceived
commitment by the federal government to have the marketing of
tourism led by industry rather than by government. I say
perceived because as the legislation presently stands the
corporation will be made up of 26 directors.
Sixteen of the directors will be appointed by the Minister of
Industry and will serve at the pleasure of the minister. The
other 10 directors will essentially be made up of provincial
deputy ministers of tourism or their equivalent. I am doing the
math and it does not look good for the provinces. Worse still is
the notion that the minister maintains a comfortable majority on
the board by having 16 pleasure appointments that he can yank
whenever one steps out of line. Honestly everybody wants to rule
the world but we must protect against this.
When I reviewed the stated objectives of the bill I was not
struck by any intentions that would be overtly out of line. The
CTC objectives include sustaining a vibrant and profitable
Canadian tourism industry; marketing Canada as a desirable
tourist destination; providing information about Canada's tourism
to the private sector; and supporting a co-operative relationship
among the private sector, the Government of Canada, the provinces
and the territories. No alarm bells here.
How can these initiatives be achieved if the deck is stacked
against provincial representatives to begin with? If the true
intention is to sustain a vibrant industry we should not
introduce a predetermined barrier to that dynamic.
I want to make clear that I am not discussing patronage. I do
not question the intention of the minister. The reality of the
situation is clear. Provincial representatives will certainly
watch out for their own regional issues.
1030
However, even if all provincial governments are in agreement on
a specific policy, the minister maintains a very heavy hammer to
pound in order to achieve what he wants. This is not enough for
my party to oppose the bill at this time, although I look forward
to exploring this further at the committee stage.
Another point in this bill that concerns not only myself but
also the tourism minister of Prince Edward Island is the
regional representation breakdown for the appointed directors.
The bill, in clause 11, delineates six different regions of the
country. They are as follows: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Alberta, which is combined
with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and British Columbia,
which is combined with the Yukon.
Bill C-5 does not respect the fundamental equality of all
provinces and that will be explored further. However, there is
another issue that I want to raise, which has to do with the
relative importance of tourism to the economies of the individual
provinces. While the gross figure for revenue generated by
Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia may not come
close to those generated by other provinces, their tourism
dollars as a percentage of GDP speak volumes for their need to
have effective representation.
I raise these issues out of a desire to improve the bill and to
respect the fundamental nature of Canada, but by and large the
minister has done a commendable job in producing a bill that has
such initial broad support. I have had positive feedback from
the governments of Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island for
the general aims and principles of the bill. Since those are
provinces governed by members of my party, I know they are
therefore quite reasonable and astute on such matters.
Tourism endures the peculiar legacy of being big business
carried out by thousands of small operators. This commission is
a very important initiative since tourism injects nearly $47
billion a year into our economy. These are not constant dollars
that we can count on to be there year after year. We must do our
part to assist tourism operators to grow their revenues.
In 1998 Canada witnessed a drop in visitors from some of our
major overseas markets. Japan was down 14%, France was down 8%
and Germany was down 5%. When we consider that tourism employs
over 500,000 Canadians directly, plus a multitude of spin-off
jobs, it is an industry that is too important to keep our hands
at bay. Of course, an active hand does not mean an
interventionist hand. I am aware that the minister understands
that, which is why he is endeavouring to make it an industry
driven venture. It is a difficult task, to be sure, especially
when we consider that government nets 31 cents out of every
tourism dollar spent in Canada. It is certainly an incentive
that would have some advocate a more activist role for
government. That is why my party is supportive of Bill C-5 and
its less intrusive approach.
Tourism is Canada's 12th largest revenue generating industry,
with 40% of that revenue generated in my home province of
Ontario. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I have a
vested interest in assisting this bill forward.
In order to understand and judge the viability and worth of any
government project, I find it useful to start from the premise of
what the situation would be if it did not exist. There is no
need to reinvent the wheel to answer that question. All we need
to do is look to our neighbours to the south where we see a
situation that has a certain amount of disarray to it. The U.S.
federal government did away with the U.S. travel and tourism
authority at few years back. Now the U.S. tourism industry is
actively lobbying for a new national body.
If we start from the premise that this body is absolutely
necessary, and for the most part I think we are there, then it is
incumbent upon us to get it right. We must be open to all input
on proper structuring, especially from industry members
themselves, since at present the private sector and the provinces
are paying more than 50% of the tab.
In the limited time I have had to meet with stakeholders, it has
become clear that we are just scratching the surface with tourism
now. What we need to achieve is the creation of a commission
that will allow the industry to maximize our potential growth
areas with destination strategies and growth in areas like
adventure travel and ecotourism. We also need to develop a
strategy that will assist rural tourist operators in their
ongoing struggle to obtain financing.
1035
Obviously we are not going to be able to address such specific
issues in an effective way as a parliamentary body. That is why
I hold out such hope for this commission.
If we do our job properly, we will have a tourism commission
that will be a model for other nations for years to come. That
is why the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting Bill C-5
at second reading.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
enthusiasm of the hon. member who just spoke is well directed. I
think we all agree that the tourism industry in Canada is a very
significant issue and that it has not been developed as well as
it might have been. That goes without saying. I am a very
strong proponent of supporting the development of the tourism
industry. I agree with the hon. member.
How does the member see this crown corporation advancing the
cause of tourism more effectively, more efficiently and more
rapidly than is the case with the Canadian tourism commission
that currently operates under Industry Canada?
There are 26 directors under the Canadian tourism commission at
the present time, including the president and the director. That
is exactly the same number that exists under the provisions of
the new legislation to set up the crown corporation. The
representation from the various parts of Canada, the provinces
and the regions, is more or less the same, if not exactly the
same. The way in which the distribution takes place as to which
parts of the tourism industry ought to be represented is also the
same.
Does the hon. member really believe that a crown corporation
will more effectively meet the advancement of tourism in Canada?
I agree, that should be the case for Canadians. It ought to be
happening. That is why the CTC was established in the first
place.
Does the hon. member really believe that a crown corporation
will be more effective and more cost effective than the current
tourism commission?
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech,
I have some concerns about the composition of the board, with 16
members reporting to the federal minister and one member from
each of the provinces reporting to the deputy minister.
However, by moving it from an agency of Industry Canada to a
more autonomous body, a crown corporation, I think we have a
better opportunity to exploit the opportunities that exist in
tourism. It is a vital industry. Hopefully the industry will
grow because of this corporation.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pursue this a bit further, and I thank
the hon. member for his thoughtful presentation on this subject.
There will be 26 board members in the new corporation, as there
are with the Canadian tourism commission. Sixteen of the board
members will be appointed by the minister. There is already a
majority, but then the remaining representatives will be
appointed with advice.
I would like to know how this could possibly be seen as anything
other than complete domination by the federal government. Where
is the arm's length relationship? The federal government
appoints the majority, appoints the remainder on advice, and it
has the ability to rescind those appointments. It is totally
dominated by the federal government.
I am not speaking against the need for tourism operators to have
all the support they can get. Goodness knows, there is no part
of the country that does not seek to enhance itself through
tourism. It has been a wonderful advantage for Canadians and for
people outside the country to come and know where and who we are,
as we are, and to appreciate Canada and Canadians.
1040
However, it seems to me that what we have here is a step
backward from the limited accountability that even the Canadian
tourism commission has, where the board is appointed by the
minister, acts like a corporation and has a curtain between it
and openness with the public. I fail to see how the corporation
will be able to do more than the Canadian tourism commission does
and at the same time have the same accountability.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member from the Reform Party for his comments and his
question. I have the same difficulty that he does with the
composition of the board. As I said, there are six regions that
the government is setting up. The provincial people will
designate who would normally be the deputy minister of tourism
for their particular province. I think it should be made more
fair and that the composition of the board should change if we
really want to advance tourism and ensure that every one of the
six regions which are promoted in the bill has a powerful say at
the table about what should be done.
This is a dynamic industry. It is probably a hidden asset for
Canada which we can exploit. When I first saw the bill and
received the presentation from the department, my initial concern
was the composition of the board and it is still my concern.
However, at this point in time I am supporting the bill at
second reading so that the bill can go to committee. I will be
further addressing that issue because I have a concern in that
area as well.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have today before us a bill that was
first introduced in the last session. It is entitled an act to
establish the Canadian tourism commission, which is part of
Industry Canada. The government wants to give it crown
corporation status.
I suppose the first question to be asked is exactly what does
the Canadian tourism commission do and why does it need to be a
crown corporation.
The CTC, or the Canadian tourism commission, was created in 1995
to promote Canadian tourism and establish partnerships with the
private sector, the provinces and federal tourism partners. It
uses the money it receives from various sources to do research
and to market Canada as a travel destination.
The CTC receives an appropriation of about $65 million every
year. Of that amount $12 million goes to salaries and overhead
and approximately $52 million goes to promotion and product
development. The tourism industry in Canada matches that amount,
so that a total of about $130 million is spent annually. The
CTC, by the way, has 62 employees in Ottawa.
To go a little further in the explanation of what the CTC is, it
has a 26 member decision making board of directors which
functions as a special operating agency in delivering the tourism
mandate of the federal government. The board of directors is
comprised mainly of private sector companies with direct interest
in establishing Canada as a preferred tourist destination.
When I received a briefing on this bill from the CTC I was told
that the commission wants to become a crown corporation because
it feels constrained and cannot operate effectively within the
government. It said that it cannot move quickly enough.
I guess I can be a bit sympathetic with that request. What part
of government ever moved quickly enough?
1045
I think there is ample evidence that crown corporations do not
exactly have a sterling record of moving quickly either. It has
been my experience that crown corporations can get away with a
lot but I and many Canadians have never realized that they could
actually move more quickly than government.
An hon. member: Except when it comes to closure.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by my
colleague that there is one area in which the government can
certainly move quickly and that is when it brings closure to
debate in the House. It is moving quickly to surpass the
previous Tory government's record. It is going to blow by the
Mulroney government in grand style within a matter of weeks on
bringing closure to the House and stopping democratic debate. I
thank my colleague for bringing that to my attention.
The Reform Party has a philosophical problem with crown
corporations. We believe that ownership and control of
corporations should be placed in the sector that can perform the
task the most cost effectively with the greatest accountability
to owners and the least likelihood of incurring more public debt
or any public debt for that matter. There is overwhelming
evidence this would be the private sector in the vast majority of
cases. History has told us that a private sector organization or
institution can perform far more effectively than any government
arm or crown corporation could ever hope to do.
We believe that many crown corporations, as we have stated
publicly a number of times, should either be privatized or go
back to the departments that spawned them in the first place.
Then the ministers who have them in their departments could be
accountable to the people of Canada through the opposition,
certainly through the official opposition, the Reform Party of
Canada.
I think everyone knows that no party in the House has ever
questioned the operation of crown corporations and demanded
accountability more than the Reform Party of Canada has since we
came here as an official party in 1993. We are proud of that
record because we have the interests of Canadian taxpayers at
heart. That is why we ask questions that no other party has ever
bothered to ask. Those who have been members of the cozy country
club that has existed for so many decades in Ottawa do not want
to do anything to upset the people in that club. We are not in
that club and we are proud of it. That is why we ask the tough
questions.
The Reform Party will be opposing the bill. We feel that there
is no good reason to give the Canadian Tourism Commission crown
corporation status.
We do not know how much more money it will cost. We know that
the chairman of the existing CTC which operates under the
Department of Transport is paid $1 a year. Judd Buchanan, a long
time Liberal, is working for $1 a year. We do not know what
other compensation or perks he is getting but $1 a year sounds
pretty good to us. Does anyone think for a minute that the new
chairman of the crown corporation style CTC will want to work for
$1 a year?
One has to wonder if there is not a friend of the Liberals out
there that they have forgotten to reward since 1993. One has to
imagine that the appointment of the head of that crown
corporation is already picked. By golly, I think we would find
that he is someone who is well known to the Prime Minister, to
the Liberal government and to any of those members. It is a
guarantee and I would be willing to put a few dollars on that
appointment. It may even be a friend of the deputy government
whip. She seems to be enjoying this part of the speech. Perhaps
it is a friend of hers who helped with her campaign.
If a crown corporation is formed and the CTC is taken out of the
responsibility of the Minister of Industry, we lose almost 100%
of the accountability.
This crown corporation will operate with an autonomy that will
basically guarantee that it is going to be free from any inquiry
through access to information as to how its operation goes and
how it is spending its money. We do not want that to happen.
1050
An hon. member: Taxpayer money.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: The member from Surrey just
reminded me that it is taxpayer money once again. I shudder to
think that I have been here six years and I forget that important
little point, and I do not.
The industry department issued a paper which supports the rapid
divestiture of crown assets. This makes me wonder why the
department is sponsoring the bill in the first place.
I refer to a paper in the House entitled “Canada in the 21st
Century—Institutions in Growth—Framework Policy as a Tool of
Competitive Advantage for Canada”. This sounds like it is going
to cost Canadians a lot of money. If we start getting academics
trying to figure out how to spend taxpayers' money, it could be a
pretty sad situation.
The point is that in comparison to other OECD countries, Canada
has had historically high levels of state ownership. In a
country that is considered primarily a free enterprise country, a
country where the people of Canada should take a role in private
enterprise, the private sector and industry, Canada has a very
unusually high level of state ownership. That is a little scary.
In 1986 the Economic Council of Canada reported that government
owned and controlled companies accounted for 26% of the net fixed
assets of all Canadian corporations in 1983. That is pretty
astounding and pretty shocking. Yet these firms accounted for
less than 5% of the total employment in the country. They
accounted for 26% of the net fixed assets of all the Canadian
corporations, yet less than 5% of the total employment. This
adds even more credibility to the fact that the private sector is
the best place to create jobs. The government should recognize
that instead of trying to usurp the efforts of private sector
industry in helping our economy.
These numbers do not say very much about the employment creation
capacities of government owned crown corporations and companies.
I would like to share my time with my colleague from the
Okanagan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure we can
accommodate the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. We
will go then to questions and comments.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Our party has 40 minutes at this time. I will speak for
20 minutes and my colleague will speak for 20 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The way it works is
there are 40 minute slots for the first round of debate if we are
resuming debate for the first three speakers. We are in 20 minute
slots, not 40 minute slots.
The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has kindly offered
to share his time with the member for Kelowna. We have gone that
far, so we are in questions and comments now, unless of course,
he would like to ask for unanimous consent to revert to where we
were.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I could just wrap up
my 10 minutes and then my colleague would speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, you either get
in or you get out, one or the other. Your option is to take five
minutes in questions and comments right now, or ask for the
consent of the House to continue, use up your full 20 minute
allotment and then a 10 minute question and comment period. It
is one or the other.
1055
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Just a point of clarification, Mr.
Speaker. When will my colleague from the Okanagan be permitted
to speak?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are not going to
negotiate this. We are going into questions and comments.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am under the impression that we are still discussing my
options. I have my options figured out now and I would like to
make a decision to continue my speech, if I may.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have unanimous
consent for the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley to
split his time. Do we have unanimous consent to rescind the
previous decision?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleagues. I know they were enjoying my presentation so much
they shuddered to think that I was going to finish up quickly.
Since coming to Ottawa a little more than six years ago, the
experiences we have had in dealing with crown corporations have
not been exactly fruitful or satisfying. Whenever we try to get
information about how taxpayers' money is being spent, we get a
pretty big run around.
I learned very quickly after coming to Ottawa that crown
corporations simply do not have to tell us anything about how
they operate if they do not want to. We made a number of
requests through access to information to get some information
about certain crown corporations and we hit a brick wall, to put
it fairly specifically.
The minister will say that this new entity is at arm's length
and he is not responsible. The minister should be responsible to
the House for how taxpayers' money is spent. He should not be
permitted to duck this responsibility by turning the CTC into a
crown corporation.
I am sure you will understand this, Mr. Speaker, because you
have been a member of the House for some time.
The minute the crown corporation is formed it will immediately
begin to plead that the confidentiality of its private or
commercial stakeholders will be compromised if it starts talking
about how it spends its money or how it operates its little
business.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but it is time that we moved to the next item of business
which is called for at 11 o'clock. Accordingly the hon. member
will have eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for his
remarks following question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo is a leader in
crime prevention.
The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council was
established in the region in 1993. This community based
organization committed to preventing crime was so successful that
it was one of the models for the establishment of the federal
government's $32 million per year national strategy on community
safety and crime prevention of which the National Crime
Prevention Centre is a part.
