36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 89
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 3, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| FRIENDLY GIANT
|
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| WALTER F. COOK
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| RESERVISTS
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1405
| LITERACY
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| WILLIAM HEAD INSTITUTE
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| SALON DU LIVRE DE TROIS-RIVIÈRES
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1410
| RESERVE FORCE UNIFORM DAY
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| FRIENDLY GIANT
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| STUDENT EXCHANGE
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| HOLLAND
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1415
| WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| JEAN-NOËL GROLEAU FARM
|
| Mr. David Price |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1435
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1440
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| COUNCIL ON CANADIAN UNITY
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1505
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1510
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| United Nations
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Voyage of Leif Ericsson
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1515
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Alternative Energy
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1520
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 1
|
1525
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1530
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1535
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1540
1545
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1550
1555
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motions Nos. 2 to 7
|
1600
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1620
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Motion
|
1710
(Division 1279)
| Motion negatived
|
1715
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Amendment
|
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-451. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1735
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1740
1745
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1750
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1755
1800
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1805
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1810
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1815
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1820
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 89
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 3, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and the choir of mixed parties will be led by the
hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FRIENDLY GIANT
Hon. Christine Stewart (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians I wish to offer my
condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Bob Homme, Canada's
Friendly Giant, who passed away yesterday at his home in Grafton,
Ontario in my constituency of Northumberland.
For almost 30 years, beginning in 1958 and extending into the
mid-1980s, the Friendly Giant was a fixture on CBC
television. Mr. Homme was not only the star of the show but also
its creative force. Over this period, during which more than
3,000 episodes were produced, Mr. Homme's character along with
his trusty companions, Jerome the Giraffe and Rusty the Rooster,
established an enduring bond with generations of Canadian
children. Enchanting them with the wonder of books and music, my
own three children, Doug, John and Cathy, like so many others,
considered the Friendly Giant their favourite TV
entertainment.
In 1998 the Order of Canada was awarded to Mr. Homme in
recognition of these unique and significant accomplishments. He
will be sadly missed but always fondly remembered.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, over the years billions—that is
right, billions—of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted
subsidizing VIA Rail.
Given these billions squandered by VIA, let me ask this not of
the minister but of the taxpayers: What benefit have they, their
families, their towns or their regions ever received from these
billions of dollars in spending, or more important, how could
this money have been better spent?
The minister claims that the private sector is not interested in
VIA so the subsidies are necessary. I believe the private sector
is interested and I offer this challenge to the minister. If I
can get expressions of interest from the private sector operators
to take over VIA Rail without taxpayer subsidies, will he commit
to direct the transport committee to review the potential of
their interest?
Millions of Canadians who have just sent in their tax returns
want to know if the government is spending their money
responsibly.
If the minister continues to subsidize VIA by almost $750,000 a
day when it can be run by the private sector without cost to the
taxpayer, Canadians will have their answer.
* * *
WALTER F. COOK
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great sadness and regret that I inform the members of
the House that Walter F. Cook of New Hamburg, Ontario passed away
suddenly at his residence on April 27, 2000.
A community leader, Mr. Cook devoted himself to his local
business, his church and his government. He owned and operated
Cook's Pharmacy in New Hamburg and Wellesley. He committed
himself to the Trinity Lutheran Church and represented New
Hamburg on the Wilmot Township Council. Mr. Cook was also a
veteran serving Canada in World War II.
Mr. Cook is remembered by his beloved wife, Audrey E. Cook, his
children and his grandchildren and will be dearly missed by all
members of our community.
* * *
[Translation]
RESERVISTS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to our country's devoted reservists.
Today, reservists across Canada are setting aside their usual
cover of anonymity and wearing their uniform to work or school
in order to show their pride in serving their country. Their
employers, their teachers and the public will also have an
opportunity to show their support in return.
These men and women are essential to the vitality of these
illustrious Canadian units.
They have served and continue to serve their country with
distinction.
Members of the Primary Reserve, who wear the uniform of the
army, the navy and the air force, can be proud of the services
they have rendered, both in Canada and abroad, as well as in
relief operations in disaster areas.
1405
Other reservists are cadet instructors and work with young
Canadians in over 1,100 communities. And the Canadian Rangers
ensure an essential military presence in our remote northern
regions.
On behalf of all members, I thank Canada's reservists, who serve
our country with distinction, devotion and pride.
* * *
[English]
LITERACY
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to pay tribute to the 20 Corrections Canada teachers from
British Columbia who are visiting the House this afternoon. These
teachers play a vital role in the important work being done by
Corrections Canada every day.
These dedicated professionals are here in Ottawa for the
Literacy 2000 conference which is co-sponsored by Corrections
Canada and U.S. Corrections.
The success of literacy programs is best illustrated by the
success of learners. The many people who have taken advantage of
the opportunities provided to improve their reading, writing and
numeracy skills have taken advantage of an opportunity to
dramatically change their lives.
The ability to read and write is essential in our own personal
development. I applaud these Corrections Canada teachers and
their efforts to meet the needs of undereducated adults and to
encourage them to strive to meet their goals.
* * *
WILLIAM HEAD INSTITUTE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of inmates learning a trade but the
learning at William Head Institute in Victoria has been taken a
little too far.
Inmates at the facility are encouraged to learn carving,
woodworking and even a little welding. However, some inmates
have decided to combine these activities and become boat
builders. This would not be a bad thing if it were a prairie
prison surrounded by only seas of blowing wheat but the institute
is surrounded on three sides by water. This makes a boat
building enterprise a very practical decision for an inmate with
a little ingenuity.
Now I am no Mark Twain and this is not the story of Huck Finn,
but believe it or not, it is true. A career criminal went on a
crime spree after sailing away from William Head Institute. Even
the court judge who sentenced the recaptured inmate to an
additional 10 years was curious how an inmate could be allowed to
build a raft.
To be fair to the warden, I believe him when he says they do not
have a boat building program at the institute. That would be
foolhardy and we all know that Corrections Canada would never do
anything that is foolhardy.
Maybe the warden should take a walk down to the shop to make
sure the inmates are not making speedboats for an even faster
getaway.
* * *
POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to celebrate constitution day with the
people of Poland and Polish Canadians.
May 3 marks the 209th anniversary of Poland's constitution. The
constitution of 1791 was the first liberal constitution in Europe
and the second in the world.
The philosophies of humanitarianism and tolerance are present
throughout the constitution. These include the right to rule by
majority, secret ballots at all elections, as well as religious
freedom and liberty for all people. This constitution founded a
government called the guardian of laws, established a
constitutional monarchy and introduced the principle of
ministerial responsibility to the parliament. In terms of
democratic precepts, this constitution is a landmark in the
history of central and eastern Europe.
Solidarity honoured the memory of the bill on government
following the parliamentary elections of June 1989. On April 6,
1990, the parliament re-established the May 3rd constitution day
which is celebrated today around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
SALON DU LIVRE DE TROIS-RIVIÈRES
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend marked the Mauricie region's 12th Salon du livre de
Trois-Rivières, another remarkable literary and cultural success.
The event, which this year attracted more than 225 authors and
writers, some of them even coming from other countries, is
making a name for itself throughout Quebec as a prestigious
showcase for local and international literary talent.
The Salon was the perfect opportunity to organize a Semaine du
livre in some 25 schools in the Mauricie and central Quebec
regions and, during the first part of the Salon, the spotlight
was on 3,000 young people to whom the organizers had issued
invitations.
This is an event which quite rightly enjoys broad public support
and, on behalf of the community, I wish to offer Johanne
Gaudreau's entire team of volunteers my sincerest—
The Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
* * *
1410
[English]
RESERVE FORCE UNIFORM DAY
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is Reserve Force Uniform Day. Reservists throughout the
country are wearing their uniforms with pride to their places of
civilian work or study.
Our reservists come from virtually every segment of Canadian
society. Although from different backgrounds, they have one
thing in common: their love of Canada and commitment to military
service.
Canada's reserve units are located throughout the nation and
foster national unity. In my city of London, Ontario we have
four units, the 1st Hussars, the 4th Battalion, Royal Canadian
Regiment, the 22nd Service Battalion and HMCS Prevost.
Reservists have played a vital role in the defence of Canada.
From pre-Confederation to today, reservists have served with
courage and distinction. Today our reserve forces are
participating in peacekeeping missions throughout the world and
have recently provided assistance during national emergencies
here in Canada.
Please join with me in saluting Canada's outstanding citizen
soldiers.
* * *
FRIENDLY GIANT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise in the House
today to pay tribute to a Canadian cultural institution.
Canadians were saddened at the news of the passing of the
Friendly Giant. I express my appreciation and admiration for a
man who meant so much to the lives of young Canadians.
Bob Homme created the Friendly Giant in 1953 for American
radio. The show was quickly brought to Canada by the CBC and
began an amazing run beginning in 1958, ending when Homme retired
in 1985.
Who could forget the characters that meshed with the Friendly
Giant: Rusty the Rooster and Jerome the Giraffe. We all recall
being asked to enter the giant's castle with the infamous series
of chairs including the rocking chair in the middle.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the drawbridge has long been raised on a
program that encouraged kids across the land to read, to think
and to dream. To quote Bob Homme, the Friendly Giant, I ask
members of the House to look up, look way, way up, and say thank
you and God bless.
* * *
STUDENT EXCHANGE
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to welcome to Ottawa a group of students from
Attaguttaaluk High School, Igloolik, Nunavut.
These students from my riding are on their way to Winnipeg to
visit the Manitoba students who visited Igloolik recently where
they learned how to build igloos, travelled by dog team and
visited the floe edge seal hunting.
I would like to congratulate these young students for their
extensive fundraising activities which helped to make their trip
occur.
I would also like to thank the YMCA Visions Youth Exchange
Program which is funded by Open House Canada under Heritage
Canada for helping to make such an exchange trip possible.
I believe that visiting other regions of Canada helps us to
understand the uniqueness of other areas and brings us all closer
together from sea to sea to sea.
Mutna. Thank you.
* * *
HOLLAND
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand
on behalf of my deceased father, my mother, my oldest brother and
the rest of us who were born in Holland as the celebrations for
the 55th anniversary of the liberation of Holland are happening
now.
Many of our war veterans and their families, and the currently
serving military as well as the reserves, are over in Holland
right now celebrating with the Dutch people the great victory of
the allied forces and that of the Canadian liberators.
Again, it comes from the heart when I say as a Dutch-born
Canadian how truly proud I am that my father chose Canada. He
once said to me, “If they have a military like that, imagine
what kind of country they have”.
On behalf of all Dutch Canadians, the New Democratic Party would
like to say to all veterans, their families, the current
military, the reserves and the Parliament of Canada, thank you
once again for the liberation of our country and God bless each
and every one of you.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
World Press Freedom Day, the Bloc Quebecois wants to stress the
crucial importance of this fundamental freedom for the
preservation of democracy.
The freedom of the press is an essential rampart against abuse
of all kinds. The press is the public's guiding light and a
vital source of information that influences society's choices.
Therefore, no one can question the freedom of the press.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois wants to acknowledge the work of the
members of the press gallery who report daily on what goes on in
parliament, in a difficult context. Working in both official
languages, they must read reports in record time and, on any
given day, their schedule may be disrupted one, twice or even
three times.
Given the complexity of their role and deadlines that are seldom
conducive to producing the rigorous work that is required of
them, and in spite of the fact that we sometimes have our
differences, the Bloc Quebecois wants to express its
appreciation for the work and efforts of the press gallery
members.
* * *
1415
[English]
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression is celebrating World
Press Freedom Day. One of the hallmarks of a civilized society
is the encouragement of public debate. As we all know and
sometimes take for granted, an essential agent in this democratic
process is the free press. In countries in turmoil where a free
press is most needed many journalists are forced to put their
lives in jeopardy.
To mark World Press Freedom Day, the first National Press Club
press freedom award will be presented to a journalist who has
contributed to the cause of press freedom. Also today
Journalists in Exile, a group of journalists from Burundi, Iran,
Serbia, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka, is gathering at Ryerson
University to share its experiences and promote this worthy
cause.
On behalf of members of the House I offer my gratitude as well
as my personal admiration to those individuals who fight to
maintain freedom of the press, especially where it is most
threatened. We owe them a great debt.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-NOËL GROLEAU FARM
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, today, I am
pleased to congratulate Diane Beaulieu and Jean-Noël Groleau,
whose farm operation in Compton received ISO 14001
certification.
This farm is at the top when it comes to protecting the
environment. It uses a unique technique in milk production,
which takes into account current environmental concerns, while
maintaining above average production levels.
I also want to mention the success of La Framboisière de
l'Estrie.
This organization also showed environmental management
leadership in the agricultural sector. I am proud to have people
in my riding who are innovative and resourceful, and who are not
afraid to take action.
Jean-Noël Groleau's farm makes a concrete contribution to the
promotion of safe farming operations.
Again, congratulations to the farm operated by Mrs. Beaulieu
and Mr. Groleau.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the $1 billion bungle was
discovered over at HRD the minister crowed about how her little
six point plan would save the day. It turns out that her plan
went six points to no place according to her own independent
appraisers.
Deloitte & Touche reviewed that plan and gave it a failing
grade. Why did she pretend that this plan would work when she
was told by the experts that it would fail?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the hon. member is at
least a day late. If she had been her yesterday, as we made
clear, Deloitte & Touche received the audit plan in the first
draft. We paid them to look at it, to make recommendations, and
they did.