The recently announced partnership between the centre and the
Insurance Council of Canada to reduce auto theft is welcome but
not surprising. The insurance industry in my community has
supported local crime prevention efforts for many years.
This joint initiative takes a particular interest in preventing
children from being drawn into automobile theft. Currently 43%
of convicted car thieves are between the ages of 12 and 17. With
the rate of auto theft rising and the resulting $48 a year
increase in insurance premiums for consumers, this initiative
between government and property and casualty insurers in
communities across the country is a logical and timely one. Well
done.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 599 people came from China by boat and landed on British
Columbia shores this summer. Of those 599, only one has been
determined to be a true refugee. Months later, 389 claims have
yet to be dealt with. The minister's response? Bill C-16, which
has said absolutely nothing about this issue.
It does nothing about streamlining our immigration process. It
gives a green light to the indentured slavery that this
immigration scam represents. It does nothing to help true
refugees. It does nothing to help our immigration process.
1100
Today, Central American refugees are selling drugs on Vancouver
streets and can still apply through our refugee process. Today,
true refugees are mixed with false refugees and we have an
immigration process that is in disarray.
Today, I am introducing a private member's bill, seconded by the
member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that would streamline this
process.
To the Minister of Immigration: Get with the program. Introduce
changes that are fair to everyone, fair to refugees—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
* * *
TOBACCO
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in Canada,
accounting for 45,000 deaths each year.
We know that 85% of all adults who smoke started the habit
before the age of 18. Smoking rates for Canadian youth are
increasing at an alarming rate. Twenty-nine per cent of 15 to 19
year olds now smoke, and in some groups, like the Inuit for
instance, around 71% of youth are smoking.
I would like to welcome to Ottawa 17 young people from across
Canada. They are all members of the newly established youth
advisory committee on tobacco issues which will be advising the
Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Children and
Youth on smoking and tobacco issues from a young person's
perspective.
These youths were selected on the basis of their work in their
own communities and their interest and experience in discouraging
tobacco use by their peers. We look forward to their input on
this life and death issue.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have observed the 10th anniversary of a unanimous House of
Commons resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
Regrettably and sadly, this goal is beyond our grasp. Our noble
expectations lie in failure.
Today, we observe poor families falling deeper into poverty and
the gap widening between their incomes and those of well off
families.
Children are our greatest assets, our greatest treasures. We
must reaffirm our desire, indeed our necessity, to work much
harder to include the unincluded in society.
The government has signalled its intention to act and the
foundation has been put in place for a national children's
agenda. Intentions must become reality and the reality must be
now. Children are a priority of this government.
* * *
[Translation]
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Canadian government announced a $1
million science and engineering research prize in honour of the
late Gerhard Herzberg, winner of Canada's first Nobel prize for
research in chemistry.
The annual award is a millennium project of NSERC, the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and is
intended to honour and support the best of Canada's researchers.
Such an initiative is particularly important as we rapidly
approach the new millennium, since it will enable Canada to
continue to play a lead role in the international scientific
world.
We wish all the young Canadians who will have an opportunity to
take advantage of this the best of luck.
* * *
[English]
RIGHTS OF YOUTH
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Liberal government fully endorsed an election for
the rights of youth. Only 3.8% of all Canadian students
participated in this exercise, yet access to information
documents obtained by the Reform Party revealed that the human
resources department intends to “after the election, publish and
present to the PMO the children's youth mandate”. What a
mandate, 3.8%.
This Liberal exercise cost taxpayers half a million dollars and
was done without the approval of parents, school boards or
provincial ministers of education.
Access documents revealed that the human resources department
asks “Where can HRDC get the most mileage?”
Is this the Liberal government's new strategy, to use children
for partisan purposes to support its own political agenda?
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so
much for the Mike Harris tax cuts and sound financial management
in the province of Ontario.
After the people of Ontario have finished shelling out thousands
of extra dollars in new user fees, drug co-payments, higher
municipal property taxes, paying for important services that used
to be covered by OHIP and whopping tuition fees, they will not be
any better off than they were five years ago.
The reform-a-tory government at Queen's Park will even charge a
$125 fee to single parents with children to collect child support
payments. Students now have to call a 1-900 number and pay if
they want information about their student loans.
While most jurisdictions are increasing support for
post-secondary education, Mike Harris, who already is the lowest
per capita funder of post-secondary education in North America,
will now cut an additional $800 million from our education
system.
The Tories are demanding that municipalities, on whom they have
already downloaded huge financial burdens, pay 30% of capital
projects for hospitals.
The people of Ontario do not even get a balanced budget in
return for the destruction of their social fabric.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
CHECHNYA
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the tragic
history of Chechnya, marked with 200 years of conflict with
powerful Russia, is not over yet.
More than 50 years out of the 19th century were taken up with
war between the two, and in the 20th century there were
uprisings in 1921, 1924, 1928 and 1936. Stalin saw no way of
putting an end to the conflict, so in 1944 he decided to empty
Chechnya of its people. Under the pretext that the Chechens were
German collaborators, he decided to deport them to Siberia.
Since then, they have come back.
Now they are being accused of terrorism rather than
collaboration, but their tragic history seems to be repeating
itself.
This people will never be conquered by armed strength. Only a
negotiated solution will be able to bring peace to a region that
has already suffered far too much from war.
* * *
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago,
the Government of Canada took part in the inauguration of La
Vérendrye boulevard west in the city of Gatineau.
This new section, between autoroute 50 and highway 307, was
funded by the Quebec department of transport and the Canadian
department of transport, which shared the total cost of $14
million jointly.
This achievement is tangible evidence of the possible, desirable
and vital co-operation between the two levels of government to
consolidate regional development here and in all regions of
Quebec.
That is an example of co-operation which will be of benefit to
everyone in our community.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Nepean—Carleton said in the House that
the hockey game last night would “establish the bragging rights
to parliamentary hockey supremacy in Canada once and for all”.
Well, it certainly did, but it is the United Opposition and not
the government that now reigns supreme.
In a hotly contested battle, the true united alternative to the
overconfident, boastful Liberals came out on top. With a team
consisting of six Reform MPs, a single MP from the Bloc, the NDP
and the Tories, a Reform staffer goalie and two opposition CTV
members of the media, Team Opposition coasted to a six-four
victory. What a treat for the sell-out crowd in the Corel Centre
to witness the humbled, downcast Team Liberal and the overjoyed
exuberance of the United Opposition.
Following the game, the opposition MPs enjoyed hot wings and
beer while the members for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and
Mississauga West ate crow. In hockey, unlike federal elections,
the Liberals cannot claim victory from tallying only 40% of the
points.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 3.00
p.m. today marks the start of the convention of the Quebec
section of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The members of our party will be looking at issues around four
major themes: first, the economy and taxation; second, social
development and social security; third, regional and rural
development and, fourth, cultural identity.
This convention was preceded by 14 public meetings. Over 1,600
people and 420 organizations came forward to say clearly and
openly what the Government of Canada could do to better meet
their needs.
This convention is for the members of the Liberal Party of
Canada.
They will give their opinions on measures needed to help Quebec
and Canada step resolutely into the next millennium.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE DOUG SAHM
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it has certainly been a very sad week for the people of Churchill
River who have lost a good friend.
We found a friend way down in Texas named Doug Sahm. It was a
tragedy to hear about the passing last week of such a young
artist at 58 years old. He made contributions to the music
industry and the sport industry and befriended Canadians,
including the people of northern Canada.
On behalf of the people of Churchill River, I send our
condolences to his compadres, Freddie Fender, Flaco Jimenez,
Augie Meyers and Louis Ortega. We also send our condolences to
Ernie Dawawa, Speedy Sparks, Rocky Morales, his two sons who have
taken up careers in the music industry, and to his dear friends
and family from Texas.
1110
As a person who came from down south, he admired Canada.
At this time of thanksgiving, we would like to give thanks to
Doug Sahm. We are truly proud of what he has done and we are
truly soulful for what his music will do for us in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
DEMOCRACY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party of Canada is holding its
twice-yearly meeting in Hull this weekend.
This will be an opportunity for the federal Liberals in Quebec
to reaffirm their belief in democracy. It will also be an
opportunity for them to remind certain of their elected
representatives in Ottawa that one of the inescapable principles
of democracy is one person, one vote.
To question the universally recognized 50% plus one rule is to
hand over decision-making to a minority.
In a country where the democratic quality of life should be an
example to the international community, creating two classes of
voters is to ignore what democracy is all about.
We remind the federal ministers from Quebec that they should
take this opportunity to clarify what they understand by
democracy. Democracy is the responsibility of all elected
representatives. It concerns all citizens.
* * *
[English]
FOOTBALL
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend we will be celebrating one of the great Canadian
traditions, a game invented in Canada. I speak of the game of
football.
The best in the east and the best in the west will come together
in Vancouver, British Columbia: the Hamilton Tiger Cats versus
the Calgary Stampeders. No doubt two political junkies will be
there. I speak of the premier of Alberta and the hon. Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member is out of
order.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is time we changed the title of the public works minister to
the patronage works minister. Recently he appointed four high
profile Liberals to senior positions at Canada Post and the Royal
Canadian Mint.
Gilles Champagne of Montreal, who is a member of the Liberal
Party of Canada and a regular donor, was just appointed to the
board at Canada Post. Also appointed was Terri Lemke who was a
tour director for the Saskatchewan Liberals before she got her
patronage post.
This week the minister appointed a 30-year veteran of the
Liberal trough, André Ouellet, as Canada Post's new president
where he will double his salary as Post Office chair.
Most offensive of all, the public works minister just appointed
his long time personal friend Emmanuel Triassi as chair of the
Royal Canadian Mint. Mr. Triassi got his job even though he
never sat on the Mint's board, does not have a degree in finance,
has never studied metals and does not have a coin collection.
Nice work, Mr. Speaker, if you can get it.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians and the government are determined to make Canada a
world leader in the field of electronic commerce by the year
2000.
Today the president of Canada Post and the Minister of Industry
are in Toronto taking part in an historic occasion, the launch of
the electronic post office. Epost will be the single place for
Canadians to receive all of their important mail electronically,
securely and privately from their home, office, school or
wherever there is a computer with access to the Internet.
In a global knowledge based economy, innovative countries that
can quickly adapt to the latest technology are the ones that are
most likely to succeed. Epost is a major leap in the right
direction for Canada Post.
I invite all Canadians to register for their free electronic
post office.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-2, the Canada Elections Act, is again weaving its way through
the House.
Under this act, an individual will never again have the right to
speak as loudly as a political party during an election. He or
she will no longer have the ability to spend all he or she wants
defending his or her view of what the country should become.
Twice before, these laws have been passed. Twice before, they
have been challenged. Twice before, our courts have found these
laws unconstitutional.
At great taxpayer expense, the solicitor general will again have
the unhappy task of defending this latest incarnation of the gag
law. A task that should rightly fail.
It is my sincere hope that I will one day see the end of our
government's efforts to muzzle Canadians.
* * *
1115
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
sometimes feels like there is a choice between having a job and
having a life. Overwork and long hours are epidemic in Canada.
In the first four months of 1997 almost two million workers put
in overtime, most of it unpaid, while one-third of working
Canadians say they are constantly under stress.
At the same time unemployment remains staggeringly high when
compared with other countries. There are serious social issues
and human costs associated in a society divided between the
chronically overworked and the chronically unemployed.
I believe that a reduction and redistribution of work time
deserves to be the new public policy priority. A substantial
reduction of work time, such as a standard 32 hour work week,
deserves to be the target early in the new millennium.
It is time for governments to take up this challenge. If we can
achieve a better distribution of work time and leisure, stories
about an improving economic situation might start to ring true
for the vast numbers of Canadians who are unemployed,
underemployed or overworked.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Last night in Ottawa, was a night to remember,
Our hockey team
beat, every Liberal member.
T'was a sign of the times to come
A government left, cold and
numb
The Corel Centre...was our rink,
Hec, the team yonder really
did stink.
Reform and the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc,
Sure gave the
Liberals quite a big shock.
We scored for the Sea Kings and for the GST...
Toward the
end, they just scored for me.
The Liberal backbenches were terribly shook,
Not so much
confusion, since the red book.
Perhaps they'd play better if not on the fence,
Out there,
like in here, they have no defence.
Although not a psychic, I will make these projections,
Liberal
defeats in the next three elections.
And for the little member who just wore his hat,
I've just got
to say...how about that!
When my Saint John Flames score,
We let out a big roar.
So Mr. Speaker let's hear that roar...
The opposition beat the
Liberals...6 to 4!
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister spent the past week pretending to be the federalist
strongman. Rather than working on ways to make the federation
stronger, he paraded around the country talking about tinkering
with the referendum rules. He says there has to be a clear
majority but he will not define what that means.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why will the
Prime Minister not define exactly what he means by a clear
majority?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the way the Reform approached this issue in the past
few days by personally attacking the Prime Minister does not show
that the leader of the Reform Party is the statesman he claims to
be and should be as Leader of the Opposition in Canada.
I hope the Reform Party will keep the debate at the level where
it should be because our country must be more important than our
parties.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
have certainly liked to have been included in the debate rather
than hearing about the debate from some caucus meeting.
The Prime Minister should be worried more about heading into the
next referendum without positive changes to our federation. He
should be more worried about not offering Quebecers an
alternative to either status quo federalism or separation.
If the Prime Minister really wants to set the rules straight,
why will he not tell us what he means by those rules? Why not?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will first explain why the Reform Party is nothing
in Quebec.
It has never shown any support for bilingualism in the country.
It is always attacking the Official Languages Act. It has no
sympathy for the national cultural institutions of the country.
It does not support the distinct society resolution, the regional
veto resolution, the Young Offenders Act, and the modality to
accommodate Quebec.
It has spoken against that. It has spoken against the
constitutional amendment to Quebec and Newfoundland. For all of
this, it must—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me make
real plain what the Reform Party supports. We support making the
federation work better so that there will be no appetite for
separation in the country.
The question that the intergovernmental affairs minister is
avoiding is a straightforward question.
1120
If clarity on the majority is so important, why will the Prime
Minister not tell us here and now what that clarity should be?
What is the majority?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question is legitimate. The issue is why the
Reform Party took three days before asking the question. Instead
it blamed the Prime Minister for raising the issue.
The Prime Minister raised the issue because the Quebec
government is threatening the country with the possibility of a
unilateral declaration of independence. This is what the Reform
Party should have attacked, and not the Prime Minister for two
days.
If the Reform Party is now willing to take the high road and to
look at the matter seriously, obviously the Reform Party is right
that we need clarity. We truly agree with that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at
the beginning of the week the brain trusts in the Prime
Minister's Office seemed to be perfectly clear. They were
adamant at the beginning of the week and now by Friday they say
that we will be perfectly clear on the required majority and will
do that by not telling anyone the actual number required. That
is not a brilliant strategy.
I do not know if they think that separatists will be shaking in
their boots over that. Imagine—brace yourself, Mr. Speaker—the
Prime Minister will be very clear that he will be very unclear in
the days to come.
Does the intergovernmental affairs minister not realize that the
Prime Minister is in danger of becoming one of Mr. Bouchard's
winning conditions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why do Reform Party members not recognize that what they
should be doing is standing up for Canada instead of reaching out
to the separatists?
They are asking the wrong questions and they are taking the
wrong attitude toward maintaining a strong, united Canada. Why
do they not get on board in the fight for Canada?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are asking questions. Certainly we have not had a single answer
yet this morning.
It reads like the stuff of a cheap teenage novel, the Shawinigan
strongman and the mystery majority. You have to picture it, Mr.
Speaker. Imagine this week the advisers saying “We'll put the
Prime Minister out there. We'll get him to be very blustery.
We'll get him to bang on the table a few times and then we'll
have him declare: let me be perfectly clear. I have known since
a long time that I don't know where to go from here and I have
nothing to be more clearer than that”.
That is what has happened this week. More could have been done
than reigniting the separatist flame. Why do they not tell
Canadians what they mean by a clear majority?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mystery here is why the Reform Party is making
personal attacks on the Prime Minister instead of joining him in
his fight for a united Canada and against separatism.
They are reaching out to the separatists. We are reaching out
to all Canadians to maintain a united Canada. Why do they not
join with us?
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday evening, in Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister said he
would introduce a measure in parliament to set the rules
governing the decision Quebecers will make about their future.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us when this
measure will be introduced in the House?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two things here.
First, the idea is not to set the rules for a provincial
referendum. The Government of Quebec is absolutely free to ask
any question it wants to Quebecers. Rather, the idea is to
identify the degree of clarity required for the Government of
Canada to have an obligation to negotiate the serious issue of
Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada. This is what we are
talking about.
It may be that we will never have to do this, if the Quebec
government were to say immediately that it will not hold a
referendum, because, with a clear question and a clear majority,
it will not of course get the necessary support for its
separation project.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, this great expert on
clarity, tell us clearly what meaning his government is giving
to the term measure? Just what does the Prime Minister mean by
measure?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone knows that something can be done officially,
in various ways, to set out for all Canadians, in a more precise
manner, under which circumstances the Government of Canada would
negotiate or refuse to negotiate the end of its constitutional
responsibilities toward one quarter of the Canadian population,
and the break-up of the country.
We are fully confident that, if there are no tricks or
confusion, Quebecers will always choose to remain in Canada and
improve our country, along with other Canadians.
* * *
1125
SUDAN
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 26, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that he
would sever all economic ties with Sudan if an investigation
proved that oil operations by the Canadian company Talisman was
exacerbating the conflict that is tearing that country apart.
On November 17, the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights released a study that in fact
confirmed the minister's fears.
How then can the minister explain his inaction?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very
concerned about the events in Sudan.
We have done two things. The government has appointed Senator
Lois Wilson to head the peace mission as Canada's special envoy.
As well, it has appointed John Harker, a well-known figure in
labour circles in Canada in the past, to head a fact-finding
commission to Sudan. He is on his way to Sudan as we speak and
will be making a report to us shortly.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see the
minister does not have confidence in the UN's report.
This morning's National Post reports that the Desmarais family
has major interests in Sudan.
Do the close ties between that family and the government, the
Liberal Party, and the Prime Minister in particular, not explain
Canada's complacency with respect to the brutal regime in place
in Sudan?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, what the National Post
report this morning indicated was that a French company held
interests in the oil extraction activities in Sudan.
To repeat what I have already said to the hon. member, Mr.
Harker is heading a fact-finding commission on what is happening
in Sudan. If his report should indicate that there is a
connection between the profits generated by oil extraction
activities in Sudan and human rights abuses, then Canada would
consider the appropriateness of sanctions.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last year
about this time the big banks were saying that the sky would fall
if they were not allowed to merge. The sky did not fall. Instead
we have had the raining of pennies from heaven, loonies, toonies
and gold, and a record of $9 billion in profit in the last year.
Now those CEOs want to lay off some 15,000 people in the next
three years.
Will the minister refer the issues of job losses and branch
closures to the appropriate parliamentary committee for review
and action?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that committees are indeed masters
in their own house. Committees do not need references from me or
from anyone else. If a finance committee or any other committee
wants to look into this or any other matter, it can certainly do
so.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, talk about evading a question. The compensation package
for the top 24 executives of the five big banks is over a quarter
of a billion dollars this year. That is equivalent to the annual
pay of some 12,000 bank tellers, mostly women.
In light of that, could the minister assure us that the upcoming
legislation on financial services will contain provisions for
protecting jobs and allowing communities to veto a bank closure
where the closure is not in the interest of the community?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, because he has followed this
issue closely, in the government statement on the whole question
of financial services reform we set out very progressive
legislation on the way in which bank closures would be handled
and on the way in which the entire system, consumers and all
stakeholders, should be protected.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are
seeing the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs start to
backpedal in the debate launched this week by the Prime
Minister.
It is now apparent that he does indeed admit that the question
is a matter for the National Assembly and that any decision as
to whether it is clear and whether or not there is a large
enough majority after a vote to force Canada to negotiate will
be based on this question.
That having been said, while the minister is beginning to
backpedal, will he tell us what is left for his government to
do, with statements such as the one he has made? Would it not
be better for him to state—
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
1130
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit embarrassing for me to have to quote
myself but, since I first began writing to Mr. Bouchard, that is
what I have been saying.
I urge the member to reread what I wrote because it has always
been the position of the Government of Canada that a provincial
government could ask whatever question it wanted, but that the
question and the response would have to be evaluated in terms of
clarity by the Government of Canada and that it would be useful
for us to know in advance what we are dealing with.
I will close with something the Progressive Conservative Premier
of Prince Edward Island said. “The rules must be defined fairly
clearly with respect to the clarity of the question”.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
fact, Mr. Binns, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, cited the
supreme court. But the minister should ask Mr. Binns what he
thinks of the government's strategy this week.
I come back to my question, because I was a bit short of time
earlier. The minister is downplaying the urgency of the
situation. Can the minister tell us whether, at the meeting in
Hull this weekend, he will suggest that there is time to take
stock of what exactly will happen in Quebec? Is it not time to
wrap up the debate?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote what Progressive Conservative
premier Pat Binns said anyway. “The rules must be defined fairly
clearly with respect to the clarity of the question. I do not
think that a simple majority is enough for Quebec to leave the
country”.
It would be a good thing for the federal Progressive
Conservative leader to make the same statement and denounce the
completely irresponsible statement made by the Premier of Quebec
to the effect that he could force Quebec and all of Canada into
a unilateral secession. That is what we would expect of a
leader who has his eye on governing this country.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is so far removed
from the tax burden he has caused Canadians that he just cannot
relate to the financial harm he is causing them.
Brian from Winnipeg has barely $2,000 left from a $4,100
paycheque when the finance minister takes his 50% tax share of
Brian's work.
Why does the finance minister not just come home to Canada,
where there are hard working, taxpaying Canadians, recognize the
harm he is causing with his tax policies and give Canadians like
Brian a tax break? Why does he not just do that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when one talks to Canadians and they look at their
paycheques, one of the things they see on there is the Canada
pension plan premium.
I have talked to Canadians on all three coasts who have said
that the Canada pension plan is an essential part of their
retirement. They want to keep it. It is universal. It provides
massive risk taking on behalf of all Canadians. It protects
them.
Most Canadians want to know, and I am sure that Brian wants to
know, why the Reform Party wants to destroy the Canada pension
plan.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is the furthest thing from the truth.
“So much for hard work” says Jerry, a power line worker from
Manitoba. His pay stub shows 64 hours of overtime. He should be
rolling in dough. Let me quote Jerry: “Any extra money I earn
would be taxed at exorbitant rates. Why bother to work hard when
I am working for nothing? It is a pretty sad commentary on a
country when I cannot afford to work because of taxes”.
What does the minister have to say to Jerry and the millions of
Canadians like him who just want to keep a little of their hard
earned money in their own pockets, not the government's?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would say to Jerry the same thing that I have said to
Brian and Doreen.
One of the reasons the Reform Party finds itself forced to
change speakers every time it wants to ask a question is so that
it does not have to defend its policies of no unemployment
insurance cuts for employees, increased taxes until the year 2000
and the destruction of the Canada pension plan.
Doreen, Brian and Jerry all want to know why it is that the
Reform Party has a high tax policy.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, General
Baril said that the effects of repeated budget cuts and the high
operational level to which its forces have been subjected in
recent years are being felt.
1135
How does the minister intend to provide financial support to the
army's operational level while also supporting Canada's foreign
policy on human security?
[English]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister has
said many times, the Canadian military is facing major funding
challenges.
The Speech from the Throne stated that the government will
continue to ensure that the Canadian forces have the capacity to
support Canada's role in building a more secure world and will
further develop the capacity of Canadians to help ensure peace
and security in foreign lands.
We are looking at creative and innovative ways to ensure the way
ahead. Hard decisions and choices are being made to ensure that
we can reinvest in the future in key areas, in our people and in
the equipment they need to do their jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before pumping more
money into improving the quality of life of Canadian troops,
should the minister not clearly redefine the role and priorities
of his department?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, we must emphasize the support of the Bloc Quebecois to a
united Canada with well provided for armed forces. It is
interesting to see this change of policy. The Bloc is giving up
its separatist policy to support Canadian federalism and Canada.
My thanks to the Bloc Quebecois for this new and improved
position.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
many people do not realize that over half of the price of
gasoline is taxes. For example, Calgarians send $300 million to
Ottawa every year in gasoline taxes, but none of it comes back to
pay for roads. The Liberal government simply takes the money and
offloads the costs for transportation to others.
Why is the government across the way so willing to scoop the tax
at the gasoline pumps but give nothing back in return?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand how members of the Reform Party believe
that those matters on which the Government of Canada spends money
is nothing because that is their perspective on the social fabric
of the country. But Canadians do not think that health care is
nothing. Canadians do not think that education is nothing.
Canadians do not think that protecting the environment is
nothing. They do not think that protecting our coastline is
nothing.
Canadians understand what the Reform Party does not, that tax
dollars go to provide services for Canadians. That is what
government is all about.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): You are off the
hook, Paul—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member meant to
say Mr. Speaker instead of Paul, and I know he would want to do
that in future.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, in the 1993 version of
the red book the Liberal government promised to renegotiate the
NAFTA agreement to specifically exempt bulk water exports.
Unfortunately, this is one of the promises the government has
failed to keep. Exempting water from our international trade
agreement is the best way for Canada to protect its waters.
Why has the government abandoned seeking exemptions for our
water in international agreements?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am interested to see that the Reform Party has
adopted the position of the NDP Government of British Columbia
and Glen Clark's policies.
The way to protect water exports is to make sure that there are
not inter-water basin transfers of water. If we try simply to
protect water exports at the border, we wind up with the problem
of this becoming an item of trade and, therefore, the decision on
it will be made by an international panel of trade experts, not
by Canadians.
I believe, and the government believes, that decisions on
Canadian water should be made by Canadians and not by foreigners.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister recently said, at the time the government's expected
surpluses were announced, and I quote “Give me time to enjoy
them”.
If you are one of 1.4 million poor children in this country, or
you are unemployed and are no longer entitled to poverty
insurance, this sort of statement hurts.
1140
When will this government act to free these children from misery
for good?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, may I point out to the hon. member and to
all members of the House that the fundamental way to get children
out of poverty is, of course, to get families out of poverty.
The way to do that is to make sure this economy works
effectively, which this government year after year has been doing
under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance.
It is by correcting the economy's fundamentals so that they work
that we reduce poverty and, therefore, do not have to adopt
band-aid solutions to the problem, which has been recommended so
often by New Democrats and the Bloc.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a
budget to be balanced, spending must be lower than income.
An individual should not spend more than 30% of his income on
housing. In my riding, in Minganie, 90 households are having to
spend half of their income on rent.
My question is for the minister responsible for social housing.
Can he tell us whether, after ten years in which no money has
been invested in social housing in Minganie, he will finally act
to help families who are having a very had time making ends
meet? When will he invest?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say, as I
have said on many occasions, that the Government of Canada
invests nearly $2 billion annually in social housing.
We invested an additional $300 million under the RRAP program.
Also, since forming the government, we have created 13,000
affordable new housing units.
I am pleased, however, because this is the second time that the
Bloc member has asked me the same question. Does that mean that
they have changed their policy? I thought they wanted social
housing to be transferred to the provinces, including Quebec.
I am currently negotiating. Do they not agree—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister has promised on behalf of the
government that farmers will receive all the AIDA money owed to
them before Christmas this year. Talk about dejà vu.
Similar promises made last December had farmers believing that
they would receive their money by the spring of 1999. Many
farmers are still waiting. Farmers will not be so forgiving this
year.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm today the promise that
all outstanding AIDA money will be in the hands of farmers by
Christmas this year?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food travelled to Saskatchewan last week. He had an
opportunity to meet with farmers, to talk with them, to deal with
them, and to understand the conditions of what they are going
through.
He made it very clear that he made a commitment that the 1998
AIDA payments would be in the hands of farmers before Christmas.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
being vindicated by the U.S. International Trade Commission
several weeks ago, Canadian farmers are facing further trade
challenges from the United States.
North Dakota is looking to enforce country of origin labelling
and is preparing to challenge Canadian durum exports. Our
farmers have suffered enough under the government's weak trade
position. It is past time to get tough at the trade table.
Will the trade minister guarantee our beleaguered producers that
there will be no further border closures? We need positive
action and we need it now.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International
Trade will be in Seattle.
This morning, in fact, the minister announced that Canada and
China have reached agreement on a wide range of market access
issues relating to China's entry into the World Trade
Organization. This means that Canadian products will have better
access to markets in China.
That is good news for Canadians, it is good news for farmers and
it is good news for our export business. I think we should
celebrate this good news.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, faced with the major problem caused by the
closure of Gaspésia, with its subsequent effects on the entire
economy of the Gaspé, Quebec has freed up a supplementary budget
of $20 million to revitalize the company and the area. As well,
it has recently written to its federal counterparts with an
invitation to join in this effort.
1145
While respecting the region's priorities, is the federal
government prepared to advance the same additional funding as
Quebec has to help the workers of Gaspésia, who are
demonstrating this morning in Montreal?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member neglected to point
out that the demonstration in Montreal is against the Government
of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Both my colleague, the Minister
responsible for Economic Development, and I are very much aware
of the difficulties of the people of the Gaspé. It is a known
fact that the economy in that region has been in trouble for
some years.
That is why, in the past year, my colleague has already invested
$28 million in new funding for special economic recovery
programs for the region.
Finally, I ought to mention as well that other departments have
made investments and we will continue to work—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In its throne speech, the government said “To seize the
opportunities and meet the challenges of a new global economy,
we must work together in the Canadian way and concentrate on
what matters most to Canadians. To that end, we must achieve
technological progress that will increase productivity. We know
that the natural resources sector is a pillar of the Canadian
economy”.
Can the minister tell us what is currently being done to promote
state of the art technologies in the mining industry?
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mining
industry is a leader in using high technology products and
services. This government will continue to work with industry to
harness technology in order to maintain our pace-setting
achievements in productivity.
An excellent example is a new project currently under way which
will explore the replacement of diesel fuel by hydrogen fuel
technology in underground mining operations. This would
eliminate underground diesel emissions, improve the underground
environment for workers, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and
decrease mine ventilation costs. If successful, we stand poised
to capture world markets in this technology.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mayor
Doug McCallum of Surrey wrote to me concerning the chronic
understaffing of our RCMP detachment. Surrey has approved a
complement of 378 members at regular pay rates. However, up to
40 vacant positions have resulted in excessive overtime payouts
to make up for the staffing shortfall, a direct result of the
RCMP budget slashing by this government.
Surrey city council has passed a resolution requesting the
government to refund to the city of Surrey payment for overtime
in 1999. Will the solicitor general take some responsibility at
last and honour this request?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that, after the
same question has already been answered ten times, it is still
being asked.
The government is committed to fulfilling its mandate regarding
public security and the RCMP. It allocated money to improve the
CPIC. Last year and early this year, the government also
allocated additional money to help the British Columbia
division.
All this is still not enough. That question is more for show
than for information purposes.
* * *
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the November break I met with a dozen municipalities and
the RCMP to discuss community policing problems. These problems
were created by the government's cutbacks to the RCMP budget.
Today there are 39 unfilled RCMP positions in Manitoba paid for
by the taxpayers of Manitoba. The government's new estimates
show $35 million for gun control and only $13.8 million for the
RCMP.
Why does the government put gun registration ahead of putting
more police on the streets?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member asked about the benefits of our gun control
registration. Let me give the House a few statistics.
Some 3,128 potentially dangerous gun sales have been blocked and
sent for further investigation. Some 548 applicants have been
refused for public safety reasons. Some 451 licences have been
revoked for reasons of public safety.
This is good legislation. It is working and it is promoting a
culture of safety. Why will the Reform Party not accept that?
* * *
1150
HOUSING
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many
cities across Canada are facing a critical shortage of clean
affordable housing. Vacancy rates are 1% or lower and the
private sector is not coming forward to meet those needs. Too
many Canadian families have to choose between paying their rent
and feeding their children.
Tomorrow people who desperately need affordable housing will be
demonstrating at the Liberal Party convention in Hull. They will
be calling for federal action on housing. Will the government be
listening? Will the government admit that its withdrawal from
social housing has pushed far too many families into poverty,
into debt and into substandard housing?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
repeatedly many times in the House, the Government of Canada is
contributing $2 billion a year on the social housing front. In
the last year we invested $300 million in RRAP to
make houses accessible to low income people. I remind the hon.
member to talk to provincial governments of his political
affiliation that are not participating in the RRAP program. If
they would participate, we would have more money and more units.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that Canada continues to be the only developed
nation in the world that does not have a national housing policy
or a national housing strategy. Here is what the current
Minister of Finance said when he was the chair of the Liberal
task force on housing: “This government just sits there and does
nothing. The lack of affordable housing contributes to and
accelerates the cycle of poverty which is reprehensible in a
society as rich as ours”.