If she had been here or maybe at the committee yesterday, she
would have heard what they actually said, which was and I quote—
The Speaker: Order, please. We should not mention
whether a member was here or is here.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was around enough to know that
Deloitte & Touche made a recommendation on February 2 and there
were no substantive changes in the minister's six point plan.
The report was dated February 2. They said they had serious
concerns about it. On February 8 she stood in the House after no
substantive changes to the six point plan and said “I am going
to save the day”.
That simply is not true and I would like to repeat my question
to the minister. Why did she brag about this when the very
company she hired showed that it had serious concerns?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I bragged about it because indeed we took
the recommendations of this company and implemented them.
Yesterday in committee, and I quote, Deloitte & Touche stated:
Again let us remember that the auditor general said this was an
extraordinary response to an extraordinary circumstance.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this minister knows she created
those extraordinary circumstances. She just said that Deloitte &
Touche said “my understanding is that the minister has taken the
recommendation”. She never even gave them the decency of giving
it back to them to read and make any recommendations on.
It is just great to sit there and laugh it off, but this was $1
billion that Canadian taxpayers are pretty darned concerned
about. The minister has had the gall to stand in the House and
say that everything is fine.
How can she stand here and tell the House that the plan is
working when people across the country know that it is a doomed
failure?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. In fact, Deloitte &
Touche said that we had a good short term plan and Deloitte &
Touche gave us recommendations on how to make it better for the
longer term.
We implemented those plans. We have added aspects of training
and we have added aspects focusing on accountability. We have
ensured that senior management know what their roles are and what
accountable role they will have to play.
We have a plan that will work. Men and women across the country
are implementing this plan day and night because they believe in
providing good service to the taxpayer. We will do it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is what happened. In January
the minister was caught in a billion dollar boondoggle. Instead
of resigning, she waved around a six point plan that was supposed
to fix everything.
She used words in the House to imply that Deloitte & Touche had
endorsed her plan. Now we find out that Deloitte & Touche
actually gave the minister's plan a failing grade. Why did the
minister hide the fact that Deloitte & Touche had advised her
that her plan was inadequate?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try again.
An hon. member: Slowly, slowly.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Very slowly, as my colleague suggests.
We put together a plan. What we felt was appropriate to do was
to test this plan with outside experts, the auditor general,
Deloitte & Touche, and the advisory committee to treasury board.
They all gave us recommendations and we implemented those
recommendations to tighten our plan.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, right from day one in January the
minister pretended that her plan was the right plan, a good plan,
no problems with her plan.
She never once told Canadians or the House “oops, this plan
wasn't so good. We actually had to come up with a better one
later”. She has never ever said that. Instead she chose to
hide the Deloitte & Touche report and maintain all along that her
plan was just great from day one. Why was safeguarding her own
image more important to her than really safeguarding taxpayer
money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I presented to the standing committee the
six point plan back in February. I suggested to all members if
they had advice to give us to strengthen that plan that they do
so.
I have not had one recommendation from that party to strengthen
the plan because it is amended and it is working. We are making
and taking corrective action in my department.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Placeteco is a good example of everything that ought not to be
done in a case when public funds are invested.
The minister says that the mistakes made were honest ones. I am
willing to believe her, and the proof that the funds were really
awarded properly and in accordance with the rules is that she
has the invoices.
I am asking her this: Why will she not make the invoices public?
It would be easy and we might then understand. Can she make
public the invoices establishing that the funds were really
awarded properly and in accordance with the rules?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to
mistakes. I would like to clarify something from yesterday.
Yesterday this member said that he had received on Monday
documentation on this company from the ATIP section of my
department. I would like to clarify that my officials have
advised me that in fact no such documentation was issued
yesterday, the day before that, the week before that, or even the
month before that. Was that a mistake?
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Jane is in trouble.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I, for one, can admit that I made a mistake.
We had the documents the day before yesterday. We have the
complete file. We got it through access to information, as and
she should know, with the numbers and the vouchers but there are
no invoices in it. We submitted another request asking
specifically for the invoices and we have been waiting over a
month. She should be aware of that too.
1425
I wonder why invoices were missing when we got the file from
access to information. The Méribec file came from her department
and is in the Prime Minister's riding. Is it because there are
none?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about a
particular access to information request. If he would like to
bring that forward we will look at it more, but I can tell him
that there has been no information on this particular file that
has gone out through access to information yesterday or the day
before.
Let us be clear about access to information. This is an act of
this House, as is the Privacy Act. I make no decisions on the
information that is conveyed to requesters. The hon. member
knows that. I would suggest to him that it is and does remain
the responsible way to provide information on private paperwork
of citizens in this country, using the acts that have been passed
by the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
will shortly be releasing to journalists the entire Placeteco
file obtained through access to information and we will see who
is right. Perhaps she should ask her officials to get down to
work like everyone else.
If she wants the application we made on March 23 to access to
information, there is another one concerning the invoices.
Could she tell us whether she has the infamous invoices?
Instead of playing cat and mouse, she should table the invoices,
because everything indicates that there are none and that we are
not exactly being told the truth here.
The Speaker: I think we are getting close to words that are
unparliamentary.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask all members to be very
careful in their choice of words.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with requesters responding to access
requests, as I have made clear to the House, my department has
been deluged by those requests. We have more this year than we
had in the whole of last year. We have issued 115,000 pages of
information, and we will respond to that particular request.
Again I say that when we are talking about information on
companies here in the country or on individuals in the country,
the responsible and appropriate way to make that information
public is through the access to information process. As the
member knows, I have no decision making authority in what
information is conveyed. What can be conveyed will be conveyed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a bit surprising that in 10,000 pages, when we have been after
the invoices for a year, there are no invoices to be found in
the case of Placeteco, and yet they appear in other files.
I will chose my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask
that she not select the invoices. She should give us the ones
for Placeteco, not the ones for Globax or Technipaint. What we
want from her are the ones from Placeteco, because Placeteco got
a grant. That seems clear to me.
This is being discussed everywhere. If she is still not aware
of the fact, she has a lot of problems, this minister.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I feel very comfortable
in this particular file. We have reviewed it. We have
identified that we have invoices. That is confirmed and are
appropriate under the terms and conditions of the program.
I feel very comfortable in our six point plan and the work of my
department to build a modern system of comptrollership that will
respond to the taxpayer in an appropriate way.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the members to lower
their voices when a minister or someone else is answering
questions, or when questions are being put.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the
Prime Minister cited the five principles of medicare. I want to
give the Prime Minister a chance to exceed expectations. Could
the Prime Minister stand in his place and name the five
principles of medicare?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the hon. member opposite, this Prime Minister was in this
House when those five principles were put into law. Unlike that
member, this Prime Minister does not just talk about the five
principles of medicare, he acts to protect them. This is the
first government in the history of this country that has used the
power under the Canada Health Act—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I guess
we will never know for sure if he can name them but we do know he
is not standing up for them.
Recently the health minister stated in the House that Alberta's
bill to Americanize health care should be withdrawn. Along with
most Canadians, I agree with that point of view. However, the
reality is that bill 11 is being rammed through anyway.
Health care is the number one public policy concern in this
country yet this government has rendered itself utterly impotent
to stand up to it.
Now that we know exactly what is in bill 11, has the government
prepared a response and, if so, is it ready to share it with
Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I suppose we can explain the NDP leader's interest with the five
principles of the Canada Health Act because that is five more
principles than the NDP has on this issue.
As to bill 11, let me say to the House that we have made it
clear from the beginning that we intend to respect the principles
of the Canada Health Act. If bill 11 does not comply with the
principles of the Canada Health Act, we will do what is required
to exercise the federal response in such a situation.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Transelec, a Laval company, gave $5,000 to the Prime
Minister's election campaign in 1993 and another $10,000 in 1997.
It also gave $28,000 to the Liberal Party; a total of $43,000.
Shortly after the 1997 election, Transelec received untendered
public contracts for $27,000 and a CIDA contract worth $6.3
million. Since the election the company has evaporated. It has
no listed phone number for the company or its owner Claude
Gauthier.
Will the government call in the auditor general to investigate
this highly questionable use of taxpayer money?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously under Canada's
election laws all contributions made to political parties,
including the hon. member's party across, if there are still
people giving to that party, or to any other political party
represented in the House or not represented in the House, are a
matter of public record if the transaction in question is over
and above $100 in any calendar year. That is not a secret. It
is public information.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, once again a complete non-answer from the government
side.
In 1997 the former public works minister and defeated Liberal
candidate, David Dingwall, raised $20,300 in donations from
companies that received public works contracts; one-third of his
campaign budget. These same companies turned around and received
a total of $1.5 million in untendered contracts. That is a
pretty good return.
Will the minister call in the auditor general, which he can do
under section 11, to investigate these untendered contracts?
First there was HRDC and now we have the same shenanigans going
on in public works.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe I should
remind the hon. member that when his party was in power only 50%
of the contracts were tendered. Before he stands up he should
look at himself in the mirror.
* * *
1435
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, a February 2 analysis by Deloitte & Touche said that
there were flaws all through the minister's six point plan. That
was the last time that they commented on the plan according to
their appearance before the parliamentary committee yesterday.
Yet on February 8 the minister gave a prepared speech in the
House that was clearly calculated to leave people with the
impression that Deloitte & Touche had actually endorsed the plan.
That was simply not the case, and the minister knew it. She
repeated the same thing yesterday.
Why did the minister stand up in parliament and imply that
Deloitte & Touche had endorsed her six point plan when she knew
that was not true?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish that you would stay
away from things being true or untrue. I ask you to be very
judicious in your choice of words.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Deloitte & Touche suggested was that
we needed to have greater cohesiveness in our program in order to
orchestrate the various actions of the program.
What did we do? We actually put together a grants and
contributions team, a team focused on this. They asked us to
make an assurance that the funds being transferred were
transferred in accordance with program requirements. We made
sure that senior executives were making the final sign-off on
those transfer terms.
What did they say we should do? They said that we should make
sure we address the root causes of the audit findings. We are
doing a number of things in that regard, making sure employees
have training and we are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is getting to the point where we have to pull apart
every word that this minister utters to see if there is not some
kind of double meaning to it. Being straight with people is
always the best policy, something she should have learned when
she was a little girl.
The fact is that Deloitte & Touche found gaping holes in her six
point plan, and she knows that. Why did the minister try to hide
that fact from Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be straight with the Canadian
public. Let us be straight with the facts, that on this side of
the House we take administration very seriously.
We are going to have an administration of grants and
contributions that will be second to none. As well as being
straight with the Canadian public, on this side of the House we
believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in
ensuring that those in need, Canadians with disabilities, young
people who cannot get jobs and communities that have not been
able to engage in our great economy, get the help they need
because that is the right thing to do.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given that air transportation in Canada is dominated by Air
Canada, the small regional carriers are finding it impossible to
compete with Air Canada's affiliates.
Does the minister feel that Bill C-26 provides enough protection
to the small regional carriers, given the difficulties they are
currently facing?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have consistently said that the faster we get
Bill C-26 passed by the House and the Senate the better it is for
the protection of all Canadian consumers who use the air mode of
travel. I believe that Bill C-26 does give those guarantees.
However, the hon. member is a member of the Standing Committee
on Transport. If he has concrete suggestions on how we can
improve that protection, then he should bring forward amendments
and we will consider them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the same vein, is the minister prepared to include in his
bill the amendments required to oblige Air Canada to provide
basic service to the small carriers operating in the regions of
Quebec?
Is he prepared to support such amendments?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the agreement negotiated between the commissioner of
competition and Air Canada gives guarantees to Canadians to be
served from coast to coast, those communities that were formerly
served by Canadian Airlines. The spirit of that particular
agreement is contained in the bill and that is that Air Canada
has to be fair and cannot abuse its dominant position. This
government will make sure it does not.
* * *
1440
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, here is some more criticism from the Deloitte & Touche
report which did not endorse the six point plan. It said “The
leadership, responsibility and accountability needs to be
identified”. According to the HRDC audit, the $1 billion was
bungled in the first place precisely because of a lack of
leadership, responsibility and accountability.
Why did the minister learn nothing from her own department's
audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leadership that my department has
shown in this regard is absolutely clear. First and foremost, it
was an internal audit that identified the problems.
Second, it was because of myself and the department that the
audit became public.
Third, a plan of action has been written up and is now being
implemented. The men and women across this country, even in the
riding of the hon. member, are working day and night to implement
these changes.
From our point of view, the grants and contributions of this
government and the contributions it makes to improving the lives
of Canadians is worth every effort that we are making and we will
continue to make.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here is a section of the Deloitte & Touche report
which fell short of endorsing that six point plan. I think this
should frighten taxpayers. It says “The draft plan does not
clearly assign leadership and responsibility, does not clearly
assign to specific individuals the actions they are responsible
for, does not establish time lines, deliverables and milestones,
does not identify the systems and practices needed to monitor
progress”. In other words, the six point plan does exactly the
same thing as what bungled the $1 billion in the first place. If
she cannot convince Deloitte & Touche, how can she—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe if the hon. member would quit
reading the draft and read what is actually the final product, he
would see that we did indeed address and assign authorities and
responsibilities.
The department, at the most senior levels, has engaged in this
process. Senior executives know exactly what their role and
responsibility is. The men and women of the department know
where they need to make changes and they are doing so.
Again I point out that on this side of the House we know how
important these grants and contributions are and that is why we
are making every effort to improve—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portneuf.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL ON CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
told us that the minister had changed her mind and had decided
to order an audit of grants by her department to the Council on
Canadian Unity.