The minister is now in a position to do something about this
reprehensible situation. In fact he has had six years to fix
this reprehensible situation. Will he or will he not answer the
call from around the country and announce that he will reinvest
in social housing in this coming budget?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me also say that
the Government of Canada through CMHC and the mortgage insurance
program, create and build about 475 units a year. Under the
program of private and public partnership, we created 13,000
units. This year alone it is more than 3,000 units. We want to
do more and we are going to do more. I remind the member that we
do have a national housing policy.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has again shown blatant
disregard for South Shore lobster fishers. In 1998 the industry
started a voluntary V-notch program with a 1/32 carapace increase
to follow in 1999. Weeks before the season opens, the carapace
size has been increased from 3 1/4 to 3 5/16, or a 1/16 increase
instead of a 1/32 increase. Why has the government changed
regulations that were agreed to in 1998?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon.
member. This was the policy on conservation put forward by the
previous minister and it is something we are going to follow
through on.
I would like to ask the hon. member something because his party
and the member have talked about conservation repeatedly in the
House. Carapace size is a tool for conservation to protect the
resource. Are the Conservatives now abandoning their position on
conservation and saying that we should not protect the resource?
The hon. member should stand in the House and say whether or not
they are still for conservation. They should make it pretty
clear.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is well aware that carapace size was supposed to
increase by 1/32 in 1999 and by 1/32 in 2000. That is a 1/16
increase over two years. He has increased it by jumping it in
one year because of mismanagement by his department.
How are fishers that were issued a variance order for carapace
size to begin on November 28 to understand that order when DFO
officials are saying that they have until December 15 to bring in
the carapace size increase? So why—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, increasing the carapace size is
consistent with our policy throughout that region. This policy
was introduced a number of years ago by my predecessor.
Conservation is going to be a priority for the government. That
is why we are increasing the carapace size by 1/16. We will
continue to ensure that conservation and protection of our
resource to make sure we have a sustainable lobster fishery will
be our priority.
* * *
1155
HEALTH
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health.
Eighty five per cent of Internet users are looking for health
information. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House and
all Canadians how the public is to sift through the thousands of
health related websites to get credible, trusted and relevant
information?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Wellington—Waterloo. His question gives me the
opportunity to inform the House that yesterday the Minister of
Health launched the Canadian health network, which is a national,
bilingual Internet based health organization service for
Canadians developed by Health Canada in co-operation with 400
very reliable health organizations.
[Translation]
Canada's health system provides a unique access to information,
and I invite the public—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Health hired a real
insider to try to convince the Canadian public that he was
committed to decreasing smoking among kids. But it was his
government that instituted laws in 1994 that have committed
hundreds of thousands of children to take up cigarette smoking.
Will the Minister of Health do the right thing and institute
laws to bring the tobacco prices back to what they would be in
the U.S. so that our kids will not smoke and smuggling will be
stopped?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about the
commitment made by our government and our Minister of Health to
fight smoking, particularly among young people.
We have already taken important measures, and the minister has
not ruled out any options for the future, whether they relate to
taxes or prohibition. He will establish enhanced awareness
programs in the future.
* * *
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
lead of Japan and Europe, last week 19 representatives in the
U.S. congress tabled a bill to make it mandatory in the United
States to label genetically modified foods or foods containing
genetically modified organisms.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does he realize
that Canada may soon be one of the few countries where it is not
mandatory to label genetically modified food and that our farm
products may well be rejected just about everywhere, including
in the United States?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue.
It is one that both the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food have been spending a great deal of time
working on. It is important that we consult with Canadians. The
ministers are undertaking consultations with Canadians and they
will deal with this issue in due course.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard promise after promise from the government
about what it will do to help Canadian children, but no action.
Ninety per cent of single mothers and their children live in
poverty. One in four children in Nova Scotia experience poverty.
Cape Breton children are worse off than their neighbours in the
rest of the province. These statistics do not need reviewing.
They are cold hard facts, especially cold and hard for the
children they represent.
What specific targets is the Minister of Finance willing to set
to eliminate child poverty, given that the efforts of the
government to date have failed Canadian children?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to point out that the
unemployment rate for adult women is at its lowest rate in 25
years. It is now at 5.8%. Since we were elected in 1993 there
have been more than 800,000 jobs created for women.
Women's employment has grown faster than men's in each of the
last four decades. In fact, we have had the highest growth of
any of the G-7 nations in the last 20 years.
I point out to the hon. member that we are trying to deal with
the causes of child poverty, the causes of women in disadvantaged
conditions by making—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on January
18 the former minister of fisheries wrote to one of our fishery
representatives telling him that there would be no increase in
lobster size until the industry's self-imposed V-notching program
could be analysed.
Why did the minister not give V-notching a chance?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded to a question
earlier, carapace size is about conservation. By increasing the
carapace size by 1/16 of an inch, we will protect the resource
and make sure we have a sustainable lobster fishery.
We will ensure that we protect the resource, unlike the member
and his party. At one time they speak about conservation and the
next time they are not interested in speaking about conservation.
They are speaking from both sides of their mouth. Why do they
not become consistent?
* * *
1200
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
with a rural question, although the closest thing to a farm in my
riding is the vegetable garden in my backyard. I had a good crop
this year. No need for assistance.
My people in Oshawa make the best cars and trucks in North
America and their best customers are rural customers. What is
the Secretary of State for Rural Development doing to ensure that
rural Canadians are playing an active role in charting their own
social and economic course?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that
government undertake policies and measures in a way that makes
sense for rural Canadians.
We believe it is important to give rural Canadians themselves
the tools they need to make the decisions that work best for
their particular communities. That is why we undertook a very
extensive rural dialogue with rural Canadians, speaking to over
7,000 of them, ending with a conference in Belleville earlier
this year.
I am pleased to advise the House today that we will have a
follow-up to that conference in Magog, Quebec on April 28, 29 and
30.
* * *
AIRPORT SAFETY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the government was transferring
ownership of regional airports to the local municipalities, it
relaxed the emergency response time so as not to impose excessive
burdens on these local communities.
Now that the government has divested these airports, it is
tightening up the rules again, requiring local communities to
provide a three minute response time. This is a move that will
cost dozens of communities millions of dollars each.
Why did the government entice the municipalities with relaxed
requirements only to tighten up the requirements after the local
governments acquired the airports?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, safety is the
top priority of the government, especially in the area of
transportation. We are quite aware of the situation that is
taking place. We will monitor and review every move that is made
by all the agencies and the authorities regarding this question
of safety.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1991 AND 1992
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in
both official languages, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), 27
treaties that came into effect in 1992 and 58 treaties that came
into effect in 1991. We are also tabling the list of these
treaties.
[English]
As was done previously, I am also providing CD-ROMs to the
Library of Parliament, which contain electronic versions of these
treaties, in order to provide wide accessibility to those texts.
* * *
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the Technology Partnerships Canada annual report for
the years 1998 and 1999.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
1205
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
Pursuant to order of reference of Monday, November 1, 1999, your
committee has studied Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the
Nisga'a final agreement, and has agreed to report it without
amendment.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 11th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 11th report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag).
He said: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, on
occasion we have witnessed, through the media, people in the
country who have thought so little of the symbol of our Canadian
flag that they have taken actions to deface it, burn it and
trample it.
I want to reintroduce this private member's bill to amend the
Criminal Code concerning desecration of the flag to state that
everyone who, without lawful excuse, burns, tramples, defaces or
otherwise desecrates the national flag of Canada, is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to fines not
exceeding $5,000, six months in jail or a combination of both.
I think every Canadian recognizes and is proud of what our
national flag symbolizes. Certainly the people who have fought
in two world wars recognize this. There should be no less
punishment than a fine and/or imprisonment for someone who finds
it fruitful for whatever reason to deface or desecrate our
national flag.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-348, an act to amend the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Carriage by Air Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of
Quebec) Act, the Criminal Code, the Pension Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend all of the acts that
have been indicated in order to bring them into line with the
spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in these
statutes, believe it or not, we still refer to our children as
illegitimate. In many cases, some of our federal legislation
still has not really brought the dignity to Canadian children as
they deserve and need to be recognized and supported.
This particular bill will amend these statutes and make it a lot
friendlier to our children and also bring the statutes into
harmony with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Competition Act
(vertically integrated gasoline suppliers).
1210
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved with this issue now
for over 12 years. I have been responsible, along with the
community, for at least three different national as well as
regional inquiries. Every single time the report came back it
indicated that there was no price fixing.
Quite simply, when we look at the Competition Act as it is, we
can drive a camel through it. We are not going to be able to
find out whether a company is responsible for price fixing or
not. The oil companies are in a conflict of interest on a
regular basis because they control the sales at the retail outlet
and supplies the oil as well.
My bill would forbid Canadian oil companies from selling while
at the same time retailing gasoline at the pumps. As a result of
that, no oil company can be a retailer and a supplier at the same
time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MAXIMUM SPEED CONTROL DEVICE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-350, an act to provide for the use of a maximum
speed control device for use on motor vehicles and to prohibit
the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles that are not equipped
with a maximum speed control device.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on an annual basis, we have hundreds of
kids and youths who are killed or severely injured as a result of
joyriding or driving over the speed limit.
I do not understand this. We have set the speed limit in Canada
and in most provinces at 100 kilometres per hour. I do not see
why people have to drive 170 kilometres when it is illegal under
the law.
My bill will make sure that no car will be able to go over 115
kilometres per hour. Cars will have a device within the engine
that will either shut the engine off or make sure the car cannot
accelerate over 115 kilometres an hour.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WAGES LIABILITY ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-351, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act
(definition of adult).
He said: Mr. Speaker, rather than taking the time of the House,
I will, with your permission, ask the House for unanimous consent
to introduce a series of approximately 35 private members' bills.
The vast majority of those bills were introduced in the last
parliament. I ask that all of those bills be deemed as have being
introduced in the House of Commons today and be printed as set
out in the order paper, Nos. 41 to 75.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I assume the hon. member for Ottawa
Centre has given his explanation in respect of this bill.
Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRIVACY ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Privacy Act (definition
of minor).
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to give an
explanation on each of these bills.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would love to, but it is my
intention to reintroduce it as it was set out in the previous
parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
LAND TITLES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-353, an act to amend the Land Titles Act (age of
majority and definition of “infant”).
1215
He said: All of these bills deal with one subject, which is to
bring our legislation into conformity with the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, so that when we say “child” we mean
anyone who is under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Pension Fund Societies
Act (definition of “minor child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask once more if my
colleagues would like to put all of these bills together so that
you and I do not have to stand every time. Would members give
unanimous consent that all of the bills dealing with these issues
be considered as having been read the first time and printed?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Insurance Companies Act
(definition of “infant”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act (definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INDIAN ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-357, an act to amend the Indian Act (definition
of “infant child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-358, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-359, an act to amend the Government Employees
Compensation Act (definition of “infant”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
EXTRADITION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-360, an act to amend the Extradition Act (definition of
“child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
INTERPRETATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Interpretation Act
(definition of child).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-362, Canadian Child Rights Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-363, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act (definition
of “adult”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-364, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-365, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-366, an act to amend the Canada Transportation
Act (definition of “adult”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
1220
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. At the rate at which you are going it is hard for me to
understand, but my concern is for the translators who seem to be
melting into the earpiece. I wonder if you would take them into
consideration please.
The Deputy Speaker: The translators have the advantage of
having an order paper with the list on it, and so does the hon.
member. Perhaps if he stuck with the order paper he would be
able to follow rather easily.
I am reluctant to take up a great deal of the time of the House
going through the same form because these bills are all in
exactly the same form.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, given the repetitiveness of
the proceeding, as is required by the rules, I wonder if there
would be consent in the House to allow the request of the member
for Ottawa Centre so that we might dispense with the repetitive
introduction of each bill on the same subject. Perhaps the
Speaker could request if there is now a disposition for unanimous
consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to treat these bills
as having been read the first time and ordered to be printed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-367, an act to amend the Divorce Act (right of
spouses' parents to access to or custody of child).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time
following what the interpreter is saying. I have no idea what
you are talking about. You are going much too fast.
The Deputy Speaker: I would encourage the hon. member to refer
to his copy of today's Order Paper. All the bills, and their
titles, are listed, which makes it very easy to follow.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
respect the fact that all members have the advantage of having
the order paper to look at to see what it is you are referring
to, but we have an enormous following that watches the
proceedings through the television camera. They do not have the
advantage of that and they are trying to follow, with I am sure
rapt attention, what you are doing and saying. I think they
would be having the same difficulty.
* * *
EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXCISE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Excise Act (definition
of “adult”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-370, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL JUDGMENTS
CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-371, an act to amend the Canada-United Kingdom
Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act (definition of
“infant” in matters originating in Canada).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Canada Co-operative
Associations Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-373, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans
Act (definition of full age).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-374, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act
(definitions of child and infant).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1225
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-375, an act to amend the Canada Health Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEPARTMENTAL INTERNAL AUDIT ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-376, an act to require crown corporations and
departments of government to have annual internal audits the
reports of which are to be submitted to the Auditor General of
Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-377, an act to amend the Canada pension plan
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-378, an act to amend the Divorce Act (definition
of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-379, an act to amend the Canada Business
Corporations Act (definitions of “infant” and “minor”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-380, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act
(definitions of “infant” and “minor”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-381, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to housing).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-382, an act to establish national standards
across Canada for education provided by the provinces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-383, an act to establish national literacy
standards across Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-384, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to literacy).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to education).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Immigration Act
(requirement to show evidence of identity).
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our immigration
system. It is simply not working. The bill I am introducing
today is an attempt to fix it.
In British Columbia we have had hundreds of false refugees
come to our shores.
This represents only 5% of the people who are coming to our
shores illegally. Ninety-five per cent come by plane. This
situation is not fair to true refugees. It is not fair to
immigrants. It is not fair to people trying to get into the
country. It is not fair to the taxpayer. It is not fair to the
hardworking people in our immigration system. The current system
supports the government which is actually trying to support human
trafficking which is taking place.
1230
This bill will enable the government to differentiate between
true and false refugees. It puts the onus and responsibility of
identification upon the person claiming refugee status as opposed
to the Canadian authority.
I hope this bill passes as soon as possible so that the minister
can have a stronger immigration policy for immigrants and
Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 11th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition with thousands of
signatures on the issue of child pornography.
The petitioners are calling on the House to ensure that every
law is upheld that would continue to make child pornography a
serious offence in this country. Literally hundreds of thousands
of signatures have come to my office on this. I am glad to
present the petition to the House today.
I encourage all members to take note that this is clearly the
single largest petition. I think it is four times larger than
any other petition the House has received this session. I will
leave it with the House officers.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a
petition containing the names of 25 members of my constituency.
They call on parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act with
respect to, among other things, lowering the age of application
and the publishing of names of violent offenders.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two separate
petitions today from the riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
The first petition requests that parliament enact legislation
such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
ABORTION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains several
hundred signatures, I believe.
The petitioners are concerned about the proliferation of
abortion and the low value that society seems to be giving to
prenatal life. The petition calls upon parliament to enact
legislation against causing the death of an unborn human by
abortion at any stage along the continuum of prenatal life.
I am pleased to present the petition on behalf of the people of
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present some petitions. The first
two petitions are from citizens of Williams Lake and Quesnel,
British Columbia. They call upon parliament to enact immediate
changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to allow
for the deportation of obvious and blatant abusers of the system.
TAXATION
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have petitions from citizens of
Cariboo—Chilcotin, namely from 70 Mile House and Williams Lake.
They are calling upon the government to give Canadian taxpayers a
break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes
over the next three years starting with the next federal budget.