Could the minister tell us what programs and what period will be
covered by the audit, and when the House will have access to the
report?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, programs are audited every year. I have with me a copy
of an audit of the Council on Canadian Unity made by Ernst &
Young this year, and the same was done last year, the year
before and so on. These audits go back to 1988, when Lucien
Bouchard was the minister. Nothing has changed.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that allegations of fraud have led the Ottawa-Carleton
police to investigate the Council on Canadian Unity. She also
knows that $4.8 million disappeared, through the council, right
in the middle of the referendum campaign.
Will these issues be covered by the minister's investigation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to stress the work done by the Council on
Canadian Unity. I have with me a letter dated October 11, 1988,
which refers to a new program.
[English]
Mr. Michael Meighen also wrote to me about the council's work in
this area, as well as your new national program to raise public
awareness of our identity as a nation.
I appreciate the council's support for a strong national vision
and look forward to hearing more about your plans.
Yours sincerely,
Lucien Bouchard
* * *
1445
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Health proposed funding programs not
covered by the Canada Health Act. This obviously encroaches on
provincial jurisdiction for the delivery of services.
The health minister just does not get it. How can he justify
this blatant attack on the provinces when the government does not
even cover its share of basic core service funding?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member and his party are obviously afraid of discussing new
ideas. That is a pity. We will continue to talk about new ideas
over here to improve access to health care for Canadians.
I guess there are some ideas over there. One of his colleagues
in that party is running for the leadership of the Alliance and
he says that we should go to the American style of two-tiered
medicine. That is one idea we will never buy over here.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we already have a destroyed Canada Health Act, so I do
not know how the minister can stand and say that he is the
defender of health care in this country.
The fact really is that in the last federal budget there was
$2.5 billion over four years for CHST funding. Ontario alone has
added $5.3 billion to health care.
If the government is serious about supporting reforms to the
health care system, why will it not at least respect the
jurisdiction of the provinces and—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in each of the last four budgets the federal government
has increased transfers to the provinces.
Last year the largest single expenditure of the government in
its history was for health care. We have increased transfers for
health care by over 25% in the last two years.
The bulk of the increase in funding provided by the Ontario
government for health care came from the federal government.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before
yesterday, the Minister of Labour said she was prepared to sit
down with her Quebec counterpart and discuss the issue of
preventive withdrawal from the workplace for pregnant workers.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois introduced a motion to correct a
situation arising from the provisions of the Canada Labour Code
that was unfair to pregnant workers and the Liberal Party, then
in opposition, unanimously supported the motion.
Is the minister prepared to take up this motion herself, move it
and have it agreed to as soon as possible, so that this unfair
situation becomes a thing of the past?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have already said, I am prepared to meet with any of
Canada's provincial labour ministers, and do so regularly.
In response to the hon. member's question, part II of the Canada
Labour Code has passed second reading and is expected to become
law before the summer. There is also an agreement to meet with
employees and employers with respect to part III.
The Liberal Party wants to ensure that all Canadians are
protected by the Canada Labour Code.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister for International Trade has stated that Canada's
benefits from increased trade have been the best in the G-7 and
that more trade will be good for Canada.
Some think otherwise, however, believing that our exports are
mainly raw materials. Can the minister please set the record
straight and provide some clear indicators that export trade
expansion has been very good for Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question
and for a very successful trade outreach mission in Mississauga
last week.
The fact is that commodities as a percentage of our exports have
fallen from 60% in 1988 to just 32% in 1998. All in all, we
Canadians export 43% of what we produce, up from 25% just ten
years ago.
1450
Canada exports high technology, manufactured goods, services and
value added products. Trade is vital for Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to this
Liberal tax and spend government, the Mike Harris government has
just introduced a massive 67 point tax cut for Ontarians. At the
same time it is ploughing $1.4 billion back into health care and
$1 billion more into education in the province.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the
very mention of Mike Harris and his performance record puts fear
into the hearts of these Liberals.
Here is the formula: lower taxes equal a buoyant economy. Mike
Harris got it and Ralph Klein got it. The question is, why can
this Liberal finance minister not get it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell the party opposite the formula. Follow the
federal government and introduce indexation of the tax system.
Follow the federal government and reduce taxes for middle and low
income Canadians. Follow the federal government and eliminate
the deficit.
Do not follow the Reform Party. Do not introduce a flat tax.
If they cannot convince Mike Harris, who in heaven's name will
they convince that it makes any sense?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. The
reason the economies of the province of Ontario and the province
of Alberta are doing so well is because they did not follow the
lead of the federal government.
As a matter of fact, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario are
responsible for the biggest part of the overall economic growth
in Canada because they did not follow the federal government.
Why is the finance minister so afraid of lowering taxes for
Canadians?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I think we had better quit
while we are ahead.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the best form of flattery is when a government copies
another government, as the Minister of Finance said.
We told them that the best thing to do was to balance the books.
It took them four years to do that. We have balanced the books
for four years. As I said to the Minister of Finance, on every
score they are just copying us.
1455
I hope the Reform Party will understand that we have a good
economy because we have a federal government that lowered taxes,
created jobs and balanced the books long before Ontario.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada
must loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national
missile defence system.
The foreign affairs minister says the missile system is
dangerous. The defence minister says Canada may support the
missile system.
Will the Prime Minister make a public statement on Canada's
opposition to the U.S. government's plan to crank up the arms
race and threaten peace and stability with this national missile
system? Will he say no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in the House,
the government has not taken a position on this matter. Indeed,
the Government of the United States has not taken a position on
the matter.
The missile system has not been perfected yet in terms of the
technology. Further tests are coming.
After that is done the United States will make a decision. The
United States may well make representation to us as to whether
there is an involvement for us through NORAD. At that point in
time the government will make a decision with respect to the
matter, as I had indicated before.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that the military generals are taking a position.
It has now come to light that military officials knew about the
harmful effects of depleted uranium before the gulf war. Why
then does the government still try to suggest that DU is safe?
The defence minister has made it clear that he supports testing
those suffering from exposure to DU. Why has he not taken action
on an insulting and intimidating force's memo distributed to
those Canadians suffering, basically telling them that the
problem may be all in their heads?
Also, recently Canadians in the Halifax area suffering from
exposure to this toxin have been told there is no directive for
the forces to provide testing for depleted uranium. What does
the minister have to say about this?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the scientific studies to this point in
time do not indicate that any Canadians have suffered from
depleted uranium.
Notwithstanding that, I have offered veterans of the gulf war an
opportunity for independent testing, and a number of them have
taken us up on that offer. I want to make sure, because this is
the bottom line: if any of our troops went over to the gulf or
anywhere else in the world for Canada, and if they went over well
and came back sick, we will look after them.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
over $1.2 million has been raised by the governing party from
companies that received CIDA contracts, TJF grants and public
works contracts. Over half of the public works contracts that
went to Liberal donors were untendered.
Section 11 of the Auditor General Act allows the cabinet to
launch an investigation into companies that have received
government contracts.
Will the minister invite the auditor general to fully
investigate these untendered contracts awarded since 1997?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say this very
slowly so the hon. member can understand. Since we have been in
government, 94% of Public Works and Government Services contracts
have been posted in MERX, the electronic procurement system, so
that everybody can participate.
This is an open system, not like the system the previous
Conservative government had where only 50% were tendered.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, more
than 3,000 contracts have slipped through the cracks.
When was the last time the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services ordered an independent audit of untendered
contracts? I do not recall.
Is the minister prepared to call for an independent audit of all
untendered contracts awarded by his department since January 1,
1997? And if not, why not?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four times a year, the auditor
general tables his report in the House.
In November 1999, there was a report on this and, as I have just
said, 94% of contracts awarded by my department are posted in
the MERX electronic procurement system.
* * *
1500
[English]
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa.
There are reports that United Nations peacekeepers have been
abducted and killed earlier today in Sierra Leone. Can the
minister tell the House how Canada intends to respond to this
very serious situation, especially since we have five military
observers as well as relief and development personnel in that
country?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his question.
To our knowledge no Canadian has been abducted or hurt in the
matter he refers to. Canada condemns in the strongest possible
terms the violence that is occurring in Sierra Leone. We call on
the rebel leaders there to comply with the Lomé accord.
Yesterday in London the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group,
including our own Minister of Foreign Affairs, called on the RUF
to disarm in accordance with the Lomé accord. We earnestly hope
they will do so.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago Canada's ambassador to the U.S., the
Prime Minister's own nephew, told me that Canada would be foolish
not to participate in the national missile defence system. He
said that it would be harmful for Canada-U.S. relations.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister directly, does the Prime
Minister support the national missile defence system, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence spoke for the
government on this issue. When the time comes to make a
decision, we will welcome the views of everybody, including the
views of my own nephew.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
Despite the announcement he made recently of support for
trainers and preparations for the Olympic Games and despite the
commitment made to me by the Minister of Canadian Heritage last
July, there is still no federal program to enable high
performance sports trainers to learn French.
Will the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport promise today to
help francophone athletes by establishing a program as soon as
possible to help trainers learn French?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
Obviously, not only since the Minister of Canadian Heritage has
been looking after sport but since yours truly has been doing so
as well, we have worked extremely hard to ensure that sport in
this country functions in both official languages.
I am currently establishing a national policy on sport, and I
think that the sport community must be so pleased with the work
we have done because we are being congratulated daily on it.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The premier of P.E.I. and the legislatures of New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia have called on her to save CBC local supper hour news
programs. Even the Liberal House of Assembly led by her good
friend Brian Tobin has called for more federal money to save
their local news show Here and Now.
Will the minister admit that the decades of cuts begun by
Mulroney have gone too far? Will she listen to the unanimous
will of Newfoundland and Labrador and find the money to give
Here and Now a future?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to underscore that over the past five
years the Government of Canada has given $4.682 billion directly
to the CBC. I think that is a significant indication of the
commitment that it has for the organization.
I will also underscore the comments that were made by the
president of the CBC, to which I expect he will adhere, when he
appeared before the standing committee earlier this month. He
spoke about the Broadcasting Act in terms of our responsibility
to work on introducing and explaining one region to the other. I
know we will honour that. We believe it is very important.
* * *
[Translation]
VIETNAM
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, nine
days ago, a Canadian citizen of Vietnamese origin, proclaiming
her innocence, was tied to a post and shot.
1505
My question is for the Prime Minister. On the eve of
considering CIDA's estimates, what sort of excuses, what sort of
statement is required from the Vietnamese government for
relations between Canada and Vietnam to return to normal?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the actions of the
Vietnamese government have been abhorrent to us and I have
indefinitely postponed all discussions on existing and future
programming. The only programs we are running in Vietnam are
poverty reduction programs.
I will be meeting with my colleague the Minister of Foreign
Affairs when he gets back to Canada. We will be looking at
further action.
At this point, I have no plans to resume consultations with the
Government of Vietnam.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to 10
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
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, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding its order of reference of Friday, April 7, 2000, in
relation to Bill C-445, an act to change the name of the
electoral district of Rimouski—Mitis.
The committee studied Bill C-445 and is reporting it with
amendments.
* * *
1510
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition signed by 45 residents of
British Columbia and Alberta and duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on the subject of marriage.
The petitioners ask parliament to affirm the opposite sex
definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage
is recognized as a unique institution.
UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure also to present a petition signed by some
2,400 people from across Canada concerning the payment of
assessed annual dues to the United Nations organization.
The petitioners express concern about the financial health of
the United Nations. As of March 31, 2000 nearly $3 billion U.S.
were owed to the UN by member states.
The petitioners call on the Canadian government to urge states
to pay their dues in full and on time. They also ask that the
Canadian government give consideration to proposals that would
establish alternative revenue sources for the United Nations.
VOYAGE OF LEIF ERICSSON
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions. The
first petition is one which calls on the government to recognize
that based on the historical fact that this year 2000 we
celebrate the arrival of Leif Ericsson to Canada 1,000 years ago.
It calls for the attention to recognize the 1,000th anniversary
of this voyage from Europe to North America. Having a designated
day to remember and celebrate the importance of this occasion,
the petitioners note, will be a great opportunity and benefit for
our children to learn more about it in schools and libraries and
for the rest of us who appreciate such events in our country's
history.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to consider the
designation of such a day starting this year 2000. It will be
quite a loss in the history of Canada to go through the year 2000
without recognizing such an important occasion as Leif Ericsson's
voyage to Canada. I note that the petition has over 100
signatures mainly from the Scandinavian Centre in Burnaby
collected by Celeste Wiberg.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition which was sponsored by the
Muslim Students' Association at the University of British
Columbia. It notes that the atrocities taking place against the
innocent people of Chechnya are a campaign of brutal and unjust
terror that violates the human rights code of justice and
freedom. Therefore the petitioners request that parliament
intervene immediately and take action by condemning the attacks
on civilians forcing Russia to stop her aggression and brutality
of unarmed civilians and also to suspend economic aid to Russia.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I would like to present three petitions. Two
petitions affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in
legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique
institution.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): The third petition, Mr.
Speaker, is signed by a number of my constituents who are opposed
to child pornography.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The
first one is from residents who believe that the family is the
essential building block of a healthy society. The petitioners
want the government to amend the tax code so that it does not
discriminate against single income families with children.
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the
petitioners pray and request parliament to oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other
federal legislation which will provide for the exclusion of
reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and laws.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by 123
people. The petitioners call upon parliament to quickly pass
legislation making it mandatory to label all foods that are
totally or partially genetically modified.
Once again, the residents of Lotbinière are showing their
support for the efforts by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert on
this issue.
[English]
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition signed by residents of the Grand Bend and Dashwood areas
of southern Ontario. They urge the government to recognize the
adverse health and environmental effects of the fuel additive MMT
with a mind to banning the substance as many other nations have
done.
1515
BILL C-23
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by citizens of Quesnel, Williams Lake and Lillooet,
British Columbia, calling upon the government to withdraw Bill
C-23 as an inappropriate intrusion and discriminatory in
extending benefits based upon a person's private sexual activity,
while excluding other types of dependency relationships.
While this bill is still before the Senate, I regret that this
petition has just come to my hand after passage through the House
of Commons.
[Translation]
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition bearing
179 signatures.
The petitioners call upon parliament to take all necessary steps
to develop alternative sources of energy at affordable prices,
to deal with the excessive price hikes for petroleum products,
and for permanently regularizing pricing.
[English]
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present this petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that
Canada has the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world,
and that the incidence of breast cancer has increased by 36.6%
since 1969.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform, mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
TAXATION
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I want to present a petition signed by a number of my
constituents in the riding of Red Deer. These individuals
believe that Canadians are overtaxed and demand that the
Department of Human Resources Development account for the gross
mismanagement of $3.2 billion annually.
Therefore, my constituents request the immediate resignation of
the Minister of Human Resources Development and ask that the
auditor general conduct a full and independent inquiry into the
HRDC management and accounting practices.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have in my
hand a petition bearing 467 signatures expressing concern about
the currently optional labelling of GMOs.
These people would like the federal government to change its
legislation to make labelling mandatory. Some foods, as we
know, are used in the preparation of others, such as soya and
canola for example.
People are saying they would like to be able to choose to buy or
not buy products containing GMOs. They would like to know the
ingredients used in the food products through mandatory
labelling. I am pleased to table a petition on their behalf.
[English]
BILL C-23
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition here from my constituents calling on
parliament to immediately defeat Bill C-23 and reaffirm the
traditional family relationship as the core of Canada's social
fabric.
As we know, it is too late for the House of Commons but I
certainly hope the Senate will listen to these petitioners.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Earlier in Routine
Proceedings when I called for motions I did not see the hon.
member for South Shore standing and therefore did not recognize
him.
What I need to do is to have the unanimous consent of the House
to revert back to motions. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 94 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 94—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to the motion adopted in the House with all-party
agreement on February 4, 1998, calling upon the Canadian
government to renew its commitment to British pensioners living
in Canada and to vigorously pursue an agreement with the
British government for the indexing of pensions: (a) what steps
has the government taken since February 1999 to act upon this
directive of the House of Commons, including details about any
meetings which have taken place with representatives of the
British government; and (b) what is the present status of a
proposed challenge to the present British policy before the
European Court of Human Rights?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): (a) Steps the Government has taken since February 1999:
At the six countries social security meeting held in New Zealand
in March 1999, the deputy minister of Human Resouces Development
expressed Canada's serious concern about the issue of frozen
British pensions to the permanent secretary of the United Kingdom
department of social security.
In October 1999 and again in March 2000, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs re-iterated Canada's position on the issue of frozen
British pensions at meetings with the British minister
responsible for North American and Caribbean relations.
On at least five occasions during 1998-1999, at meetings of the
International Social Security Association, senior officials of
Human Resources Development Canada re-emphasized the need to
resolve the issue of frozen British pensions in discussions with
the head of International and European Union relations of the United
Kingdom department of social security.
(b) Status of challenge before the European Court of Human
Rights:
Officials of Human Resources Development, with the assistance of
the Department of Justice, have given extensive study to a
possible legal challenge to the British legislation on frozen
pensions before the European Court of Human Rights. There are
complex legal issues involved and Canada has no precedents for
such an action. A decision is expected soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-14 in the name of the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies all the budget
documents, financial reports, cost and revenue projections,
related to the implementation and maintenance of the new gun control
legislation and regulations resulting form the passage of Bill
C-68 (assented to on December 5, 1995), now known as Chapter 39,
Statutes of Canada 1995.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the practice
of the House to order: cabinet documents which include a privy
council confidence; papers the release of which might be
detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations
or the relations of provinces among themselves, the release of
papers received from provinces would be subject to the consent of
the originating province; papers of a voluminous character or
which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to
prepare.
1520
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the
option of moving it for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is
transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-22, an act to
facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to
establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre
of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 11 motions
in amendment on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill
C-22.
[English]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1: Motion No. 1.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2 to 7.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 8 to 11.
[Translation]
The voting pattern is available at the table. The Chair will
inform the House of the details with each vote.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the
following new clause:
“3.1 The persons and entities to which this Act applies shall
not transfer to their clients, either directly or indirectly, any
costs incurred by them in carrying out their obligations under
this Act.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22 which
seeks to deter money laundering.
Most people agree with the objective of this bill. Indeed, who
could support regulations and laws that are too lax in the area
of money laundering?
1525
That being said, we think some amendments are required not to
change the bill's thrust but rather to improve the bill. It is
in that spirit of co-operation and with a view to improving the
legislation that we participated in all the various stages.
I want to mention that the time allocated to us between the end
of the testimonies at the Standing Committee on Finance and the
beginning of the review, particularly the clause by clause
review, was much too short.
I ask that this House and all its committees ensure that, next
time, more time be provided between the end of the testimonies
and the beginning of the clause by clause review of a bill.
Otherwise, what is the use of these testimonies, of all the
efforts, money and time expended by witnesses to come and
express their views, if we do not have time afterwards to digest
this new information?
I want to explain what Motion No. 1 is all about. Bill C-22
imposes new obligations to various organizations and entities,
such as banks, casinos and caisses populaires. We know that bank
charges for most Quebec and Canadian consumers are already very
high.
The bill imposes new obligations to these entities to help fight
money laundering.
The purpose of Motion No. 1 is to ensure that the costs resulting
from the new obligations imposed by Bill C-22 on these various
institutions are not passed on to clients.
In the fight against money laundering, this amendment obliges
these institutions to be good corporate citizens. In the battle
that all elements of society must wage against money laundering,
we want to ensure that financial institutions become good
corporate citizens and do not transfer to their clients the
costs incurred in carrying out these new obligations. Finally,
they must do their part so that everyone helps carry the load in
the fight against money laundering; these institutions will have
to absorb these costs, which are minor for them.
We know that the banks make profits in the billions. The idea
is to prevent them from passing on the costs of these
obligations to their clients. In my view, this would be a big
improvement to the bill.
People say “Another obligation for the banks. They will pass on
the bill to us. Our fees will go up again. This is crazy, we
are already paying plenty”. The purpose of this amendment is to
avoid all this and ensure that clients do not suffer because of
these obligations.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support we have
had from all members of the House on this important money
laundering bill which went straight to committee on division. We
are trying to see if we can agree on some arrangements with
respect to one of the motions that the member from the Bloc has
submitted.
1530
I would like to speak very briefly about the process. Members
know the way standing committees work. Many of them have set up
a separate steering committee or planning committee. That
committee meets and charts out the plan of the committee for a
period of time.
I should say in the case of the House of Commons finance
committee there is a steering committee. It met and there was a
work plan established. Within that work plan there were two or
three days of hearings and consultations with respect to the
money laundering bill. Also within the plan there was a period
the next day or the following day when there would be a clause by
clause debate of the money laundering bill.
Admittedly it was tight program, but given the importance of the
money laundering bill and the support in principle for the bill
that schedule was agreed to by all parties on the steering
committee and presented to the full committee for approval where
it was approved.
When we make these commitments we know that the schedule is
tight but we all try within our very busy schedules to deal with
that timetable the very best way we can.
I would like to turn to Motion No. 1 by the Bloc. In principle
we can understand why the hon. member might propose motion.
Basically the proposition is that financial institutions will be
required to report suspicious transactions. If they are required
to report certain amounts to the centre that will be defined by
regulation and through the guidelines, this will put some burden
on financial institutions to report these transactions to the
centre.
I should point out that there is already a voluntary regime in
place. Many of the financial institutions are already complying.
Not as many as we would like, and in fact that is why the bill
calls for mandatory reporting.
The motion calls for the government to regulate the prices that
institutions and professionals charge for their services. That
is the bottom line. If a financial institution is burdened with
some additional costs of reporting then the hon. member is saying
that those costs should be borne by the financial institution or
the financial intermediary and not by Canadian consumers. That
is a laudable goal, but generally the government does not
regulate the prices that federally regulated financial
institutions charge for their services.
The motion would have to go beyond these institutions by
regulating the prices of provincially regulated institutions,
unregulated companies, casinos, and professionals covered by the
bill. Even if we thought that it would be a good idea to
regulate these prices, the task of monitoring compliance would be
monumental, if not impossible.
As the government indicated at committee, the provisions in the
bill will be implemented after close consultation with the
institutions and professionals affected. Every attempt will be
made to minimize the cost of complying with the bill. I do not
think the compliance costs will be that significant. It will be
up to every business and profession to determine how best to deal
with the modest compliance costs that may result. I cannot
support the motion and I would encourage hon. members not to
support it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be the third speaker to mention the whole
issue of the compression of time. As I pointed out at second
reading, the bill is long overdue. The government has been
dragging its feet on it, and all of a sudden we are going at warp
speed to try to get it through the procedure of the House of
Commons.
I resent that very
deeply on behalf of Canadian people because it is a vitally
important bill. It has the potential to impact many
hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in their
financial transactions not only with respect to costs but also
with respect to privacy issues and with respect to enforcement
issues.
For that reason I have to concur with the hon. member
from the Bloc Quebecois, although I do acknowledge on the part of
the Liberal speaker before me that there had been an all party
agreement to a work schedule
When the work schedule became unworkable it was incumbent in my
judgment on the government to revisit that work schedule.
1535
I will be raising this issue in some depth when we get to third
reading. Even as we speak there are ongoing negotiations on a
bill and on clauses to a bill that have international
ramifications, if not individual and national ramifications. I
find the process to be completely unacceptable. It is a bill
that is vital. Because of the urgency to get the bill through,
in part because of the delay of the Liberals in bringing it to
the House of Commons, we will support it. However I want the
people of Canada to know that this is a seriously flawed process.
With respect to Motion No. 1, as has been noted by the
government there is a problem which very simply is how in the
world would we ever get institutions, individuals, professionals
or casinos to comply with the particular bill. I believe it is
in Never-Never Land. It is kind of a fairy tale, something like
the tooth fairy, that the costs to institutions or individuals
providing services to people will not somehow find their way into
the service charges. Of course they will.
To try to regulate something that is totally unregulatable is
pie in the sky. As a consequence, although I have the greatest
respect for the mover of the motion, I could never recommend to
my colleagues that we support it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as we mentioned earlier and as the other members have said,
money laundering is a worldwide problem and, because of its
nature, is difficult to quantify.
According to the federal government, some $7 billion to $10
billion is laundered in Canada. John Walker, an Australian
criminologist and mathematician, has developed a global model at
the request of the Australian government to determine the scope
of money laundering worldwide. The United States and the UN are
interested in his model.
This Australian estimates the money laundering worldwide to be
worth about $3 trillion annually. He does not paint a glowing
picture of Canada. According to his model, Canada ranks ninth
worldwide as a country generating illicit money and eighth
worldwide as a favoured destination for money laundering.
According to this study, $64 billion in illicit funds from
outside the country are laundered in Canada and $21 billion in
criminal profits are generated.
Canada is a clearing house for the laundering of money and this
news is not good. Canada is the only G-7 country that does not
have legislation to fight money laundering. This is why Bill
C-22 is welcomed favourably by the Bloc Quebecois. It is another
step in the fight against organized crime. The fight against
this international scourge must begin at home first.
For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
There are in Canada measures against money laundering. For
example, there are provisions in the criminal code that make it
a criminal offence to launder money and provide for the
confiscation—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I ask for unanimous consent to concur in private member's
Motion No. 308.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
1540
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted right
in the middle of a sentence, I will repeat it so that all those
who are listening to us can understand it.
As I was saying, there are in Canada measures against money
laundering. For example, there are provisions in the criminal
code that make it a criminal offence to launder money and provide
for the confiscation of the proceeds and property derived from
various organized crime drug trafficking activities. Under these
provisions, the burden of proof is heavy for crown attorneys.
They must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was
committed and then that the seized goods were bought with dirty
money. These investigations are extremely lengthy and few lead to
prosecution.
In 1991 Canada passed the Proceeds of Crime (Monetary
Laundering) Act, which requires several institutions to keep
records. Indeed, financial institutions, foreign exchange
offices, stockbrokers, life insurance companies and casinos are
required to keep a record of transactions over $10,000. However,
there is no accountability requirement. This reduces the
possibility of investigating and laying charges, since the
information collected is not in the hands of the police. If it
is passed, Bill C-22 will replace the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act.
These measures are clearly inadequate and do not seem to be
effective enough. That is why the Bloc Quebecois views Bill C-22
as an improvement on the existing money laundering legislation.
However, Bill C-22 provides for the gathering of information
about the movement of money. This will now be obligatory. A
number of institutions and individuals will be required to make
certain reports on the movement of money, as we mentioned. In
addition, this information will be collected and analyzed in
order to determine whether investigations or charges are
warranted.
Financial institutions, exchange offices, casinos, life
insurance companies and stockbrokers, among others, will now be
required to report financial transactions that they suspect may
be linked to an offence having to do with the laundering of the
proceeds of crime.
In addition, these institutions will be required to report
certain categories of financial transactions described in the
regulations and valued at more than C$10,000.