1235
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to present petitions from the citizens
of Williams Lake who call upon parliament to refrain from
enacting legislation to remove references to the name of God or
to the supremacy of God from the Canadian constitution or the
charter of rights.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have one more petition from the citizens of the
Williams Lake area. They call upon parliament at the earliest
possible opportunity to invoke section 33 of the charter of
rights and freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the
B.C. court of appeal decision and to reinstate subsection 4 of
section 163.1 of the criminal code making possession of child
pornography in B.C. illegal and by so doing reinforce and
reaffirm our objection to the B.C. court of appeal decision.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 8 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 8—Mr. Peter MacKay:
With respect to the United Nations 1994 recommendation that
Canada appoint a monitor to ensure that all provinces folowed the
terms of the UN Rights of the Child, what actions has the
federal government taken to proceed with this recommendation?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): The UN Committee
on the Rights of the Child, in its 1995 concluding observations
to Canada's first report under the Convention on the Rights of
the Child expressed its concern that sufficient attention had
not been paid to the establishment of a permanent monitoring
mechanism that would enable an effective system of implementation
of the convention in all parts of the country. Since that time
the Government of Canada has funded the development of a
monitoring mechanism by the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of
Children. Since the monitoring project began in February 1996 a
growing number of organizations and individuals have contributed
their knowledge and ideas. As a result the monitoring framework
continues to evolve.
The mandate of the coalition is to ensure a collective voice for
Canadian organizations and youth concerned with the rights of
children as described in the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the World Summit for Children
Declaration. Information on this project can be found at the
following website: http://www.cfc-efc.ca/ccrc/monitor.htm
The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children may also be
reached at Suite 339, 180 Argyle Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1B7,
or at telephone number (613) 788-5085.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an
act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before question period the hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley had the floor. He has
eight minutes remaining in his time.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on the
bill.
Before question period I was talking about the problem members
of parliament such as my colleagues and I have of getting
information through the Access to Information Act regarding crown
corporations. It is virtually impossible. It ends up certainly
being an exercise in futility. That is why we are concerned
about the tourist commission being taken out of the office of the
Minister of Industry. That is exactly what will happen.
At the present time we at least have some access and some
accountability through the minister who is obliged to answer
questions, at least if he feels like it. The CTC is accountable
directly to the minister and the minister is accountable to
parliament, including those of us in the Reform Party when we are
asking questions to pursue accountability in terms of the
spending of taxpayers' dollars. That is the way it should be.
I suspect that the cost of running the CTC as a crown
corporation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. The
briefing I received suggested that moving the entire operation to
Toronto is a distinct possibility. I can picture it. Instead of
taking up a floor in the building that houses Industry Canada, it
will need some prominent downtown real estate in Toronto at the
top dollar the market demands.
The salaries will have to go up. It costs twice as much to buy
a house in Toronto. Then there are the moving and relocation
costs for the 62 current employees. That certainly will not be
cheap. I am sure there will be the emotional costs of moving to
Toronto for all of the families involved.
The Reform Party believes Canada is a spectacular tourist
destination and we should promote Canada as a travel destination.
Tourism is a big industry for Canada whether one is a
parliamentarian or whether one happens to run a specialized
restaurant in some city in Canada such as Edmonton for example.
We rely on tourists to come to our country and to spend their
dollars. In fact, it is Canada's 12th largest industry. We are
talking big dollars. Last year it generated jobs at twice the
pace of Canadian business. It generated $44 billion in revenue to
the Canadian economy. We are not talking small dollars here.
1240
A press release issued by the CTC states that the international
travel numbers for the first three months of 1999 indicate that
this year may well be another record breaking one for Canada's
tourist industry. Compared to the same period in 1998,
international tourists made 11% more trips of one or more nights
to Canada so far this year.
In conclusion, it is clear that Canada needs tourism and that we
should market our wonderful country abroad, notwithstanding the
high taxes. But it is not clear that we need a crown corporation
to carry on this activity.
I believe that you would find, Mr. Speaker, consent for the
following motion:
That for the remainder of this parliament, motions pursuant to
Standing Orders 26, 56.1, 57 or 78.3 and motions that the
question be now put shall not be receivable by the Chair.
Furthermore, this motion shall not be subsequently revocable or
amendable by a government motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
put a motion before the House. Does the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley have the unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to commend my hon. colleague for the comments he made. Mr.
Speaker, I have to pay a special tribute to you too, sir. The
hon. member mentioned certain things in his speech that I think
refer directly to the efforts you have made toward tourism and
the establishment of industries in Canada and in particular, a
certain establishment that has some taste, that makes some bread,
and which has brought together some cultures in Edmonton. It
brings to mind one of the purposes of the tourism industry which
has to do with the promotion of culture.
My hon. colleague would recognize only too well that one of the
functions of tourism is to bring people to Canada to let people
see the culture we have here. It is such a varied culture.
There is the French culture, the aboriginal culture and all the
various ethnic groups that have come to Canada over the years.
It is a real kaleidoscope.
It is a wonderful combination of the way people can actually
work together. People of different ethnic backgrounds come from
other parts of the world where they actually fought with one
another and got into not just minor fights in the back streets
but they would shoot each other, maim each other, kill each
other, plant mines in the ground so that people's legs would be
blown off.
Could my colleague make a comment about how Canada through the
expansion of our tourist industry can demonstrate to the rest of
the world how we can live together more harmoniously?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am only too pleased
to respond to my colleague from Kelowna. Certainly Canada is a
marvellous country to live in. People from all over the world
have come to Canada to take up residence and become Canadian
citizens. There are those who are still seeking to become
citizens of Canada. We have a lot to offer the world.
Tourism gives people from all over the world an opportunity to
come to a country that perhaps they have never visited before.
For the first time they can see how people can live and exist
together despite their cultural or religious differences, their
differing points of view.
We are a free and democratic country. I think we are able to
hold ourselves up as a standard to the world. I can only say
that—and I have to add this—I really believe that the people
who come to Canada from different countries can best exhibit and
accomplish this spirit of co-operation, not with the help of
government but rather without the help of government. People come
to Canada recognizing that it is a beautiful country.
1245
In the last 30 years, the current government and past
governments have done more to foster the divisions amongst the
different types of people in the country than bring them
together. The government should just stop trying to make people
so different in the country. It should let the people themselves
embrace what it is like to live in a multicultural country
without its involvement. They will do a far better job and a job
that will move along the lines of getting together, rather what
the government does, which is to promote divisions among the
people of Canada.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley for his intervention and for his recent
remarks.
As I think about this bill, I remember, when I was the deputy
critic for industry with responsibility for the Canadian Tourism
Commission, an instance that took place over a period of time
where I wanted to have a meeting with the director of the
commission. This was not as simple a matter as I had thought it
would be. We had been told how open it was and how they were
looking for opportunities to discuss the business of the
commission with various people.
I had a meeting in British Columbia with some of the tourism
people and wanted to take some of the information and discuss it
with the director. It took a long time for this meeting to be
arranged. The director was busy in town or out of town. One day
we finally made an appointment. It was not in the near future,
but after some time passed and I was preparing for the meeting,
guess what, I got a phone call saying “I'm sorry, the
appointment has been cancelled.
I began to explore the reasons why. I was told that I could
have no meetings with members of the commission without the
minister's approval. I took this directly to the Minister of
Industry and, to his credit, he said that he would never stop me
from doing that. Regardless, in his name, I never did have a
meeting with the director of the commission.
This, in my mind, brings up the question of accountability. The
Canadian Tourism Commission is accountable to the minister and
accountable through the minister to parliament. Yet a
parliamentarian, myself, the deputy critic responsible for this
commission in my party, wanting to represent the constituents of
British Columbia to the commission, was not able to have a
meeting.
I am asking myself, with this further separation, this inch and
a half arm's length that has been created between the commission
and the government, how much more opportunity is there for a lack
of accountability by the new crown corporation and members of
parliament and the citizens of Canada who are vitally concerned
about this issue.
I want to ask the member what his concerns are. Does he
recognize some of the dangers I am alluding to? Could comment on
them?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there
is little enough accountability presently through the Minister of
Industry with regard to the CTC, or for that matter through any
of the government ministers, does concern me.
If they do not want us to know something about their departments
they simply throw up as many roadblocks as possible to keep us
from getting the answer to our question.
1250
As I have spoken about before, if we move the CTC out of the
minister's department to a crown corporation, it automatically
becomes almost 100% immune to anyone from the opposition looking
into how it runs the new institution, how it spends taxpayers'
dollars or how it operates. It will simply say that it is a
crown corporation, not answerable to parliament and therefore
does not have to reply. It can always say something to give it
some credibility in its own mind that if it were to reply to our
question or inquiry it would be letting out some strategic
secrets which it cannot do.
Here is a strategic secret that we would like to have let out,
and that is just how it is spending the taxpayers' dollars. That
is a secret to which I think the Canadian people have a right to
know the answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to
establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
When I looked over the bill, I paid particular attention to the
objectives, and my first reaction was that the government had
said it was getting out of tourism in a throne speech a few
years back. And now, in the House of Commons, in the Parliament
of Canada, the government introduces an act to establish the
Canadian Tourism Commission.
From the outset, it is rather incomprehensible.
Why is the federal government bent on interfering in this
sector, which is outside its jurisdiction? Why is it bent on
using a Canadian tourism commission to do so? I looked to the
objects of the commission as stated in the bill for some
answers.
The first object is to sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian
tourism industry. I told myself that the Canadian tourism
industry is really the sum total of the tourism industry in each
of the provinces. In Quebec, we have a tourism policy which was
developed some years ago and which has been very successful.
Since the 1978 summit on tourism, Quebec has made important
progress as a tourist destination. In 1996, revenue was $5.4
billion.
In Quebec this industry comprises 29,000 businesses and over
100,000 workers concentrated in the sectors of accommodation,
food services, transportation, travel agencies, entertainment
and recreation.
As well, it is the 6th ranking Quebec export next to
aeronautics, with international exports of $1.9 billion.
Tourism investments in Quebec total $1.3 billion and its annual
tax revenues $1.2 billion. As well, it offers considerable
employment to young people, as 28% of workers are under the age
of 25.
Quebec has therefore equipped itself with a policy to intervene
in this sector which is a provincial jurisdiction. It has the
means required, and has set in place some highly pertinent
structures, such as the regional tourism associations. It
therefore has an approach to tourism and to services to tourists
that has been highly successful.
We attract tourists from all over, other Canadian provinces, the
United States, South America and Europe. We boast a number of
truly interesting tourist attractions and it is not mere chance,
but rather the result of a well-organized tourism effort, that
has led to worthwhile results.
The tourism industry in Quebec is guided by Tourisme Québec, a
department which directs government actions relating to tourism.
There are 19 regional tourist associations, like the one I have
already referred to, and their mandate is to group together
those involved in tourism in their region, encouraging concerted
efforts and co-ordinating the development and promotion of
tourism in the region. I believe they are doing this very
successfully.
I will give as my example the Lower St. Lawrence region, the one
I represent here in the House of Commons.
It is a region that had problems 10, 15 or 20 years ago
convincing tourists passing through our region to stop and spend
some time there, instead of simply heading on to Percé and the
maritimes. Creation of the regional tourism association has
really borne fruit.
1255
We eventually established tourism commissions in several
municipalities, participated in the effort to promote our
tourist attractions, proposed nominees for national tourism
awards across Quebec, because there is a contest to choose the
province's best tourist businesses, and so on. Thanks to this
promotion and emulation, the Lower St. Lawrence has become a
major tourist area in Quebec.
We have very distinctive attractions. For example, there is our
heritage. We have families that were among the first ones to
settle in Quebec, such as the Lévesques, the Ouelettes and the
Pelletiers. They organize family reunions in our region. These
families have been in Quebec for 250 or 300 years.
They get together and tour our heritage. We also have an
extraordinary religious heritage. It is one of the most vibrant
in America, thus making it another interesting attraction for
those who come to visit us.
In addition, we have a whole network of hotels and restaurants
with a well established reputation at the national level. I am
thinking of the hotel Lévesque and the hotel Université in
Rivière-du-Loup. These facilities can accommodate a fairly large
number of people and are nationally renowned for the high
quality of the food they serve.
We also have a network of inns and other attractions, including
ecotourism.
Ecotourism is a sector promoted by Quebec with the result that
we now have a very good structure at the Canadian and European
levels, and we do not need a parallel structure.
In our region, ecotourism involves anything that has to do with
nature, including the St. Lawrence River. The new
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park will attract tourists from all
over the world. That is an interesting prospect. Mountain
climbing is also becoming a popular activity in
Saint-André-de-Kamouraska, among other places, which offer
incredible opportunities.
Therefore, we made the lower St. Lawrence a reception area and
we established an area people want to visit in terms of new
tourist values and what they want to see. The result—and it
is not just with us as an ATR, but it applies to all regional
tourist associations—is the promotion of the appeal of these
regions.
I think Tourisme Québec's mandate already contains everything
necessary to ensure that we manage our tourism industry well.
When we look at the objectives of the bill, we realize that
there is duplication. Tourisme Québec talks of “orienting and
co-ordinating public and private action in tourism”.
The board of directors they want to establish for the Canadian
tourism commission is the same sort of representation as for
this commission.
They will select people representing a province from within the
population of the province, but these people may not be the
actual delegates of the province, and this fact may cause
problems.
The mandate of Tourisme Québec also provides for “the
development of a knowledge of tourist products and clients”. It
is also found in the mandate of the Canadian tourism commission
as “to support the improvement and development of tourism”. I
spoke of this earlier: “to inform clientele on Quebec's tourist
products and to develop and operate tourist facilities”.
We can see there are many things that are similar to the
mandate of the Canadian tourism commission.
The federal government has told us that it wanted to get out of
this sector, but it is now presenting a bill to establish the
Canadian Tourism Commission. One wonders why. The reason is
stated under the second goal of the act:
We are talking here about tourism in Canada and from abroad.
That is a roundabout way to engage in propaganda.
The hidden motive of this bill is to promote and increase the
visibility of the federal government and to reinforce national
unity, one of the preferred themes of this government. I think
it is going beyond what is normal and acceptable.
The promotion of Canada that is being done by the federal
government in Canada does not deal only with tourist
attractions, but also with the value of Canada itself as a
federation. That is a way to compensate for the weaknesses in
the operation of the federation, all the more because this
government lacks flexibility and is unwilling to change.
Instead of trying to meet the needs of the various members of
the federation, it is content with setting up tougher hurdles in
the path of the sovereignist or nationalist movement in Quebec,
which should be able to express itself and and develop to its
full potential.
We see this in all the federal government's areas of activity.
1300
Today, the Canadian tourism commission is one more tool for
promoting the Canadian federal system. When the stated object
is to promote tourism within Canada, it is very clear that this
is the goal.
If the bill had been limited to promoting Canada in
international markets, the tourism structures of each province
might perhaps have agreed to establish a common fund for
international promotion.
But when the government starts talking about a domestic mandate,
and tells us that the Canadian tourism commission will organize
and promote tourism within Canada, we know very well that,
further down the road, the present Liberal government will use
these words in the bill as justification for promoting not
Canadian tourism but the Canadian federal system. I find this
unacceptable.
The objects in the bill also include the following:
No account has been taken of what I mentioned earlier concerning
the tourism development policy of Quebec, which held a tourism
forum in 1997.
In the fall of 1996, the government held a summit on the economy
and employment. This was followed by a tourism forum in March
1997, which brought together over 200 people representing all
sectors, products and regions, as well as the main departments
having anything to do with tourism. The forum produced a number
of observations, consensus, and various courses of action.
Quebec's current tourism policy incorporates all the conclusions
of this meeting and the work done by the chair of tourism of the
Université du Québec à Montréal at the forum, the consultations
of public departments and agencies by Tourisme Québec, and the
August 1997 consultation of the tourism industry.
So, the province of Quebec has come a very long way in terms of
tourism, thanks to a tourism policy that makes sense and which
has concrete goals.
The policy includes the priorities and intervention strategies
developed by both the government and the industry in order to
ensure the growth of tourism businesses and to maximize the
contribution of the tourism industry to our economic, social and
cultural development in the year 2000.
We, Quebecers, have trouble feeling at home within the Canadian
Tourism Commission. We do not really understand why the federal
government is promoting this vision of tourism development.
Let us turn to the constitution of the Canadian Tourism
Commission and its board of directors. There will be twenty-six
directors, including the federal deputy minister of Industry.
The chairperson and the president will be appointed for five
years. Sixteen directors from the private sector will be
appointed by the industry minister for a term of not more than
three years, with the approval of the Governor in Council and
under the advice of a committee set up by the board of
directors.
Seven of these 16 directors will be tourism operators and nine
will be private sector representatives. Seven public sector
directors will also be appointed.
This is a huge structure that will work in parallel with what we
already have in the province of Quebec. Again, we feel that our
money goes to finance two parallel operations, one from the
Canadian federal government and one from the Quebec government.
We do not need this kind of duplication.
We know from experience that this way is not right for us.
Clause 26(1) of the bill reads as follows:
26.(1) The Commission may enter into an agreement with the
government of any province or territory to carry out its
objects.
This means that, before entering into an agreement with a
province, the Canadian Tourism Commission may want to make sure
that the goals of the agreement are in line with its own. These
goals might be different from those in the tourism policy of
Quebec.
The language issue also comes into play if we want to attract
French-speaking tourists to Quebec.
It naturally appeals to people from France, Africa and many
other countries. There is a tradition. In setting up this
service, we must make sure that we are not required at the same
time, under an agreement with the Canadian Tourism Commission,
to pursue other goals in terms of mobility and the clientele we
want to attract, in return for benefits and funds.
1305
In its present form, the bill contains many elements the Bloc
Quebecois finds unacceptable.
The government should take the time to go and see what is being
done in other jurisdictions, get reacquainted with the policy
developed by Quebec in the area of tourism development and look
at what has been accomplished in this area. If after that it
still wants to introduce a bill, it should be one that gives
enough manoeuvring room to those who are already organized in
this regard, and makes sure that they can access the necessary
resources to implement their own policy.
This sort of action, this recognition of Quebec's dynamism in
the area of tourism development are not reflected in the
Canadian Tourism Commission Act. This leads the Bloc Quebecois
to the conclusion that it cannot support this bill in its
present form.
It would need to be either referred to a committee for in-depth
examination or quite simply withdrawn, but it is totally
unacceptable in its present form. It is unacceptable not only
because it requires many amendments, but also because its very
basis, the very mandate the government assigns to the
commission, will not yield satisfactory results for Quebec.
It is not worthwhile for Quebec to get involved in the action to
be carried out by the Canadian tourism commission under its
present mandate.
Certainly, on the practical level, there can be areas of
co-operation, but in the long term there is no future for Quebec
in the way they want to organize tourism within the commission
and the way the present federal government perceives it.
There is one other aspect I want to address, which I have not
touched so far. It is one often found in legislation passed by
this government in recent years. This concerns the way accounts
will have to be rendered to the government by the commission.
It is part of a trend on the government side, and a fine example
is the millennium scholarship foundation. I use this as an
example because we had concrete information on it in the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development yesterday.
Two officials appeared before the Standing Committee on Human
Resources to speak on interventions in the field of education,
which is not under federal jurisdiction, but which the federal
government would really like to invest in. I asked them if they
were aware of the differences remaining between the Government
of Quebec and the Government of Canada in resolving this issue.
They indicated that they were not.
The representatives of the department did not know what point
the millennium scholarship negotiations had reached. They were
unable to tell us, because the foundation had inherited the
mandate. This is the same sort of situation we could end up
with in the case of the Canadian tourism commission and,
furthermore, this is an area where little action may be taken.
This is an area where a lot of contracts are handed out. It is
an area where firms are told, for example, that the government
wants to establish trade policy to sell Canada on Asian or
American markets, and this sort of thing costs lots.
They could be sectors of activity where things must be done
properly, but because of the way in which the government opts
out of its responsibility for administering sums of money, there
will be an opportunity for patronage without any requirement for
accountability before the House of Commons.
I think that even for a federalist, even for someone who thinks
it is a good idea for the Canadian tourism commission to invest
in a provincial sector, questions remain. Questions on the
relevance and fairness of making it very easy to reward one's
friends.
1310
I will conclude by stressing again that the Canadian tourism
commission does not have the proper mandate to adequately
promote tourism in Quebec.
We have developed tools to promote tourism in Quebec and we have
a concerted approach. While there can be levels of services,
common initiatives and exchanges in that area, there is no need
for a superstructure such as the Canadian tourism commission,
which will get involved in jurisdictions where Quebec is already
very active.
I think Quebecers will see with this initiative, as with others,
that Canadian federalism does not serve them properly, it does
not provide them with what they expect. For all these reasons,
the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
Canadian, I come from Ontario and I am an anglophone.
I often visit Quebec, and I really like Quebecers, their culture
and Quebec City. I am proud that the world's most beautiful
francophone region is a part of Canada. As a Canadian, as a
member of this House and as a colleague of the Bloquistes, I
want to tell everyone that Quebec is the world's most beautiful
francophone region.
I have a question for the hon. member: Why can we not share with
you and tell people that Quebec is one of the world's most
beautiful regions? I like that region, but unfortunately I do
not speak French very well. It is the first time I ask a
question in French in the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Bryden: This is an important moment, because it is a
question that comes from the heart.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for
his intervention in French. I have known him for several years
now and I can tell he has made remarkable progress. I think he
deserves our congratulations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Paul Crête: However, I think that he proved the point I was
making earlier. We are here to discuss the Canadian tourism
commission and its mandate but we just heard an intervention
aimed at selling Canada.
I am glad that the hon. member spoke in French. We understood
clearly that what he was telling is that, basically, the mandate
of the Canadian tourism commission is to promote Canada as a
federation. That is what he said.
I respect his opinion, but I do not think that we need the
Canadian tourism commission to do that.
As far as beauty is concerned, I agree with him that Quebec is a
fantastic region, which is very unique in North America due to
its French speaking majority.
However, I do not think that there is only one French speaking
area in Canada. I believe that we are one of its two founding
peoples, one of its two distinct societies. We have a right to
try to find the best way to be represented within Canada, on
large, medium and small issues.
I submit, however, that the Canadian tourism commission is not
the good vehicle to sell our tourist attractions to the world.
1315
We have developed all the tools we need to be able to do that
adequately. What we need much more from the federal government
is to project, outside Canada, the image of a country where
there is a francophone people. If this were the image projected
in all Canadian embassies, it would make a much stronger
contribution than creating a tourism commission with a very
large board filled with the government's friends. The fact is
that it will be able to get federal money in a sector it has no
business being involved in.
Two years ago, the federal government said in the throne speech
that it would get out of certain sectors, including tourism.
Today, it is introducing a bill to establish the Canadian
tourism commission. Where is the logic? It is an unseemly action
similar to the Prime Minister's position on the issue of the
majority.
We are used to dealing with such situations. Our only wish is to
end this debate by forming an economic partnership with Canada,
on an equal footing, where we will have control of all the
levers and where there will be no useless third party
interventions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Scarborough
Centre, on questions and comments.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order.
You have just recognized a member from across the way for
questions and comments. You are recognizing another member from
across the way. Is it two for one or three for one?
Is that what 50% plus one means?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, it is. I must
repeat it in English just to be sure. Whenever there is a member
from a party contra to the party that has just made a discourse,
the other person will always be recognized before a member from
the same party.
The notion is debate, and there is much more likely to be debate
from an opposite point of view. It goes the other way around
from time to time.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, for respecting the rules of the House. The member
who spoke on the bill said that they could not support the bill
in its current form. That does not surprise me because they
would not support it anyway, no matter what form.
Before I get on to my question, I was disappointed because the
member took this opportunity to take the bill in an entirely
different direction, which is unfair to the industry, unfair to
us, and unfair to the country. For years the member for
Broadview—Greenwood has been promoting tourism. I commend him
for it. We have been presenting it as a pan-Canadian initiative.
I compliment the member when he talks about the beautiful areas
of Quebec. I am very proud to say that my daughter will be
teaching French next year. We share its beauty and that of the
rest of Canada. On other hand, as the CTC is unfolding I want to
clarify for members and the listeners out there that the Canadian
Tourism Commission was there, is there and will continue to be
there.
It is a partnership agreement where the stakeholders come in and
provide financial support along with government appropriations
and proper accountability. The sad part I heard while listening,
as much as I heard many wonderful things, was the way it was
portrayed in terms of marketing Canada or promoting federalism.
The word propaganda was there. There is no propaganda when we
talk about the beauty of our country from coast to coast to
coast, helping small businesses grow, bringing about employment
and capturing the market.
Could the member tell me how the CTC, the government or any
Canadian, could prevent any French speaking individual from any
part of the globe from coming to Canada? That I cannot see.
1320
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the member says he is surprised and
that our party would vote against the bill in any case. I wish
to remind him that, in this House, the opposition party that has
most often voted with the government when bills were appropriate
is the Bloc Quebecois.
There is no way that we can be accused of not making a
constructive contribution to the debate.
And as for the reason behind our present position, we wonder why
the government introduced this bill. The provinces, and more
specifically Quebec, already have their own infrastructures,
well developed tourism networks, and strategies geared to the
needs and characteristics of their respective regions.
This is particularly true for Quebec, as I explained in my
speech. It has a policy, and it has regional structures, in the
form of regional tourism associations. Tourism has taken off in
Quebec in recent years, since we pooled all our resources, and
we do not see the need for this kind of agency to help promote
tourism in Quebec.
Would the needs of each of the provinces be better served by the
Canadian tourism commission, whose object is to promote several
competing tourism products? It will become a battle over
whether to put more money into promoting Ontario, New Brunswick
or Quebec, rather than letting each province organize its own
tourism supply.
This is not how tourism operates, and it brings politics into a
sector where it is not needed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately, the time
allotted for questions and comments has now expired.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin my debate by recognizing how significant is the
tourism industry. I commend the level of debate that has taken
place up to this point, especially by the hon. member opposite
when he said how beautiful the provinces of Quebec and Ontario
were, how people move back and forth between them, and the
significance of tourism to them.
The constituency of Kelowna which I represent is actually in
another world known as paradise. It is a great and wonderful
place. It is a place that would stack up to anywhere. I notice
an hon. member clapping. I agree with him. It is a wonderful
place.
This demonstrates that western Canada, Quebec and all the rest
of Canada benefit from tourism. We need to get together in this
whole operation. The part that bothers me is that we would use
this debate as some kind of a vehicle or wedge to drive between
Canadians. This should be a unifying activity, not a divisive
one.
Before I move to the actual substance of the bill I would first
like to ask a question. Why has the bill come before us? The
bill creates a tourist commission that already exists and will
somehow create a crown corporation. Why would this happen?
At the present time we have the Canadian Tourist Commission. The
bill will establish a crown corporation to be known as the
Canadian Tourism Commission, which is the same agency that
presently exists. If the name is the same and if it is simply to
create a crown corporation for something we already have, what is
different?
I looked at the objectives of the corporation. The bill says
that the corporation shall sustain a vibrant and profitable
Canadian tourism industry.
That is the first point. The second one is that it shall market
Canada as a desirable tourist destination. The third is that it
shall support a co-operative relationship between the private
sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories, with respect to Canadian tourism. The final point
is that it shall provide information about Canadian tourism to
the private sector and to the governments of Canada, the
provinces and the territories.
1325
These are wonderful objectives, but are they different or more
comprehensive than what exists at the present time with the
Canadian Tourism Commission? I went to the commission and asked
what was the issue. Here are the exact statements from the
Canadian Tourism Commission.
As it exists at the present time the major purpose of the
Canadian Tourism Commission is to create a vibrant and profitable
part of the Canadian economy. Let me go back to the first
objective of the crown corporation: to sustain a vibrant and
profitable Canadian tourism industry. With the exception of one
or two different words the meaning is identical.
I will go to the next one. It states that the main thrust of
the tourist commission as it exists today is to position Canada
as a desirable destination to both international and domestic
travellers. If I look at the bill before us it states that its
second objective is to market Canada as a desirable tourist
destination. What is the difference? There is no difference.
Finally, the Canadian Tourism Commission as it exists today is a
partnership among tourism industry businesses, provincial and
territorial governments and the Government of Canada. Lo and
behold the bill before us states that it shall support a
co-operative relationship between the private sector and the
governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories with
respect to Canadian tourism. The only difference is in the order
in which the words are presented.
I fail to see that the bill creates anything different from what
we have today, except the relationship with the government is a
bit different in the sense that it is now a crown corporation. It
is currently an agency within a department and under the bill it
will become a crown corporation.
I thought then if there is not a difference in the objectives
perhaps there could be a difference in the preamble that gave
rise to the bill. Very often it is in the preamble that we find
the rationale that gives rise to the bill. I examined it to see
whether it materially justified and created a solid, sound and
very substantive reason for the creation of a crown corporation.
The preamble states:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and
cultural identity and integrity of Canada;
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential
contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the
economic objectives of the Government of Canada;
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry consists of mainly small
and medium-sized businesses that are essential to Canada's goals
for entrepreneurial development and job creation;
And whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to
Canadian tourism by establishing a Tourism Commission that would
work with the governments of the provinces and the territories
and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the interests of
that industry and to market Canada as a desirable tourist
destination;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, creates an act. I
emphasize the last paragraph I just read. We have that, so what
are we doing here?
What on earth possessed whoever it is who had the audacity to
bring this matter to the House? Why would something like this be
done? We have the commission. We have the agency. We have the
minister. Now we are to do it all over again. How many
different ways is a spare tire put on a car?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Perhaps that
question will be answered the next time the bill comes before the
House because the hon. member will have 13 minutes remaining.
Unfortunately there is no time to hear the rest of his comments
today.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1330
[English]
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program
Act and to make a related and consequential amendment to another
act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks today by stating
that this is an exciting day for me. Although I have submitted
private members' bills many times in the past six years, this is
my first bill to be deemed votable.
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act
or the new identities act, as I have called it, attempts to
accomplish one thing, to save lives.
In my remarks today I will address the problem of domestic
violence in our society, the inadequacies of our present laws,
the current new identities program and explain the initiatives
proposed in Bill C-223.
Domestic violence is one of the most horrendous problems facing
our society. It is my opinion, and that of the hundreds of women
who have responded to this issue, that domestic violence is
indeed a national problem deserving increased attention from
parliament. I do not believe that we as parliamentarians have
done enough to address the violence that all too often occurs
behind closed doors. This is an issue that requires us to put
aside our partisan ways and address the true needs of those in
danger.
Just listen to these statistics. In 1996, 21,901 cases of
spousal assault were recorded in a sample of 154 police
departments across the country. In 1996, approximately 80% of
victims of criminal harassment or stalking were women. Over half
of all female victims of criminal harassment were harassed by
ex-spouses or other intimate partners.
Between 1977 and 1996, there were 2,048 spousal killings in
Canada. In over 56% of spousal homicides, investigating police
officers had knowledge of previous domestic violence between
victims and the suspects.
The process of eradicating domestic violence is not easy and I
am fully aware that process will take some time. In the
meantime, there are women and children in our country who live in
fear for their lives. When I began to research this issue I was
shocked by the lack of laws focused on preventing domestic
violence and spousal abuse. Aside from anti-stalking laws and
restraining orders, there are few remedies available. Most of
the laws focus on punishment for crimes committed and are often
too late for victims.
Such was the case for Mary-Lynne Miller from Dawson Creek in my
riding. In February 1997 Brad Neuman, Miller's former common-law
spouse while on probation beat her into a coma in her own
apartment. Mary-Lynne suffered on the floor with severe head
injuries for over 21 hours before getting medical attention. She
remains in a coma to this very day.
One of Neuman's probation conditions was that he was to have no
contact with Mary-Lynne Miller. Other than go into hiding,
Mary-Lynne could not ensure her own safety and paid a heavy
price. It was this case that really opened my eyes to the
tragedy of domestic violence. Sadly, there have been thousands
of others equally tragic.
In January of this year I was reading the Vancouver
Province on my flight from Vancouver to Ottawa where I came
across an article. The story detailed a maverick program run by
bureaucrats in the Department of Revenue Canada, in conjunction
with Human Resources Development Canada, to provide new
identities for those people who find themselves in life
threatening situations. It allows them to change their names and
social insurance numbers in order to hide from an abusive spouse
or former spouse.
The woman featured in the article had endured beatings, death
threats and emotional torture. The new identities program helped
her to relocate and get new documents. Unfortunately, her
academic credentials were not transferable to her new identity
nor was her resume. This meant finding any job she could in
order to support herself and her child. When her husband caught
her trail again she would have to run and start the same panicked
process of self-preservation over again.
1335
After reading this article I felt frustrated and motivated to do
something. That is when I began to research this issue to seek
out a solution. The result is the bill before the House today.
Originally numbered C-494 in the first session of this
parliament, I sent copies of this bill and background material to
over 500 women's shelters and transition houses across Canada
seeking feedback and their input.
What I got in return were letters of support; tragic, horrifying
personal stories and petitions signed by hundreds of people in
support of the bill. It was reassuring to know that those who
deal with the brutality of spousal abuse on a daily basis endorse
the principles contained in this bill.