Persons importing or exporting cash or goods valued at more than
$10,000 and those crossing the Canadian border with such items
will be required to report these amounts to a Canada Customs
official.
That concludes my remarks on Bill C-22 for now. We will
certainly have an opportunity to continue the debate with the
amendments that will be introduced in the course of the
afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I believe we do not have a
quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt has called for a quorum count. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We now have a
quorum.
1545
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, on her speech.
I also want to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Charlesbourg. He worked very hard during consideration of this
bill. I am very proud to have worked with him.
[English]
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22, the
proceeds of crime bill. This legislation will, for all intents
and purposes, create a new agency that will oversee and very much
attach itself to the effort to prevent money laundering, a very
serious problem in our country.
Again, I congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg who has
worked very hard on this bill and is very conscientious as a
member, a previous member of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights, and in his current capacity as he works equally
hard for his constituents.
This amendment would add to a new clause to the bill. It would
read:
3.1 The persons and entities to which this Act applies shall not
transfer to their clients, either directly or indirectly, any
costs incurred by them in carrying out their obligations under
this Act.
This is a very positive, common sense amendment and one that the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting
wholeheartedly. The main purpose of the amendment is obvious.
It would protect the average citizen from the various
organizations concerned effectively passing the buck on to them,
that is, using citizens very much as a dupe for some organized
crime unit.
For example, in the banking sector consumers are already faced
with relatively high service charges and further increases would
not be desirable. As we all know, money laundering is a process
by which revenues derived from criminal activity are converted
into assets that cannot easily be traced back to their origins.
It is something that is happening at an alarming rate in Canada.
Bill C-22 would bring Canada up to date with the standards of
our G-7 trading partners. It does not take us beyond the minimum
standard, but it does take us at least to the standard that G-7
countries have set.
In the United States I had the pleasure recently of visiting
with an organized crime unit in the state of Massachusetts where
they are doing a great deal to address this problem, and they are
putting resources into it. That is the number one problem facing
this government and this country. We are not arming our policing
agencies, our internal security agencies, with sufficient
resources to combat what is a very sophisticated and very well
armed organized crime syndicate operating in Canada.
The saying that crime does not pay could not be further from the
truth with regard to money laundering. It is estimated that
between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are
laundered in Canada each year. It has become a very lucrative
and profitable business.
Canada has long had a reputation of being one of the easiest
jurisdictions in which to legitimize the proceeds of illegal
pursuits.
The latest report of the Crime Intelligence Service of Canada
indicates that money laundering has allowed, for example, the
Sicilian mafia to continue to infiltrate legitimate business.
Asian based groups are heavily involved in Canadian heroin and
drug trafficking. We also know that the Russian mafia has become
very prevalent inside Canada.
There has been discussion in the Chamber recently about the
situation, particularly on the west coast, of the smuggling of
humans. We know that the sidewinder project has received a great
deal of attention in the media of late. This again demonstrates,
sadly, our lack of resources when it comes to law enforcement,
our internal security services, and their ability to combat
organized crime.
Money laundering is but one aspect of this growing concern we
have about protecting the integrity of our citizens and our money
system. Money laundering poses to law enforcement personnel one
of their greatest challenges in the battle against organized
crime. To fight organized crime effectively, law enforcement
agencies and we, as legislators, must address the challenges
posed by current trends in money laundering and adopt a strategy
to respond to those challenges. This bill moves in that
direction.
For example, several months ago United States officials
uncovered the biggest money laundering operation ever inside
their country. Federal investigators believe that Russian
gangsters had channelled up to $10 billion through the Bank of
New York, the 15th largest bank in the United States.
This news sent shock waves throughout the entire financial
services sector and proved that money laundering can affect even
the biggest banks, those big commercial banks who would have us
believe they are impenetrable.
1550
The United States has moved ahead very quickly with its own
tough, new money laundering legislation. It is very concerned,
and we have seen it time and again, because the American economy
and law enforcement agencies are very much tied, and therefore
vulnerable, to our weaker internal security services. The U.S.
has expressed concern repeatedly about the situation.
Since the Liberals took power in 1993 our internal security has
diminished and has continued to be weakened. The Liberal
government has given the United States much evidence to validate
its concerns. In December 1999 U.S. customs officers discovered
an Algerian Canadian, with Algerian terrorist connections,
attempting to enter the United States through Seattle with a
carload of explosives. This touched off a very serious concern
within the United States and it continues to this day.
On February 25, 2000 the U.S. government suspended firearm and
ammunition sales to Canada, which was done at the request of the
Canadian government, and legal import licences were being used to
import large quantities of handguns, rifles and ammunition.
Firearms were then smuggled back into other countries. Many of
them went back to the United States. This was very much an
embarrassment for Canada. The soft approach on crime is
highlighted by these inadequacies. It was another blow to our
good relationship with the United States, because of our open,
undefended border.
Since 1993 the Liberals have talked repeatedly about increasing
penalties for money laundering in a manner that would be
consistent with public safety, yet the RCMP still lacks the
proper budget to deal with today's very sophisticated crime. For
example, we saw that only $810 million had been set aside over
the next three years. Much of that has been earmarked to fight
organized crime.
Unfortunately, the usual sleight of hand has to be uncovered,
and that is that 62% of this new money will not be available
until the year 2001-02. This will be added to the RCMP base
budget of about $2.1 million. That is still not enough, given
the level of the problem and the years that the RCMP, CSIS and
other services have been underfunded.
The mounties have already had to curtail their activities with
respect to undercover operations which targeted organized crime.
Reduction in training and the inability to conduct fraud
investigations in British Columbia and undercover operations
seriously jeopardizes the RCMP's ability to effectively do its
job.
To correct these problems it is proposed that 5,000 new RCMP
officers would be needed. Also lacking is staff at the forensic
laboratory, the need for DNA databanks and the need to update the
CPIC system. Police forces need this type of technology, and yet
the government cannot even afford and will not commit the money
that is needed to deal with these very serious inadequacies.
The government gave $115 million to the CPIC program when it was
stated quite clearly that what was needed was $283 million. Once
again, a pittance. It is an insult to our brave men and women
who are in the mounties and in the secret service to have to work
under these conditions.
British Columbia mounties alone may shift away from organized
crime to deal with more pressing needs of fulfilling police
vacancies and paying their officers. Basic policing needs have
to be attended to and, therefore, organized crime needs are being
neglected. In rural areas there is a very serious problem of
losing RCMP documents and losing municipal police forces in small
communities.
The riding of Shefford, represented by the Progressive
Conservative member from Granby, is dealing with the very serious
threat of losing its detachment. Biker gangs are terrorizing
farmers and forcing them to grow marijuana in their fields.
There is a Bloc member who is currently being threatened by
members of biker gangs and organized crime.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the broad
purpose and principles of this bill, that is, to remedy the
shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation as
identified by the G-7 financial action task force on money
laundering. We support this amendment and we will be very
supportive of this bill as it proceeds through the House and the
various committee stages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1555
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded division
on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The motions in Group No. 2, at the request of the hon. member
for Charlesbourg, the mover of the motions, will be withdrawn.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, following ongoing negotiations
with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I
have decided not to withdraw these amendments. I will ask to
speak in order to introduce them.
Some will be amended by the parliamentary secretary. As they
are my motions, I cannot amend them myself, if I am not
mistaken.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I understand that
the motions in Group No. 2, standing in the name of the hon.
member for Charlesbourg, will be introduced at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 47 on page 10 the
following new clause:
“19.1 If an officer decides, on grounds that the officer
believes to be reasonable, to exercise any of the powers or
perform any of the duties or functions under subsections 15(1)
and (3), 16(1) and (2), 17(1) and 18(1), the officer shall record
in writing the reasons for the decision.”
That Bill C-22, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 22
on page 17 the following:
“(3.1) If an officer decides, on grounds that the officer
believes to be reasonable, to disclose information under
subsection (2) or (3), the officer shall record in writing the
reasons for the decision.”
That Bill C-22, in Clause 55, be amended by adding after line 5
on page 26 the following:
“(5.1) The Centre shall record in writing the reasons for
all decisions to disclose information made under subsection (3)
or paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(a).”
That Bill C-22, in Clause 56, be amended by adding after line 18
on page 27 the following:
“(4) In every agreement or arrangement entered into under
subsection (1) or (2), there shall be inserted an express
condition that each party shall comply with the provisions of
this Act dealing with the confidentiality and the collection and
use of information.”
That Bill C-22, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 3
on page 33 the following:
“(1.1) If an authorized person decides, on grounds that the
person believes to be reasonable, to enter premises under
paragraph (1)(a), the person shall record in writing the reasons
for the decision.”
That Bill C-22, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 41 on
page 33 with the following:
1600
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I seek unanimous
consent to withdraw Motion No. 5.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlesbourg has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to
remove Motion No. 5 standing in his name. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 5 withdrawn)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to address
this bill, even though I am a little out of breath.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is very simple. If we want
the privacy commissioner and the information access commissioner
to be able to get all the information they need, the reasons for
which the officer of the centre wanted to investigate further
must be recorded in writing, otherwise it will be difficult to
know what happened and why the decision to investigate further
and to disclose the information was made.
This is the reason why I proposed these motions. I know that
these provisions will be amended by the parliamentary secretary
and I will be waiting for his amendments.
In that same spirit of continued co-operation to speed up the
process, I ask that Motions Nos. 6 and 7 also be withdrawn, with
the unanimous consent of the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just to be clear, is
it the intention of the member for Charlesbourg to ask that
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 standing in his name be withdrawn?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
unanimous consent to withdraw Motions Nos. 6 and 7 standing in
the name of the hon. member for Charlesbourg?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 6 and 7 withdrawn)
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the various members for
their co-operation in trying to reach some conclusion to these
amendments.
Motion No. 2 would impose a legal requirement on customs
officers to do what in certain circumstances is done as a matter
of good administrative practice. My concern with the motion is
that it would create a procedural burden for routine actions,
such as a request of a customs officer to look inside the trunk
of a car which is crossing the border.
The procedures proposed in Bill C-22 to deal with cross-border
movements of large amounts of currency and monetary instruments
are intended to dovetail with similar procedures dealing with the
movement of goods. Introducing a requirement to create a written
record for routine actions by customs officers at the border
would add bureaucracy and cause unnecessary delays for the
travelling public.
I therefore would like to propose the suggestion that officers
be required to record in writing their reasons for decisions
under this bill not apply to routine actions but be limited
instead to the exercise of the powers under subsection 18(1)
which deal with the seizure of currency or monetary instruments.
Therefore the amended motion would read as follows:
That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 47 on page 10 the
following new clause:
“19.1 If an officer decides to exercise powers under subsection
18(1), the officer shall record in writing reasons for the
decision”.
1605
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, could I now proceed to
Motion No. 3?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are on Group No.
2. We have to stay on Group No. 2 but you can speak to any of
the motions in that group.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No.
3, we have no objection to the intent of the motion but we would
suggest that it be redrafted to make it clear that the decision
would be made by the officer on the basis of the criteria set out
in the appropriate subsections rather than “on grounds that the
officer believes to be reasonable”. The amended motion would
read:
That Bill C-22, in clause 36, be amended by adding after line 22
on page 17 the following new clause:
“(3.1) If an officer decides to disclose information under
subsection (2) or (3), the officer shall record in writing the
reasons for the decision.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The debate is on the
amendment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, moving now to Motion No. 4,
the centre's decision to disclose information in accordance with
section 55 of the bill is an extremely important one. It will be
necessary for the centre to fully document the reasons for doing
so in each and every case. It was always intended that the centre
would do this and therefore I am prepared to support the
amendment proposed by my colleague.
1610
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Normally in a speech an amendment is moved just once.
There were several amendments created during the speech. I would
like to know what the protocol is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The protocol is when
it is a report stage motion it is the responsibility of the
Chair, where there is a recognition between parties that they are
working toward resolving a bill, not to stand in the way of that.
The Chair's responsibility is to make sure that what is being
done is being done in a parliamentary sound fashion. That is why
we are taking the time now to make sure that what is being done
is being done appropriately.
I think behind the hon. member's question is the fact that
generally if an amendment to a motion is moved, it is done at the
end of an intervention and that terminates the intervention. In
this case I recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary on a
different motion within the context of that group recognizing
that there had been negotiations between opposition and
government members on this particular bill.
Again it was not my intention to involve the Chair in the
debate, but it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that
if opposition and government are working toward resolution of
differences on a bill, to facilitate the ability of members to
work together in common cause.
As members know, they cannot through amendment change a bill.
All they can do is amend something that is already there; they
cannot change the format or the intent. This is what is being
considered by the clerks.
1615
As this is the first time this has come before me, I will need
the attention of all members present to make sure that it is done
correctly.
The amendments as presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary
are not in order because they are amendments to change the bill.
What is before the House now are the amendments. For an
amendment to be in order it must amend a motion. Therefore, the
amendments as presented by the parliamentary secretary are not in
order. This leaves the Chair in the position of saying that if
there is the will for the motion to be amended it is not up to
the Chair to negotiate this. It must be done by the parties.
The way we could do this is to continue with the debate on the
motions that are before the House. If there is no further debate
on motions before the House, with the indulgence and with the
unanimous consent of the House, we could move to Group No. 3 and
then come back again to Group No. 2. However, that would require
the unanimous consent of the House. Other than that, we will
stay on the motions in Group No. 2 as they are presented.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by saying that if the government had listened to
the Canadian Alliance member who was sitting on the
parliamentary committee at the time, if it had agreed to allow
more time between the end of evidence and the beginning of the
clause by clause review in committee, we would not find
ourselves in this situation.
I can only deplore it. I think the Canadian Alliance member will
agree with me. This is deplorable, because normally this
exercise should be done in committee.
That being said, I want to make sure I clearly understood what
you said.
I proposed Motions Nos. 2 and 3, which were amended by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. These are
amendments to my motions with which I can live. I wonder if we
could go the unanimous consent route.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The third option
would be to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to receive
the amendments as presented by the parliamentary secretary.
If a member would like to make that motion, we will get on with
it. That is a good way to do it.
1620
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the process that we are currently involved in is
egregiously flawed. We are talking about a bill that will
interdict hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of
currency. It is an international agreement with vast ranging,
international implications for not only G-7 nations but indeed
nations throughout the entire world.
As has been pointed out by my colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party and also my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois
in debate this afternoon, we are talking about the core of
international crime and the way in which we can track it. The
member for Charlevoix, another member and myself have all pointed
out that the haste with which this is going through the House is
to treat the House with disrespect and as a rubber stamp.
The debacle we are currently involved in was as a result of
discussion in good faith between the Liberals and the Bloc
Quebecois. As the representative of Her Majesty's Official
Opposition, I was not involved in any of the discussion about the
motions that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled out of order. I find
it completely unacceptable that Her Majesty's Official Opposition
would not have been involved in the discussion.
Therefore, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members have risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1710
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Price
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 38
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lill
| Limoges
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 171
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton,
Human Resources Development; the hon. member for Halifax West,
National Defence; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Human
Resources Development.
1715
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
That Motion No. 2 be amended by deleting all of the words after
the words “19.1 If an officer decides,” with the following:
I also move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendments are in
order.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I thank
again and recognize the efforts of the hon. member for
Charlesbourg who moved Motions Nos. 2 to 7. These motions
highlight a concern which I think we all have. Certainly we in
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada share the concerns
with respect to this new agency passing on unrelated information
that it might have about Revenue Canada.
For example, if the agency had reasonable grounds to pursue an
individual case of money laundering, that much is fine, but money
laundering has become a very serious issue and one that should be
considered a threat to national security.
Globally experts estimate that between $300 billion and $500
billion in United States currency is criminally derived from
international capital markets or funds that are derived from
outside our borders. In Canada the federal government estimates
that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are
laundered in this country each year. If this new agency does not
have enough power and enough evidence to pursue the case of money
laundering, it could determine that there is not enough evidence
to get the person on tax evasion and could conceivably release
information to Revenue Canada.
It is crucial that we ensure on behalf of Canadian taxpayers that
this new agency is not swallowed up by the Godzilla tax collector
out there, also known as the department of revenue.
1720
What we saw happen in the House just a short time ago epitomizes
how the government is flying by the seat of its pants. We saw a
member on the government side try to amend an amendment. What
was intended was to amend the act itself, which the Chair quite
properly ruled out of order. The member rose and we had to delay
the debate because of the fact that the government did not know
what it was doing.
This shows there is no plan. The Liberals have lost the plot
again with respect to a very important piece of legislation on
which they should have taken the time to do their homework and
prepare what they wanted to do instead of simply trying to
hoodwink everybody that was in the House.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the broad principles
of the bill before us on debate. It is one of the most important
efforts that we can all make with respect to law enforcement,
with respect to the integrity of our country and with respect to
the efforts of our law enforcement agencies to curtail and
control a growing money laundering problem and criminal activity
within our borders. The Conservative Party supports the broad
principles.
When members of the RCMP call this legislation long overdue and
say that it will make a significant difference, we have to take
them at their word. The Canadian Bankers Association has spoken
very favourably about the legislation. It similarly says that
the legislation is long overdue and that organized crime will be
much deterred by it.
International money capital markets annually are very much
affected. We know that the bill is aimed at addressing fiscal
problems that occur when money is funnelled through legitimate
organizations like banks. We know as well that the amendments
which have been introduced very much ameliorate and prop up some
of the intended passages.
We feel the legislation will be an improvement upon the current
situation in the country, but we have to hearken back to where
some of the real problems lie. Where do the real problems stem
from in terms of the ability of our law enforcement agencies to
somehow control the situation?
We see a bill that is aimed at tightening up some of the
legislative framework, but what we really need to do to improve
the situation is to prop up the RCMP and CSIS by giving these law
enforcement agencies the backup and resources they need to combat
a very sophisticated organized crime syndicate in this country.
We know the government has a reputation for being laid back and
very non-supportive of our law enforcement agencies when it comes
to their ongoing uphill battle with existing crime syndicates,
not only motorcycle gangs but the increasing presence of Asian
gangs, Russian gangs and the traditional Mafia within Canada.
Compared to countries like the United States we pale in
comparison in terms of the support that we give law enforcement
agencies. The other message that should be coming out in this
debate is that it is not enough simply to put a legislative
framework in place. We have to pony up to the bar and put
dollars on the table so that the men and women who are very much
dedicated to our law enforcement services are not only seen to be
given support but are given actual support. We need to do this
right away.
The Progressive Party of Canada has always been very much
supportive of agencies in the country that are tasked with this
very important task. They are the thin blue line between the
Canadian public and those who choose a life of crime.
The bill is one of which our party is supportive. The
amendments as well are supported by our party. The reaction from
the community, from the banking community and from agencies
across the land, seems to be one that has embraced the intention
of the bill. One would hope that there will be rapid passage of
the legislation when it reaches the committee and when it comes
back to the House.
1725
Money laundering is but one part of the equation when it comes
to organized crime. We know that drug enforcement has been a
huge problem from our law enforcement perspective. We know that
guns and other contraband material are coming across our
undefended borders.
We know as well that child pornography and people smuggling are
very much a problem. We do not have impenetrable borders, and
that will never happen. The dismantling of the ports police
which the government orchestrated by having weak border patrols
was highlighted recently by the fact that we had an international
terrorist cross into Seattle from Canada. This alarmed American
law enforcement officials. They have called upon Canada to
tighten up, to try to pick up the slack, because they are feeling
very vulnerable as a result of Canada letting down the side.
All the indicators are there. All the signs are speaking out to
Canada to do something about it. The legislation at least
indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but sadly as
we have come to expect from the government it is a baby step as
opposed to a giant step or even a significant step in doing the
right thing by propping up the men and women who are tasked with
protecting the country's integrity, not only with respect to
illegal funds but with respect to the whole gamut of illegal
activity that is taking place.
We know that gangs are very much rearing their ugly heads not
only in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. They are now
making their presence known in rural communities across the
country.
Because of the huge boundaries of water we have and because of
the lack of resources that we have for the coast guard and the
lack of resources that we have for the RCMP to actually partake
in patrols on docks and in major ports, once again we are being
very much left open to contraband materials entering the country.
Money laundering is very much the focus of the bill, but we know
that there are other very significant tasks, other very
significant problems that are faced by law enforcement agents.
The government is letting down the side. It has not lived up to
the billing. It has not responded to requests from the RCMP. It
has not responded to requests to renew and bring back the ports
police in this country. It is not listening, and we know it is
not listening.
More and more we are getting the indicators that this is a
tired, arrogant government. When the Prime Minister goes abroad
and sticks his foot firmly in his mouth, it proves that time and
time again. We knew that long before he went to the Middle East.
He was doing the same thing in this country, but now he has
demonstrated it to the whole world.
What we want to hear is that the government is listening.
Canadians want to hear that the government is actually listening
to them. This is an opportunity for the government to do so, but
I do not think it is listening.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I hear hon. members opposite becoming a
little alarmed by the fact that we are pointing this out, but
Canadians know what is happening and those members can say what
they want. The indicators are there. The ears are closed. The
message is going out but they are not listening.
We will see a byelection in Newfoundland which will indicate
that Canadians have had it with the Liberal government. When
that happens, maybe that message will start to penetrate those
ears. The Liberals have big earmuffs on when it comes to
listening to what Canadians have to say.
With money laundering legislation that is aimed at a specific
problem perhaps finally we will be able to get the attention of
the government. We hear about things like this happening in the
country. Unfortunately the national media are not always the
most responsible in reporting exactly how it is, but we know that
the particular problem has been broadcast across the country. It
has been broadcast clearly as an issue that has to be addressed
and addressed now.
We hope that side of the House will continue to support
initiatives like this one. Unfortunately more and more the
initiatives that matter most to Canadians, whether it be tax
reduction, health care, something to do with student debt or
initiatives to help our law enforcement agents, are coming from
the opposition side because the Liberals are bankrupt on ideas.
We know that when it comes to principle there is another party in
here that can be very bankrupt.
I thank the House for its indulgence and for the time to speak
to the legislation. I look forward to seeing it passed through
the various stages and becoming law.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF CANADA ACT
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the
flag of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to
debate my private member's bill, Bill C-451, an act to establish
an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.
I have been working on this bill for a very long time. It was
originally introduced in 1996 but died on the order paper when
the election was called the following year. I was not able to
reintroduce it until this spring and was very happy when it was
drawn in the draw for Private Members' Business.
The idea for this bill comes from a discussion I had with my
constituent, Joyce Hammond. When we realized that there were
several oaths of allegiance in use, but no one official oath, we
both agreed that an official oath should be adopted.
An official oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag and all that
it represents would be a wonderful gift now, at the dawn of a new
millennium. The 19th century gave us nationhood. The 20th
century gave us our flag. In the 21st century, Canada should
have an oath of allegiance.
Some people have asked me why an oath of allegiance is
important. We have a national anthem. Why would we need
anything more? The answer is simple. An oath would give us an
opportunity wherever the flag is present to show our commitment
to and appreciation for Canada and all that our flag represents.
When we look at the maple leaf, we see Canada, but reciting an
oath would encourage us to really think about what our flag and
what our country stand for. All the values that we as a country
hold dear are embodied in the maple leaf.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, our flag is very highly
respected around the world. When people see a Canadian flag
flying atop one of our embassies or sewn on a backpack, they
immediately think of tolerance, diversity and peacekeeping. These
are attributes we can and should all be proud of. An oath would
reaffirm our commitment to these values.
Others have asked why we should pledge allegiance to a piece of
cloth. To that I say that our flag is much more than just a
piece of cloth. It represents not only our values but also our
common history and our traditions. The flag represents millions
of people coming to Canada to build a better life for their
families. It represents two official languages working together.
It represents democracy and freedom. Of course, to many it
represents Mounties, beavers and snow.
The point is that if someone looks at the flag and only sees the
flag, they are missing the point. This oath would help to make
it clear that our flag means so much more to us as a nation.
Some people are concerned that an oath of allegiance to the flag
of Canada is somehow too American. I would like to point out
that the United States is not the only country to have an oath of
allegiance. Besides, if our neighbour to the south has a good
idea, why should we not steal it?
Many Canadians think that an oath of allegiance is a wonderful
idea. This bill has been endorsed by 500 municipalities across
Canada and by Canadians from more than 700 different communities.
The letters, e-mails and phone calls of support continue to
arrive.
Recently I received a letter from Les Peate, national secretary
of the Korean Veterans Association of Canada. Mr. Peate wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for us to stand up and be counted, and
have an officially-approved standard “Pledge of Allegiance”,
which need not be mandatory but should be available for schools,
veterans' groups, service organizations and any other gatherings
where we can still show pride in being Canadian.
1735
I agree with Mr. Peate. I am not proposing a mandatory oath.
Forcing patriotism tends to lead to dangerous consequences.
However, I do feel strongly that Canadians should have an
official oath as a means of showing their patriotism.
Mr. Peate also tells a story about a fellow veteran who visited
an American legion post. After the American veterans recited
their pledge of allegiance, the Canadians were invited to do the
same. Mr. Peate's colleagues were embarrassed to admit that we
do not have an official oath. This is an embarrassment that
could easily be alleviated with this bill.
Many veterans have written in support of Bill C-451. Whether
they fought to defend the values that our flag represents or
served on peacekeeping missions to uphold those same values, an
official oath of allegiance holds a special significance for
them. They are not alone in believing that they need to pay
tribute to our flag and all that it represents.
Young Canadians have also shown a strong interest in this
legislation. Either through the encouragement of their teachers
or on their own, I have received sample oaths from students
across Canada. Leanne Rutledge of Iron Bridge, Ontario
suggested:
Given Canada's number one ranking by the United Nations for
quality of life six years running, an oath like this is
especially relevant.
Jocelyn Smid, a student from Cochrane, Alberta wrote the
following:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of Canada and its people. I will
try to keep our country free, peaceful and beautiful. I will
obey the laws of the land and will protect our environment. I
will respect all of Canada's people, regardless of race, colour
or religion.
In fact, Canadians from all walks of life have provided
suggestions for the oath of allegiance. Howard Scrimgeour, a
veterinarian in my riding of Guelph—Wellington, has proposed the
oath currently taken by members of the Canadians forces.
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and
successors, according to law.
As members can see, different people have different ideas as to
what the oath should say. That is why I am proposing that the
oath be drafted by a parliamentary committee in consultation with
Canadians. It is not only important that we have an official
oath of allegiance, but that the oath is our oath. It is
extremely important that Canadians be able to identify with the
oath and that the oath is a source of inspiration to all of us.
What better way to ensure the oath's relevance.
We, as Canadians, have so very much to be proud of and even more
to be thankful for: freedom, equality, clean water and air, vast
expanses, access to quality health care and education, all things
that we may take for granted but that many people around the
world are still fighting to achieve. An official oath of
allegiance to our flag would serve as a reminder that we are
among the privileged few. We fought to make Canada the best
country in the world and we won.