This summer a woman contacted me after hearing about the bill.
She came into my office in disguise to tell me firsthand the
story of her abuse. She has been on the run from her former
husband for over 10 years. She and her son live in a constant
state of readiness to move. Just this fall her husband, through
a private investigator, found them again. The threat of violence
is so severe that her son's school was put on lock down to assure
his safety.
She has been harassed, stalked, beaten, permanently disfigured
and threatened with death. It is hard to believe that these are
Canadian citizens living in such fear in this very country.
Without a new identify, this woman is positive that her former
husband will kill her. Even though he has had several
restraining orders filed against him there, is little that can be
done until he decides to strike again.
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the new identities program
is an ad hoc program providing assistance to those in need.
However, the program is not well known and operates without a
mandate or formal funding.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the
tremendous service that the bureaucrats in these departments have
undertaken. These individuals went far and beyond their job
descriptions to help those in need. They exemplify the true
meaning of the term “public servants”.
I believe that the witness protection program is the natural
home for new identities. Women brought into the program will
benefit from the expertise and knowledge of the RCMP who already
relocate crown witnesses. All law enforcement agencies across
the country are connected electronically, granting access to this
program from the most remote reaches of Canada.
By bringing the new identities program under the Witness
Protection Act, I believe we can do more for these women and
their children. The Witness Protection Act defines protection as
including relocation, accommodation and change of identity, as
well as counselling and financial support.
This program is not for everyone. In fact the exact opposite is
the reality. The new identities program is an escape of last
resort for those who the law has failed and are in fear for their
lives and the lives of their children.
I listed earlier the tremendous sacrifices undertaken to change
one's identity. However, there are some in our society who would
try to use such a program for ulterior motives. To ensure this
does not happen there is a list of factors or criteria to be
considered for admission into this program: the nature of the
risk to the security of the person would be assessed; alternative
methods of protecting the person without admission into this
program would be considered; the nature of the injuries suffered
by the person or the severe psychological damage inflicted by the
spouse and any criminal history; the circumstances that cause the
spouse to believe that their life is in danger would obviously be
assessed; and, such other factors that the commissioner of the
RCMP would deem relevant. I believe that the criteria are fair
and will ensure that those who truly need the program will have
access to it.
Canada is supposed to be the best country in the world in which
to live. But for women living in fear from abusive spouses, it
is a hell on earth.
I fully realize that according to the standing orders I can
speak for 20 minutes when moving a votable bill. Certainly this
is such a tragically vital bill I could not do the subject proper
justice if I spoke all day. However, I believe in my heart that
this issue is non-partisan and is of such a nature that I will
limit my remarks in order to allow more members to participate in
this important debate.
1340
In closing, I call on all members to support this bill. It is
but a first small step that we can take to provide protection to
those most needing our help.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-223, an
act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act.
As my hon. colleague said a few minutes ago, this bill
transcends political issues and is totally non partisan. Our
government wholeheartedly supports any measure to ensure the
protection of people whose lives and sometimes the lives of
their children are being threatened by a spouse or a former
spouse. Nobody can really disagree with that.
[English]
This is an issue that this government has taken very seriously.
A joint federal, provincial and territorial process has been in
place for a number of years. It is called new identities for
victims in life threatening relationships. It was developed
under the leadership of Human Resources Development Canada.
In situations where there is no other viable alternative, this
initiative offers persons in life threatening relationships the
opportunity to change their identities to avoid serious or fatal
harm. In short, it does what Bill C-223 seeks to do. But the
new identities initiative does so in a manner which, I would
submit, is more acceptable.
[Translation]
I will come back in a little while to the advantages of the new
identities initiative compared with the provisions of Bill
C-223, but first, I want to address in a broader way this issue
of establishing new identities as a way to ensure the protection
of victims of domestic violence.
Given new identities to victims of life threatening domestic
violence is an extreme measure that, for obvious reasons, can
only be used under exceptional circumstances and as a last
resort.
New identities may ensure better protection, but do come with
many problems. The people being given new identities must leave
their community and break with their family and their friends.
And where children are involved, things get a lot more
complicated.
[English]
Nevertheless, although it is a matter of last resort,
establishing a new identity is sometimes necessary. Since 1992
the joint federal, provincial and territorial new identities
initiative has helped some 203 victims and is proving to be a
very useful method of providing an additional measure of safety
to those who are most at risk.
In a number of respects, Canada is at the very forefront of
nations in its response to conjugal violence. The new identities
initiative is one of the areas where we are at the cutting edge.
I understand that International Social Services Canada has made
inquiries and found no other similar initiative in any other
country except for the beginnings of a slightly similar process
in the United States. As such, Canada has much to be proud of.
[Translation]
That said, we can and must do more. Education, counselling,
prevention and other social service measures are essential if we
are to do away with family violence. When all else fails, we
must take steps against the violent partners.
The federal, provincial and territorial partners have already
worked on the development of a new identity program. There is
always room for improvement, but we do not need to reinvent the
wheel. We need to build on what is already established.
There are a number of unsettled questions. In particular, there
is the need for more formal co-ordination of the new identities
program, a process in which, I would remind hon. members, the
federal, provincial and territorial governments participate.
We also need to examine the eligibility criteria and issues
relating to mobility, as well as the matter of the financing of
a fully operative program.
1345
[English]
All these issues require consultation and co-ordination. The
issue of responding to spousal violence is one that is a shared
responsibility for governments at all levels.
I am pleased to report that officials are already examining
possible improvements to the new identities initiative. This
month a federal-provincial-territorial working group has begun
consultations to address the very questions that I have just
raised.
[Translation]
That brings me to the question before the House, that is Bill
C-223, whose object is to amend the Witness Protection Program
Act so that situations of family violence would come under it.
The witness protection program, run by the RCMP, is used to
protect certain individuals who help in the application of the
law. A perfect example is the case of witnesses asked to
testify in trials involving organized crime.
So, naturally, this program concerns specific situations linked
particularly to the application of the law.
The process of establishing a new identity is a separate program
run jointly by governments. It applies to situations and
persons other than those who come under the witness protection
program.
In essence, Bill C-223 would incorporate the security measures
provided in new identities into the Witness Protection Program
Act.
[English]
The issue before us is not whether we should seek to ensure that
safety and security measures for victims of spousal violence are
the best they can be. Similarly, the issue is not whether we
should take steps to build upon processes such as new identities.
The issue is what steps should be taken. My view is that Bill
C-223 simply is not a proper step.
As I have indicated, there are a number of specific questions
that must be addressed if we are to build upon the excellent
initiatives that have already been developed. Bill C-223 does
not answer the questions or address the issues that must be
examined. For those, consultations are necessary. The process
of holding these consultations has been put in place and is
currently getting under way. Proceeding with Bill C-223 would
undercut this important process.
[Translation]
I admit that one of the solutions that could be considered in
order to increase protection for victims of domestic abuse would
be to incorporate the new identities process into the Witness
Protection Program Act.
However, it is clear from preliminary consultations with various
interested agencies, including victims' rights groups, that
including the protection of spouses in the Witness Protection
Program Act is not the best solution.
Before any thought is given to this option, the complex
underlying issues must be resolved, particularly as regards the
services available to victims and the co-ordination of action by
the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
[English]
I am saying that very sincerely. I respect the initiative taken
by the hon. member. I share the objective that is pursued with
this initiative. These goals are fundamental, but the importance
of this issue makes it necessary that we not take hasty steps. We
must consult with those involved. We must avoid imposing top
down solutions that may undercut what has already been built. The
working group now in place must be allowed to consider all the
dimensions of the problem without being locked into one single
solution. For these reasons I do not support Bill C-223.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that yesterday was
the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of
Violence Against Women, and also the opening day of the white
ribbon campaign commemorating the tragic killings of women in
Montreal a few years past. It is so very fitting that we have
had the chance today to address an issue as important as conjugal
violence within this context.
1350
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise again on behalf of the PC Party and my
constituents of Tobique—Mactaquac.
Let me begin by stating that I have somewhat mixed reactions
with regard to this bill. At first glance I felt that this was a
very important bill and I had hoped for it to receive positive
consideration from all members of this House. However after more
careful review, it is evident that this bill is an attempt to
enact legislation that already exists.
The PC Party supports the premise behind this bill. The PC
Party has been consistent in its support of law and order, the
protection of society and victims rights. Other than the
specific reference to spousal protection, every other amendment
already exists in the current legislation. If the Reform Party
feels that it is necessary to amend the legislation and make
specific reference to the protection of spouses, then we will not
oppose it.
The bill itself will provide for the establishment and operation
of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in
relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions and
to enable certain spouses whose life is in danger to receive
protection.
The proposed legislation, like that of the current legislation,
will protect those in society who are willing to come forward and
testify against offenders who have the means to exact retribution
from their accuser, even from a jail cell. The special mention
of spouses recognizes a common occurrence that has affected
spouses of the accused in a negative manner.
Presently the criminal code states that we cannot force someone
to testify against his or her spouse. Rightly or wrongly, one
could argue that this is one of the more noble sections of the
criminal code. Still the section has created problems for the
justice system and the spouse of an accused offender.
In many cases the spouse of an accused offender often possesses
the most intimate knowledge with regard to the accused. Such
knowledge often includes information that police and prosecutors
need to obtain a conviction, yet spouses cannot be compelled to
testify against each other. This limitation for prosecutors can
create real problems in securing a conviction.
Bill C-223 recognizes that there are spouses who are willing to
testify against their partners. It also recognizes that the
testimony of spouses is often required to bring some of the
country's most notorious criminals to justice. It also
recognizes that many of these criminals have the means at their
disposal to intimidate their spouse through threats of bodily
harm, harm to their children, et cetera. This intimidation can
be initiated by the accused or by supporters of the accused. The
intimate knowledge that spouses have can also be used to the
advantage of the accused. The accused involved in these kinds of
cases often possess knowledge of many effective scare tactics to
use on their spouse.
In an attempt to correct this longstanding problem, the witness
protection program was created. Its role is to provide
protection, a change of identity and location in exchange for
testimony against a dangerous criminal. This protection is
offered to everyone, including spouses. This is the reason I
question the need to make amendments for the inclusion of
spouses. They are already included. If the House feels that such
an amendment is necessary, our party will not oppose it.
With regard to witness protection, we do not know much about the
program other than the basic facts. The RCMP does not provide
any more information than is required under Bill C-78 which was
passed in 1996. This legislation set out clear rules for witness
protection but in the interests of safety, required only the
disclosure of basic data.
What we do know is that in trials where witness protection is
needed, the testimony often comes from victims of the accused.
Thus, the disclosure of more than the basic data could place at
risk the lives of these people.
The witness protection program is not much of a reward for
helping to place a criminal behind bars. However, through the
valiant efforts of the RCMP in this secretive operation, the
witnesses in this program are at least safe from criminal
retribution. In recent years, thanks to the Liberals' soft
approach to crime and the gouging of RCMP budgets, all aspects of
crime prevention have suffered. This includes the witness
protection program.
As Canadians are seeing the proliferation of criminal gangs
across the country and increasing high tech crimes, drug
smuggling and money laundering, we know that it is no longer the
individual criminal who must be stopped but the entire
organization to which the individual belongs.
Under the Liberal government, Canada has become a favourite home
for organized crime.
As I stated previously, when dealing with a criminal involved in
organized crime, one deals with the entire organization. If a
witness were to come forward to testify against the accused, he
or she may suffer repercussions from the entire organization.
1355
Unlike in the movies, the organized crime groups of today do not
subscribe to any code of honour. In many cases if a person
agrees to testify against one of their members, they will do
their best to ensure that the person does not make it to the
courtroom. Without witnesses, there is no case.
I feel that Bill C-223 helps bring attention to this fact but it
would be easier to simply deal with the problem under the current
act. Bill C-223 will change the name of the witness protection
program to the witness and spousal protection program.
Similar to the current act, Bill C-223 will promote law
enforcement by facilitating the protection of persons who are
involved directly or indirectly in providing assistance in law
enforcement matters where the witnesses and spousal witnesses
believe on reasonable grounds that their lives are in danger due
to their testimony.
The term spouse will include a former spouse and a person who
has cohabited with another person in a conjugal relationship for
a period of not less than one year. We agree that the term spouse
must be liberally applied so as to offer protection to all those
who could be adversely affected.
We also recognize that there will be those who will attempt to
enter the program but do not need this sort of protection. Thus,
before a witness or a spouse can be placed in this program, they
must be recommended by a law enforcement agency and the
commissioner of the program must review the recommendation.
Finally, an agreement has to be made between the witness or
spouse and the commissioner setting out the obligations of both
parties.
These are all positive steps but they already exist in the
current legislation.
In the specific case of the spouse, section 7 of the act is
amended to allow for the consideration of the following factors
to determine whether a spouse should be admitted to the program:
(a) the nature of the risk to the security of the spouse;
(b) the nature of the injuries caused to the spouse or the severe
psychological damage inflicted on the spouse by the other spouse
and the criminal record, if any, of the other spouse;
(c) the circumstances that cause the spouse to believe that the
spouse's life is in danger;
(d) alternate methods of protecting the spouse without admitting
the spouse to the Program; and
(e) such other factors as the Commissioner deems relevant.
These are all sensible recommendations that I feel will protect
those who need protecting while eliminating from the process
those who would abuse it. Once again, I must state that the
current legislation deals with such criteria for people in
general.
Accountability is built into the selection process as it was in
the previous legislation for cases of refusal. In these cases
the commissioner shall provide the law enforcement agency with
written reasons to enable the agency or witness or spouse to
understand the basis for the decision.
To sum up, I would like to thank the member for Prince
George—Peace River for bringing the bill forward. I feel that
it is a good bill as it indirectly brings light to the lack of
funding from the federal government for matters of public safety.
It reinforces the existing efforts of law enforcement to ensure
that witnesses will not be intimidated while performing their
public duty. We must ensure that criminals cannot exert a
negative influence on our courtrooms and on our society in
general.
Bill C-223 does not change the existing legislation. Yet if the
debate shows that the House is in favour of specific spousal
protection, the PC Party will have no problem in supporting the
bill.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-223.
I congratulate my colleague from Prince George—Peace River for
taking a leadership role in this very important issue. Like many
of us, he has seen the result of spousal violence and it is a
very sad thing indeed.
My colleague has brought this bill forward because this issue is
not formalized within the current statutes of the land and
therefore, people are falling between the cracks. Furthermore
there is not an opportunity for people whose lives are being
threatened and whose children's lives potentially are being
threatened to be aware of and access this type of program. That
is the only reason this bill is being put forth.
If the government is really interested in this as it has
expressed today, then members should stand in the House and say
they will support and enact the elements of Bill C-223 so that
people who are living in fear for their lives will be protected.
1400
The ad hoc situation right now is okay, but it is not entirely
acceptable. There is much more that can be done and the bill
enables us to do it.
This is an issue of the protection of innocent people. If a
spouse is in fear of his or her life, we cannot empathize with
the person unless we have been in such a situation to express
stark terror.
My colleague who spoke earlier in the House mentioned her friend
who travelled all over the world to get away from a spouse who
was terrorizing her. Indeed she feared for her life. She had to
go to China. She had to go to other parts of the world. She
could not use a credit card. She could not even make a phone
call back home because there was no way she could be protected in
Canada. What a sad reflection on our laws that they cannot
protect people and their children who are being subjected to this
type of terror.
I also draw attention to an important issue that needs to be
told. It is politically incorrect to say so but I think we need
to talk about it. I am referring to the fact that spousal
violence affects men and women. Clearly there are women who are
violated, but there are also men who are violated. It is
important to put it in the context of a genderless issue. Spousal
violence is wrong regardless of who happens to be on either side.
A man or a woman can be a victim and the assaulter can be a man
or a woman. We have to bear that in mind so that we establish a
series of laws that will be fair regardless of gender and that
the issue can be based on the people involved.
I would also like to speak about how we can deal with preventing
spousal violence. We do not mention heading it off at the pass.
Right now police officers have a very difficult time protecting a
person at home who is terrorized and whose life is in danger.
Does somebody's jaw need to be broken or does somebody need to be
assaulted in an egregious fashion or even killed before the
police act? Currently all too often we find that issues of
spousal violence are swept under the carpet and that not enough
protection is given to the spouse involved.
Shelters exist to protect people, in this case it is usually
women, but they are underfunded and there are not enough of them
to handle the situation. Furthermore the Reform Party believes
that the courts and the system in place now do not do enough to
protect that person whose life is terrorized.