An oath of allegiance would also serve as a reminder of all that
it took to get to where we are today. It would give us time to
reflect on the duties we all share as citizens of this great
nation. The swearing of an oath is done solemnly and
respectfully. It is not something done lightly and would
encourage greater understanding of what it takes to ensure that
Canada remains the best country in the world in which to live.
I look forward to what my hon. colleagues have to say about Bill
C-451. I want to thank them for taking part in this debate and
sincerely hope that we can work together to make this bill a
reality.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for Guelph—Wellington on her
private member's bill, Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of
allegiance to the flag of Canada.
I will begin by saying that I do support the bill. As Canadians
we are all proud to live in this great country, a place where
everyone from around the globe wants to come.
Our flag is a national symbol, as are our institutions. The very
parliament buildings that we are in today rival any in the world.
Canadians who visit Ottawa always return home feeling more
patriotic than when they first came.
1740
National symbols are very important. Our national flag is
respected around the world. As members of parliament, the lapel
flag pins are in great demand by our constituents, especially to
those Canadians who wish to travel abroad. They come back with
stories telling us that wherever they travel this little flag
gives them an identity. They are welcomed and very well treated
when they are away from Canada.
Our exercise of patriotism in my opinion has certainly declined
over the years. As a former school teacher for 26 years, I have
seen many of these changes, certainly in the classroom. The
House sings O Canada once a week. It is unfortunate that this
practice has not been around very long. It is also sad that
Canadians do not take more pride in the singing of our national
anthem.
It is even more amazing that we do not begin each day in the
House, the House that belongs to the people of Canada, by the
singing of O Canada. Yes, we in the House are the model for this
country. If we expect Canadians to be more expressive in their
nationalism, we can certainly lead by example. If we do not wish
to sing the anthem, perhaps we could invite Canadians from across
the country to come here and sing our national anthem.
Today we are talking about an oath of allegiance to our flag. I
find it rather ironic that since I have been here we have had a
debate about displaying flags in this very room which was voted
down. Again, this House is a model of behaviour for Canadians to
follow. I believe Canadians want to show allegiance to this
country by both song and word. That is why I support the bill.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the desecration of
our national flag. At this time the criminal code does not
protect our flag. I know that the Canadian Legion is leading the
charge to put more teeth into the law on the desecration of our
national symbol, our flag. Government officials at this time,
however, state that such legislation would contravene the charter
of rights and freedoms and, in particular, section 2 which
guarantees freedom of expression.
Research completed by the Library of Parliament indicates that
the United States is the only country that has an oath of
allegiance to the flag. Although its oath is official in law,
the United States supreme court ruled that the oath is voluntary
only. Countries like Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, Great
Britain and the European union do not have oaths of allegiance to
the flag. Many have other oaths of allegiance, such as the oath
of citizenship. In Canada, we also have such oaths for members
of parliament upon taking office, privy councillors, senators and
Canadian citizenship.
By definition, an oath of allegiance is a declaration of loyalty
to a country that a citizen makes to safeguard the country's
interest. There is a bond, whether it be emotional, coercive or
legal, that binds the subject to the nation's sovereignty. Bill
C-451 calls on the parliamentary committee to draft an oath to
the flag of Canada. Oaths are not pious statements of goodwill.
They are legally binding commitments with punishment for failure
to live up to them. As a critic for the Canadian Alliance, I
will support the bill.
In closing, our flag is a symbol of our great country. An oath
of allegiance to the flag is just another way of showing our
respect for our great country.
1745
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-451
introduced by the member for Guelph—Wellington proposes to
establish an oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag. The Bloc
Quebecois opposes this bill. I will explain why.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not questioning the relevance of
national symbols. All countries in the world have distinctive
symbols, such as coats of arms, an emblem in the form of a
flower or an animal. The flag has always been an important
symbol flown proudly by the various countries of the world.
For example, the flag of a nation is part of all official
ceremonies, is flown from the flagstaffs of institutions,
accompanies delegations and identifies the nationality of
whomever is flying it. Indeed, a country's flag is a powerful
symbol identifying the country, reflecting its values and
affirming its culture, and I have a profound respect for the flag
of all nations since each flag is being borne by a people. This
is true of the Quebec flag and of the Canadian flag.
Recognizing and respecting a national flag is one thing. Making
it the object of patriotic devotion is another.
Yet, this is unfortunately what the hon. member for
Guelph—Wellington seeks to do with her bill, which begins by
saying that it is desirable to establish an oath of allegiance
that would allow Canadian citizens to display their patriotism,
and continues by saying that an oath of allegiance to the flag
of Canada would recognize the importance of our flag in our
lives.
That is not right. No one has yet demonstrated the desirability
of an oath of allegiance that would allow Canadian citizens to
display their patriotism, and I am not talking about Quebecers.
Patriotism is love for one's country and devotion to it.
Patriotism is not about taking an oath. My motherland, which I
love and for which I work hard, is Quebec. I work for it in a
totally legitimate, legal and respectful way.
The member for Guelph—Wellington also contends that an oath of
allegiance would recognize the importance of the Canadian flag
in our lives. That seems to me to be not only exaggerated, but
also completely foreign to Quebecers' feelings.
To respect the flag of a nation is one thing, but it is totally
inappropriate to say that the Canadian flag deserves to be
recognized in our daily lives through an oath. Indeed, in the
daily lives of ordinary people, what is important is not to
adore a flag, regardless of which one it is, but to earn a
living, raise children, fulfil ambitions and look after one's
health.
It seems to me that this House and its members have more
pressing things to do than to spend time, energy and money to
draft an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada and to
encourage and promote the taking of such an oath.
When it comes right down to it, what purpose would this oath of
allegiance serve? When would it be used? Who would be
authorized or encouraged to take it? And what exactly is the
meaning of clause 5 of the bill, which reads “The Minister shall
encourage and promote the giving of the oath”.
When we see how, for too many years, the federal government has
used Canada's flag and Canada Day for its own propaganda agenda,
at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, in an attempt to
destroy the identity of the Quebec people, I have the very
strong feeling that, if ever this bill were to be passed, it
too, unfortunately, would be used for the same base propaganda
purposes in order to wipe out our identity as Quebecers.
As far as I know, Canada is not handicapped by the lack of an
oath of allegiance to the flag. Many countries in the world do
not have such an oath and they are none the worse off.
1750
France is a good example. The absence of an oath of allegiance
to the flag of France has never prevented the French, through
numerous trying events, from demonstrating their vibrant
patriotism when circumstances required it. The Americans, for
their part, have chosen to have such an oath. That is their
choice and it goes along with their mentality.
But we are neither the French nor the Americans. We are
Canadians and Quebecers, and that is that. Although we share
some values, there are others that set us apart.
A flag is the symbol of a nation's values.
The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington recognizes this by
providing that a committee be struck to ensure that the wording
of the oath of allegiance contains a statement of the principal
values symbolized by the flag of Canada.
What are these values? Is it true that all Canadian and Quebec
citizens share exactly the same values and accord them exactly
the same importance?
Perhaps it is true that the people of British Columbia share the
same values as the people of Newfoundland. Perhaps. But
Quebecers attach far greater importance to community values,
whereas the people in western Canada attach greater importance
to values of individualism.
This is totally irreconcilable, as we can see in the handling of
the Young Offenders Act, a bill everyone in Quebec opposes, and
the Minister of Justice of Canada does not seem to care a whit.
Here in the House of Commons, we in the Bloc Quebecois respect
the great democratic value of 50% plus one, whereas it means
nothing to the Liberals.
This bill is not appearing in isolation at this point. In fact,
just last week, the Conservative government of Ontario announced
that the national anthem of Canada and the oath of citizenship
would be part of the daily routine of Ontario school children.
The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century could not do
better.
In fact, asking children in this the beginning of the 21st
century to swear their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II seems
totally anachronistic to me. And to say that all this commotion
serves to ensure better security—that is right, security—in the
schools of Ontario. The outcry this announcement raised last
week was not surprising.
The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington is cut from the same
cloth. It is a bill that, in the guise of patriotic virtue,
attempts to force people to express their belief in moral values
to be decided by a committee. This has nothing to do with
patriotism, not even with the freedoms of thought and expression
guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms.
As a Quebecer, I cannot swear allegiance when the values and
patriotism expressed are not part of my own convictions, which I
share with my fellow citizens of Quebec.
I have this freedom, we have the freedom to think as Quebecers
and to act as Quebecers. This freedom can never be denied us by
law. The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
West Nova has indicated that he would like to speak to the
subject. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I wish to thank
my colleagues for allowing me to say a few words on this
subject.
[English]
I am pleased to participate in the debate over the possible
establishment of an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.
I congratulate my hon. colleague from Guelph—Wellington for
having introduced this private member's bill. It is a credit to
her that she has persisted in her attempts to instil a greater
sense of patriotism within this country by drawing attention to
the significance of the Canadian flag and the symbolism it
represents.
I do not think enough Canadians, or at least enough young
Canadians, recognize or appreciate the significance of the
Canadian flag. It has been stated repeatedly through a number of
studies that Canadians do not know enough about their own
history. We must ask ourselves why this is the case.
1755
At first glance we immediately point the finger at our
educational system. Our education system is not focusing enough
attention on teaching our young people about their own history.
As a result they fail to develop proper appreciation for the
struggles of their ancestors. Our education system must certainly
bear some of the responsibility. However I think the problem
goes much further than that.
For whatever reason, we Canadians do not believe in beating our
own drum. Unlike our neighbours to the south who never miss an
opportunity for self-promotion, we Canadians are much more
reserved in displaying our own patriotism.
[Translation]
Sadly, most Canadians might find it easier to identify great
names in American history than our very own Canadian heroes.
And yet, we do have a number of heroes in Canada. Our Canadian
history is full of great people who gave a part of lives to
build the best country in the world.
[English]
We have a proud history of very distinguished Canadians whose
exploits not only helped change the face of this country but also
had a positive influence on the history of the world.
We could begin with our fathers of confederation who shared a
vision for a strong and united country, a country that could
compete not only with our southern neighbours but also with the
rest of the world. Their legacy continues today as Canadians
take on a leading role in developing new partnerships with other
foreign countries which ultimately help strengthen our
competitive edge here at home.
There are perhaps no other events in our history that help
define us as a country than our participation in the first world
war. Canada came of age as the exploits of our brave soldiers
drew the respect, admiration and appreciation of all peoples
throughout the world.
Our victory at Vimy Ridge to this day continues to instil pride
in all Canadians. Against unbelievable odds, our brave Canadian
soldiers confronted the forces of evil in a battle that would
forever change the course of the first world war.
[Translation]
Too many of our young people know nothing about the exploits of
our Canadian soldiers during the first and the second world
wars. I believe the federal government is to be blamed for such
ignorance. It is a pity our veterans are only recognized once a
year on Remembrance Day. Thanks to their suffering, today we can
enjoy this symbol of our freedom, our very own Canadian flag
which freely flaps in the wind.
It was only 35 years ago that our government adopted the
Canadian flag as we know it today. It is here, in the city of
Ottawa, in 1965, that the maple leaf was seen flying atop the
parliament buildings for the first time.
[English]
Our Canadian flag is a symbol of a strong and compassionate
society. It represents the struggle of millions of Canadians
throughout our history who have devoted their lives toward making
this a better country. It is more than just a flag; it is a
reflection of who we are and what we stand for as a people and as
a country.
The Canadian flag is one of the most recognized and appreciated
symbols in the world. Our citizens can go anywhere throughout
the world wearing the Canadian insignia and be recognized and
greeted warmly by their hosts. We can do that because we have
distinguished ourselves throughout the world as a peaceful and
humane society. People throughout the world recognize Canada's
flag as a symbol of a kind and gentle society where human rights
are respected.
I think it is important that as a country we begin focusing
greater attention on recognizing the many achievements of our
great Canadians.
Last year from May 19 to June 19 the Dominion Institute and the
Council for Canadian Unity conducted a survey asking Canadians to
identify our top Canadian heroes. Among those selected were our
fathers of confederation; our first prime minister, Sir John A.
Macdonald; the architect of Canadian medicare, Mr. Tommy Douglas;
World War I flying ace Mr. Billy Bishop; Laura Secord, who was
credited with saving the British and Canadian forces at the
battle of Beaver Dams during the war of 1812; and Nellie McClung,
one of the famous five women who fought to have women recognized
as persons under the law.
1800
I have mentioned but a few of the many Canadian heroes who have
influenced the growth of our great nation. The list goes on: Sir
Frederick Banting, Dr. Norman Bethune, Lester B. Pearson,
Tecumseh, Alexander Graham Bell and many others. The point I am
trying to make is that our flag represents the tremendous
accomplishments of all those Canadians.
Swearing allegiance to the Canadian flag is more than simply a
case of symbolism; it is a patriotic gesture in recognition of a
great country and of the great Canadians who have had the courage
to stand for what they believe in.
Somewhere along the line we Canadians have lost the sense of
patriotism. I think it is time we worked together to bring it
back.
I remember as a young student standing at attention every
morning at my desk to sing the national anthem. Today when I
have the opportunity to sing the national anthem in the House of
Commons it reminds me of those days as a little boy in class and
the same patriotism flows through me. We are missing that and it
should be brought back.
The attempt by the member for Guelph—Wellington to instil a
sense of patriotism in all Canadians should be commended.
Supporting an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag
of Canada will go a long way toward promoting Canadian values.
Having said that, it is important that Canadians have an
opportunity to voice their opinions as to the proper wording of
this oath so that the oath itself is representative of all
Canadians from coast to coast.
[Translation]
I support Bill C-451 and I am pleased I had this opportunity to
speak to it.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in reply to my bill. I want
to thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for agreeing and
for wanting this bill also.
He said that symbols are important. I agree. I want to point
out to the hon. member that we do display flags in this Chamber,
because he mentioned in his speech that we do not. There are two
large Canadian flags right beside the Speaker's chair. I think
it is important to point that out. In the seven years I have
been here the flags have always been displayed in this honourable
room.
Unfortunately, members of the Bloc are against this bill. I am
not surprised, but I am sorry that is the way they feel. The
Bloc member who spoke stated that the flag is a powerful symbol
and that he has profound respect for it, but he does not see it
as necessary. He felt that this perhaps would be propaganda
against Quebec. That is most unfortunate.
I want to remind the hon. member that Quebec is a province of
Canada. Quebecers are proud Canadians. I have had a number of
them write to me on the flag issue. A number of councils in the
province of Quebec have written to me to say that they endorse
this bill. It is very important that we as Canadians be able to
stand and be proud of who we are. Quebecers certainly are proud
Canadians.
He asked what we would do with such an oath. I am proposing
that it would not be mandatory, but that at places like scout
meetings, Rotarian meetings, or wherever a flag would be present,
there would be the opportunity to say an official oath.
1805
Hundreds of people have written to me and phoned saying that
they would like to have some sort of official oath of allegiance.
I want to thank the Conservative member, who also supported the
bill. He talked about the significance of the flag for
patriotism. He talked about our heroes, who we are as a country,
our vision of a strong and united country. Our flag is
recognized all over the world. We are looked at as a kind and
gentle society, peaceful and caring. These are all things that
the Conservative member recognizes. He also said that we should
work together to bring patriotism back.
Any time that we as Canadians can show our love for our country
it is very important to do so. I think the reason that some
things have gone off track in Quebec is because that has not been
allowed.
Brian Mulroney ordered that the Canadian flag be taken down on
federal buildings in the province of Quebec to appease some
Quebecers. He thought that would be a good thing. This federal
Liberal government decided that it would not be a good thing. We
ordered all those Canadians flags to be put back up on those
federal buildings.
I think we know in our heart of hearts that it is important to
know who we are as a nation, what we stand for, what we care
about and the pride that we feel from coast to coast to coast.
I implore the House to adopt the bill. It will show our love
for Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Since the motion was not votable, the item is dropped from the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, in January a damning internal audit of the
Department of Human Resources Development was released. Despite
the best efforts by the government to play down the issues, the
concerns over misuse of funds surrounding the department continue
to multiply daily, with related RCMP investigations and further
audits revealing some of the government's deepest and darkest
secrets.
Since December of last year I have been trying to get
information on a company in my riding which applied for further
TJF funding just months before it went into receivership.
This company, Scotia Rainbow, has received almost $20 million in
public loans and grants, yet the government has been incapable of
answering questions about the financial position of the company
and the proof for how many jobs Scotia Rainbow actually created.
With the amount of public and private funding it received this
company should have created many more jobs than it did, but why
is there no proof being offered to Canadian taxpayers as to how
many jobs were actually created with their money? There is no
doubt in my mind that most Canadians share our opinion in the New
Democratic Party that good job creation initiatives are an
essential part of government operations.
Does Scotia Rainbow represent a good return in the number of
jobs proportionate to how much funding it received? Is Scotia
Rainbow just another one of the government's deep, dark secrets?
Why is it at a time when there appears to be no money for our
health care system that is in crisis, no money to reduce the debt
load for students, that money can be still found to finance a
company to the tune of $20 million in an approximate 18 month
period which is now in receivership? We may never be repaid.
1810
Can the government explain why neither it nor the company have
any financial documents to back up their claims for the number of
jobs created at Scotia Rainbow? If the government has the
documentation, why will it not show it to Canadian taxpayers?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member
opposite is throwing numbers around, which is leaving an
inaccurate impression in the minds of those who are listening to
or who will later read this debate. The $20 million she referred
to is the sum total of all the investment in this project. It is
investment that came from this government, from the provincial
government, from private investors and from a chartered bank.
Our share was by far a minority share.
Having said that, I must say that our priority is to help
Canadians get back to work. That is why we supported the
creation of about 291 jobs in an area with a 20% unemployment
rate. We did that along with the Government of Nova Scotia.
This was a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Obviously it is very unfortunate that the company ran into
financial difficulties and had to declare bankruptcy, despite
nearly everyone's best efforts and best will. One has to ask why
this company ended up going bankrupt when it was off to such a
good start. Is it perhaps because the member opposite has spoken
so negatively about this project on many occasions in this House
that some investor pulled his investment, or is it because a bank
closed down a line of credit? Could that be it? Surely not. Or,
could it be that the member spoke negatively about this project
because the ideology of her party is against aquaculture which
this project represented? I do not know.
I do know what the local paper said about it. On February 22
the Port Hawkesbury Reporter observed: “When our elected
representative—”, that being the member opposite, “—openly
condemns federal aid in this area, then it is time to ask that
representative to step down. The families of those former
fishermen are just as important as the families of miners. They
do not deserve to have their representative trying to jeopardize
their employment”. Their representative was successful in that
attempt because that company is closed.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
is crucial on many levels that Canada's forces reflect the ethnic
diversity that makes up our country. That is why I am
disheartened by the response of the Minister of National Defence
to my question on April 13, which I asked in the House. I
pointed out to the minister at that time that there were too few
visible minorities and aboriginals in the senior ranks of
Canada's land forces and regular navy to even register as a blip
on the radar screen.
Just as bad are the targets, with a visible minority target of
less than 10% for army and regular forces and less than 5% for
aboriginals in the same category.
I asked the minister to commit to targets and dates to increase
representation in all senior ranks, including using fast-tracking
where appropriate and committing to fostering an environment
promoting diversity, as recommended by his own advisory board.
The minister responded with vague motherhood generalities about
ensuring that people from all parts of Canada can participate in
the forces. The minister said that his own advisory board on
this issue has made worthwhile recommendations. Which
recommendations does he see as worthwhile? Which ones will he
implement and in what timeframe?
The people of Canada deserve specific and concrete details and
not just vague generalizations. As a Canadian of colour I have
heard good words all too often and seen good action all too
seldom.
In March of this year the minister's own advisory board on
Canadian Forces Gender Integration and Employment Equity
submitted its report to the minister. Women and aboriginals were
determined to be less than half of their minimum potential
representation in the forces and visible minorities were at less
than one-quarter of the minimum potential. That is appalling.
I understand that targets have been set to increase the
representation of visible minorities from 2% to 7% of the total
army over 10 years. Why only 7%, and what specifically is being
done to meet this target?
Canadians of colour are so scarce at the officer and
non-commissioned member level to not even register in the
advisory board's report.
How does this Liberal government expect to increase
representation of visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians
when role models from their communities are so scarce?
The minister's advisory board heard comments expressed by land
forces personnel, such as: “We are not doing aboriginals and
visible minorities a favour by allowing them to look so different
by wearing turbans or braids. How can they possibly integrate
when they stick out like a sore thumb?” A sore thumb indeed.
How does the government seriously expect to foster diversity with
an attitude like that?
1815
The minister's advisory board noted the need to increase
representation in the senior ranks of women, aboriginals and
visible minorities. What is the minister's position on fast
tracking qualified individuals?
I recognize the changes that occur only at the top tend to be
short-lived. It is essential that the Liberal government learn
that change must be throughout the ranks. Superficial treatment
of this crisis will breed superficial results. Women, visible
minorities and aboriginals deserve to know the government's plan
in detail. We deserve to know that there is a comprehensive plan
and to be able to see this plan.
Recommendations were also made in a similar vein to the same
minister last year arising out of the Canadian forces debacle in
Somalia. The Minister of National Defence agreed in 1999 to
establish regular liaison with anti-racist groups to “obtain
assistance in the conduct of appropriate cultural sensitivity
training and to assist supervisors and commanders in identifying
signs of racism and involvement with hate groups”. Has this
happened and if so, who was consulted and what were the results
of these liaisons?
Last year the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave the Canadian
forces a failing grade for its efforts to reflect Canada's
cultural makeup. So far the pupil does not seem to be doing much
better.
I trust the government will respond to my comments with a
specific plan including dates, targets and measures to be taken
at all levels within the forces. Anything less would be an
insult.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Canadian forces
is an important national institution that does far more than
defend Canada's territorial integrity. It also defends and
reflects the values and principles that we as Canadians believe
are important.
Achieving diversity in a large organization like the CF is a
complex task but it is one that the minister and his department
are committed to doing.
The Canadian forces must reflect the mosaic that is Canada. That
is why the Canadian forces is actively recruiting aboriginal
people and other visible minorities.
The military is also fully complying with the federal
government's employment equity legislation. Through a formal
plan authorized by the chief of defence staff, CDS, the Canadian
forces is actively identifying possible barriers to advancement
that visible minorities and aboriginal people sometimes face.
However, promotions are based on merit and will continue to be
based on merit. Unlike civilian organizations, the Canadian
forces cannot simply recruit people into senior positions. Its
leaders must be grown within the organization and this takes
time.
The military has taken many steps to address barriers to
aboriginal people and other visible minorities including measures
to accommodate religious and cultural differences that permit for
example aboriginal people to wear braids; the integration of
diversity training at all levels of core CF leadership training;
where possible, the identification of qualified aboriginal and
visible minority Canadian forces members to serve as course
instructors; and the establishment of community contacts to
support the cultural needs of Canadian forces members.
Canada is a diverse society and the Canadian forces must reflect
the society it serves. Diversity within the Canadian forces is
something that we truly value.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, on February 18, I asked a question to the
Minister of Human Resources Development regarding the scandal at
Human Resources Development Canada.
The question—this is rather paradoxical today—was about the fact
that the minister kept hiding behind her six point action plan.
On February 18, we did not know that a professional opinion
provided by a well known firm of chartered accountants, Deloitte
& Touche, said that the six point plan is a good approach to
settle short term issues, but it does not in any way respond to
the in depth problems at Human Resources Development Canada.
Since then, we learned that the Deloitte & Touche report
strongly criticized the government. We did not find, in the six
point plan, adjustments that reflect these observations.
The department's website tells us that advice was received from
the Treasury Board on the six point plan and that the
recommendations were followed.
1820
The government received the recommendations of the auditor
general on the immediate changes required to the plan and
followed them, but in the case of Deloitte & Touche, whose
recommendations were that the plan would not resolve the
substantial problems, the government does not indicate that it
has followed them.
We are therefore looking at a situation where the question I
asked on April 18 is even more relevant today.
Faced with this situation, we can only wonder why HRDC continues
to defend this six point plan, why it refuses that an
independent public inquiry be held and why it does not make the
connection between the deplorable situation, the lax approach
and the scandal at HRDC and the use of public funds for partisan
purposes.
Not only is there a major administrative problem but, if we look
at the three years of the transitional job fund, during the 1997
electoral period, 54% of the money available during this period
was spent in Quebec, and in ridings represented by Bloc
Quebecois members the figure even rose to 63%.
These important clues are telling us that the program was used
for the Liberal Party of Canada's own benefit instead of helping
citizens in Quebec and Canada who should be able to avail
themselves of these programs.
It is quite sad because job creation programs per se are a good
thing. The Bloc has always maintained that the government should
use this money to level out discrepancies between areas with a
low unemployment rate and the others. But the current behaviour
of the government has harmed the operation of these programs to
such a degree that they are now discredited and that their
opponents are gathering support. In my view, this is
unacceptable.
The current government is to be blamed entirely for this sad
state of affairs. It is the Prime Minister who masterminded this
system whereby public money is used for partisan purposes.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Human Resources Development why, three months after the HRDC
scandal came to light, corrective measures are yet to be taken
to remedy the situation and cure the cancer that is destroying
HRDC.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must say
that if the member opposite questions why we are still talking
about it, we are still talking about it because the opposition
members seem to be obsessed with it. That is why we are still
talking about it. In addition to their wanting to talk about it,
their motivation is probably because the newspapers are covering
what they are saying about it. That is why we are still talking
about it.
One journalist in particular has talked about the trivialization
of the House of Commons with the persistence in talking about
this single subject which the member insists on calling a
scandal. Is it a scandal when in one of our programs we had
10,000 projects which probably interacted with about 100,000
people when we consider the boards of directors and other
investors? In that particular project a year after the start-up
of these businesses, 95% of them were still going ahead. That is
a better rate than a bank. When a bank comes in with capital for
a new business or an expansion, its success rate one year later
is usually that only 77% of its projects are still alive.
I do not call it a scandal when the Government of Canada
sponsors projects that have a better success rate than those
sponsored by a bank. I think that is a darn good record.
As far as the Deloitte & Touche comment on the minister's six
point plan to fix the problems at HRDC, one has to think about
the order in which things happened. Officials of the department
developed a plan and they presented it to Deloitte & Touche.
Deloitte & Touche was hired to comment on the first draft of the
plan, as was the auditor general. All the various players made
comments.
Deloitte & Touche has not seen the revised plan because it was
not hired to come back and comment on it. The hon. member is
quoting from the first set of comments and neither he nor
Deloitte & Touche really know whether in fact those suggestions
were incorporated or not.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I must
interrupt the hon. member at this point.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.)