I also draw attention to something very exciting that I learned
about recently, the issue of victims rights. Premier Harris is
often accused of being a conservative person, somebody with whom
we would see eye to eye on many principles as a provincial
Conservative in Ontario. He is accused of not really caring and
being right wing.
The office of the Attorney General of Ontario has set up, with
Scott Newark and Sharon Rosenfeldt, the first victims rights
element of an attorney general's office in the country. No other
province has one and it is possible that no state in the United
States has such an organization. Mr. Newark and Ms. Rosenfeldt
are out there trying to ensure that victims rights are an
integral element in the court system of Ontario.
I hope the government will work with the Attorney General of
Ontario and in fact spread that message across the country so
that people living in other provinces and territories will have
an opportunity to have access to the benefit of what is going on
in Ontario. It is very exciting. It will formalize and put
victims rights into the courts system so that victims will
finally have a place in the system, will have their rights
protected, and will have access to the care and treatment they
require when they engage in the rehabilitation their souls
require after being victimized. It is a very constructive
program. I would strongly encourage the government to take a
look at it and spread the word to the other provinces.
Another issue raised earlier by one of my colleagues was that of
the RCMP. The province of British Columbia has a very serious
situation on its hands. Right now there is a severe lack of RCMP
officers, as there are in other provinces. This situation will
only get a lot worse in the future.
1405
The population of RCMP officers is aging. When we look at the
demands placed upon them and our needs in the future, we will
have a shortfall far in excess of what we have today. This is a
serious situation. How can we hope to be able to enforce the law
if we do not have enough police officers out there to do the job?
The solicitor general has spoken about this matter from time to
time, but we have not heard any constructive solutions that will
enable the RCMP to get the resources or have the numbers in its
ranks to do its job. That is not happening now. We would be
happy to work with members on the other side to make it a reality
for all Canadians.
Another issue I want to talk about is Correctional Service
Canada. A serious issue in British Columbia was recently brought
to my attention. Because of cost cutting, I would imagine, many
or most of the anger management counsellors, psychologists, and
such attached to the prisons are being replaced with correctional
officers who have one or two weeks of training. Correctional
officers do an excellent job, a difficult task at that, but they
are not counsellors.
We are cutting our noses off to spite our faces. If we do not
allow the penal system to have the anger management counsellors,
the psychologists and the drug rehabilitation experts who deal
with the people once they are in jail and with those factors that
contributed to their coming in front of the judicial system, then
those released from jail will be worse off than they when came
in. We will be releasing people who have a much higher chance of
engaging in another criminal act, only to be put through the
courts again. Not only is this utterly expensive, but it is also
inhuman to the Canadian public. It is unworkable.
Again I ask the Minister of Justice to work with the solicitor
general and to work with their provincial counterparts,
particularly those in the province of British Columbia, to make
sure that we reverse this trend and that the correctional system
will have the capability of hiring those people who are an
essential part of the rehabilitation process.
The last issue I would like to address is the issue of organized
crime. The Reform Party has been pushing the government for many
years to take some immediate and urgent action to deal with
organized crime. More than half the crime in the nation is
related in some way to organized crime. An example of smuggling
people was raised earlier, which is attached to organized crime.
In many cases in British Columbia it is attached to Chinese
gangs.
We hardly heard anything from the government on the issue of how
to deal with organize crime. Again I ask the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to work with the Minister of Justice to call together
other nations in the world suffering from a similar problem to
develop a rules based method and a system of attacking organized
criminal syndicates which are multinational in nature.
Also on the issue of crime prevention I bring to the attention
of the minister the head start program, which is exceptionally
good at preventing crime, and the work of the National Crime
Prevention Council.
In closing, I compliment the member for Prince George—Peace
River for putting together Bill C-223. Members on the other side
mentioned that they were sympathetic toward it. We ask that the
government act and act now before more victims show up on our
doorstep.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
please to have the opportunity to address Bill C-223, an act to
amend the witness protection program. I acknowledge the
initiative of the member for Prince George—Peace River in
bringing the issue before the House for consideration.
The bill seeks to address the protection of spousal abuse
victims under the witness protection program. There is no doubt
that the victims of spousal abuse are in an extremely difficult
and sometimes even life threatening situation.
As all of us are aware most of the victims are women. Often
their children are involved as well. Addressing their needs and
ensuring their safety have involved many agencies in our
communities: government and social services, law enforcement, and
as voluntary and non-profit organizations.
While the federal government has an important role to play in
this regard, it is my view that the safety of victims of spousal
abuse will not be improved by going forward with the measures
under Bill C-223 at this time.
1410
In order to explain why Bill C-223 is not the right initiative
let me first say a few words about the Canadian witness
protection program. The program is managed by our national
police force, the RCMP. It has become an important weapon in the
law enforcement arsenal of investigative techniques. Its primary
use has been to protect witnesses who may be at risk because they
assisted with police investigations.
When it was formalized into legislation in 1996, it was enacted
as a federal government initiative in partnership with provincial
and territorial governments and law enforcement organizations to
combat organized crime. Historically witness protection programs
are most closely associated with the investigation of organized
crime. As most of us know, organized crime covers a broad range
of criminal activity, including large scale drug trafficking,
murder, serious assault, money laundering and extortion, and
robbery. As often as not, these crimes go hand in hand with the
use of fear and intimidation to ensure the silence of potential
witnesses and informants.
However, witness protection today has a broader application. A
disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and
intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go
to any length to avoid conviction or to extract retribution from
witnesses. As a consequence there are a growing number of people
who need protection as a result of their roles in cases that have
nothing to do with organized crime.
To deal with this growing need for witness and informant
protection in response to the increased enforcement priority
placed on fighting major national and international drug
trafficking organizations, the RCMP source witness protection
program was started in 1984. It was the forerunner of the
legislative program now in place.
The current program offers protective services to provincial and
municipal police forces across Canada. While many of these
police forces rely entirely on the RCMP for witness protection
services, some of the larger police departments also have their
own witness protection initiatives. Obviously not every witness
qualifies for witness protection despite numerous serious
assaults that take place in Canada each year. The RCMP and other
police forces must exercise care and good judgment when deciding
who is eligible for witness protection and who is not.
Over the years witness protection programs of the RCMP and other
police departments have become highly effective enforcement tools
against criminals who previously were able to use threats and
violence against witnesses as a means to avoid prosecution and
conviction. Witnesses and informants who assist the police are
an invaluable asset to the criminal justice system and in many
cases their testimony cannot be replaced by any other
investigative means.
This is especially true in drug enforcement. Here the
availability of the RCMP witness protection program has prompted
informants and witnesses to come forward to assist the police and
to testify in court against major national and international drug
traffickers. These witnesses have provided crucial firsthand
information to further investigations which otherwise would have
been obtained at considerable cost in police resources, human or
otherwise, or not at all.
Major police investigations often require the police to use a
wide variety of investigative techniques. A witness protection
program is one of the most sensitive of these techniques. Witness
protection is not a cure for violent crime or organized crime,
but it is an important tool that is being used for law
enforcement investigations, one that has been of major help to
police in fighting organized and serious crime in Canada. For
that reason I do not think the special needs of the victims of
family violence would best be addressed by simply tacking spousal
safety measures on to this law enforcement program as suggested
by Bill C-223.
Family violence is more than just a law enforcement issue. While
enforcement certainly plays a role in addressing the problem,
family violence is a problem that Canadians have also addressed
through social services such as counselling to ensure the
well-being of spousal abuse victims and their families. A
response of this kind is not within the normal domain of a police
administered witness protection program.
The federal government currently addresses family violence
through a number of programs in place. In addition, the national
strategy on community safety and crime prevention has funded
several community programs to address the problem. The federal
government has renewed its commitment to reduce family violence
in Canada. The family violence initiative promotes public
awareness of the risk factors of family violence and the need for
public involvement in responding to it.
The initiative has strengthened the ability of the criminal
justice system and the housing system to respond. It supports
data collection and research and evaluation efforts to identify
effective interventions. It is an initiative that marks a new
stage in federal efforts to reduce family violence. The issue of
family violence has been integrated into ongoing programs in many
government departments. We have learned that the best way to
address family violence is to support a common vision and a
co-ordinated approach.
1415
This does not mean, of course, that we can ignore the very real
security issues that arise in spousal abuse situations. These
issues must be addressed as part of a co-ordinated approach.
I am pleased to say that there is, in fact, a national
initiative in place to assist certain spousal abuse victims. It
has been developed with provincial and territorial partners under
the leadership and co-ordination of Human Resources Development
Canada. The initiative is called the “New Identities Program”
and it is for victims of life threatening relationships.
This initiative allows a chance for abused spouses and their
children to start new lives in greater safety and security.
Various measures taken under this process are designed to help
remove those at risk from the access of their abusers and to
ensure that their safety and security is maintained. It is, of
course, a measure of last resort, since removal of the victims
can create hardships on the victims themselves. It is only used
in exceptional cases where other safety measures have been or
will be inadequate.
Our present day responses to spousal abuse can always be
improved, but I believe that the specific measures under Bill
C-223 are not the best way to do this. While the proposals in
Bill C-223 may appear to offer a response to the immediate
security concerns of spousal abuse victims, it may not best serve
their interests when there are other more appropriate and viable
alternatives possible. These alternatives, which build on what
is already in place, must be pursued.
Among the possible alternatives is that some future connection
to the witness protection program may be considered. However,
the various alternatives must be fully evaluated together and
should be allowed to evolve out of the current spousal security
measures.
We should not predetermine a single choice and implement it
through an unco-ordinated mingling of different initiatives. Let
us not forget the role of the provinces and territories in this
matter. Providing support for victims of family violence
includes important elements falling under provincial
jurisdiction.
Provincial consultation and co-ordination are absolutely vital
to the success of additional efforts in this area. Of course, we
also cannot forget the needs and concerns of those who would be
directly affected, the family violence victims themselves.
Establishing a new identity is only part of the solution and it
cannot be considered separately from other needs.
Human Resources Development Canada is taking steps to improve
the new identities program. It has established a working group
that includes the provinces and territories to examine possible
changes and suggested improvements in consultation with victims'
groups.
The federal government is seeking to improve Canada's response
to family violence. We do that through our family violence
initiative. We do it through our national strategy on community
safety and crime prevention and we do it through what Human
Resources Development Canada is doing right now.
I believe our best option is to let existing programs and
processes continue their excellent work. We should support those
efforts currently under way.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government
talks about these interesting programs. It is interesting that
the Liberals have shown such concern for children in the Speech
from the Throne. It is interesting that the government professes
to be so concerned about women's issues.
Yet, we heard the government member say “Let the programs do
their job. They are working well”. I would suggest that they
are not working well because people do not even know these
programs exist.
There were three issues that surprised me when I became a member
of parliament six years ago which concern the number of
individuals who have issues they cannot deal with and who have no
idea where to go.
The first issue was that when people are being harassed and
threatened by Revenue Canada, they have no idea how to fight the
taxman. It is very difficult for most Canadians to use the very
expensive court process and legal process to fight their own
government.
The second issue was the number of concerned fathers who came to
my office because they had lost access to their children. The
courts would not recognize that they had any right to continue to
be fathers and to have access to their children.
The third issue was the number of women who came into my office
with horrific examples of what they had to put up with, and there
was no protection for them from spousal abuse. A number of women
had tried to use the legal process. A number of women had gone
to court to get restraining orders. They found, usually through
a violent episode, that restraining orders really do not mean a
whole lot. Those restraining orders do not allow anybody to
protect them from somebody physically threatening their life or
abusing them physically.
1420
The courts are not in a position through restraining orders to
deal with this. The police are not in a position through
restraining orders to deal with this. There is nothing in
legislation that gives the courts or the police a way to offer
these women and children a way out.
I am sure that I do not stand alone as a member of parliament in
having these women and fathers come into my office. Some of the
situations that the women find themselves in are horrific. One
woman came in who had been stabbed seven times by her previous
spouse. The court would not find that it was attempted murder.
He was charged and convicted of assault. She could not even have
him incarcerated for a long period of time to give her some
freedom from worrying about her life and the lives of her
children, because it was becoming threatening to them as well.
I do not know how many members of the House have heard stories
of women who are trying to remove themselves from these
situations, who are trying to find safe havens. Having gone on a
ride along with the RCMP I know they do their best in driving by
these safe homes for women, the hostels that are set up so that
women have a place to go when they leave their homes. They have
to find safe havens for themselves and their children in
circumstances of abuse. I know that the police try their best.
However, in Montreal an ex-spouse actually went into a hostel,
into a women's shelter, and shot his wife dead, so even those
shelters cannot provide a safe haven for women who are afraid for
their lives.
We had an incident in Vernon, B.C. where a spouse not only
murdered his wife, but her whole family. I believe there were
seven or eight people whom he managed to wipe out in that one
event.
I have to ask myself why the government cannot see that until we
have specific legislation that the courts can refer to, that the
police community can refer to, there will not and cannot be a
safe haven for women who are trying to remove themselves from
this constant threat of violence.
Can a government that professes to be so concerned about the
children of Canada not realize that with these women are usually
children, children who may have been abused by their fathers or
mothers, and if not abused then they are certainly part of this
threat of violence to their mothers, this threat of death to
their mothers? These children are being uprooted and moved from
community to community. They cannot stay in the same school for
any length of time. They cannot keep the same friends. They may
not even be allowed to have an association with their extended
families. They live in a constant state of fear and mobility.
For a government that is so concerned about the welfare of the
children of this country, we would think that it would see the
need to have some statutory protection, some vehicle by which the
courts and the police community could direct women who are in
such fear for their lives.
This is not something that women would do or that families would
do for a lark. For people to give up their security within a
family unit must be very, very hard indeed. They give up the
stability of that history. They do not have a background to fall
back on. They give up their identity. For people to give up
these things for long periods of time cannot be easy.
This is not something that would be abused. This is something
that would be used as a very last resort by persons who have no
other options.
1425
I do not see why it should be so daunting for the government to
consider a legislative remedy to protect women and children.
Perhaps some men might be in the same position, but I think we
all recognize that the majority of people who may find themselves
in this position are women and possibly the children with them. I
am sure that most members in the House have examples to support
why this bill is badly needed by society.
As in most cases, the government is reluctant to take a bold
step forward. It says that we cannot use the witness protection
program because it is outside the limits and because witness
protection is used to further the investigative arm of the police
department. Why can that not be changed?
Why can the aspect of protection programs not be expanded to
recognize that there are more people in society who may need
protection, who may need identity changes and the start of a new
life than people who are going to be ratting on someone in a
court of law? Why can it not be expanded? The government has
expanded other legislation to broaden its dimensions. Why can
the legislation not be broadened?
We have heard that the government feels that the program, which
is a joint program between the Minister of Finance and, I
believe, human resources, is working just fine. I suggest that
it is not working just fine. Most women who are afraid for their
lives do not know about the program. How are they supposed to
find out about it? The police do not even know about it.
I have talked to the prosecutor's office in Surrey. There are
working groups that are trying to deal with this issue. I do not
recall hearing this program mentioned.
The people who are trying to find an answer for women who are in
distress and who are looking for a safe haven do not know about
the program and the police departments are not aware of it.
Therefore how can they refer families to it? How can the people
who are looking for answers and help know about it?
If the government is serious about protecting the children and
women who are fearful for their lives, then the government has
the responsibility to do something about it. And it should not
just study it for another 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will use the two minutes remaining to quickly clarify some of the
things that were spoken about this afternoon.
There has been some discussion about whether or not we need this
bill. Let me clarify what the hon. member from Prince George is
attempting to to with the bill.
This bill on the RCMP witness protection program serves as a
last ditch safety net for spouses in cases where counselling and
criminal law measures have proved ineffective, with the result
that their very lives are in danger. Special protection is
allowed for witnesses who are in jeopardy because of involvement
in police activity but interestingly enough, we do not have any
vehicle for spouses to access that same protection. We can
protect witnesses but not spouses who are subject to violent
abuse. The addition in this bill would allow spouses to access
that kind of protection.
I appeal to the House. We have heard some people say that we do
need this bill and others say we do not need it. Clearly we do
need it and I support the bill. The best thing we can do when
this comes to a vote, which it will, is to pass the bill, get it
into committee and get this clarified so that we do not leave the
door open for more harm and damage to families and spouses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Centre will have approximately eight minutes when next
the bill comes to the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)