36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 45
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 9, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| BRAILLE DAY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| YEAR OF THE DRAGON
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1405
| GILLES KÈGLE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| INUUJAQ SCHOOL EXCHANGE STUDENTS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| DOUG HENNING
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1410
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| FOOD FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| MERCHANT NAVY
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Questions and Answers
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1510
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-421. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-422. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1515
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Library of Parliament
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Public Accounts
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1540
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1545
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1550
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1635
(Division 665)
| Motion agreed to
|
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
1640
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1645
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Motion
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20—Notice of motion for time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7—Second Reading and Concurrence in Senate amendments
|
1710
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1715
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-213. Second reading
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
1735
1740
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1745
1750
| Mr. John Herron |
1755
1800
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1805
1810
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1815
1820
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Immigration and Refugee Board
|
| Mr. David Price |
1835
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 45
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 9, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in that
spirit I have the pleasure to rise today to congratulate the
musicians of Atlantic Canada on the occasion of the 12th annual
East Coast Music Awards in Sydney last Sunday night.
The evening was a terrific celebration of traditional and
contemporary music emerging from the east coast. Great Big Sea,
An Acoustic Sin, John Gracie, Glamour Puss and Natalie McMaster
were among the big winners of the evening as were Morning Star,
the Nova Scotia Mass Choir and John Curtis Sampson.
Music has long been important in defining who we are in Atlantic
Canada, so it is gratifying to see so many of our artists rise to
the top.
Congratulations to the honoured artists. As J. P. Cormier said
upon accepting his award, when one of us wins, we all win.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
past month I have had the pleasure of attending several Action
for Struggling Agriculture Producers meetings in southern
Alberta.
I want to thank the hundreds of farmers who came out to these
meetings and shared with me their thoughts on the farm income
crisis. As I travel across my riding and as I travel across the
country, I am told over and over that the Liberal government has
completely lost touch with Canadians.
This arrogant government has turned its back on farmers,
promising help but not delivering. It has turned its back on
families, promising to cut taxes while secretly raising them. It
has turned its back on the sick, promising to defend health care
while slashing billions.
Canadians pay the highest taxes in the western world and what do
they get? An arrogant, out of touch Liberal government
squandering billions upon billions of their hard earned tax
dollars.
The time has come to restore hope. The time has come for
change.
* * *
BRAILLE DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to commemorate Canada's first Braille Day as proclaimed by our
Deputy Prime Minister.
Today we honour the memory of Louis Braille. It was Mr. Braille
who developed and introduced a system of six raised dots that
revolutionized the lives of blind and visually impaired people
around the world.
A combination of these six magic dots have made it possible for
a person who is blind to read. The ability to read the printed
word opens countless doors.
Braille Day is an opportunity to highlight the importance of
this invention and the impact it has on literacy.
I ask my colleagues to join in celebrating Canada's first
Braille Day. This year's theme is Braille equals equality.
* * *
YEAR OF THE DRAGON
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
right now we are celebrating the year of the dragon. The dragon
symbolizes vitality, prosperity and power.
When the dragon enters into this new century it makes a
magnificent year for Chinese communities in Canada and around the
world. It is a golden chance to celebrate the richness of
Chinese culture and the contributions of Chinese Canadians. The
celebrations will enhance the understanding and appreciation of
Canada's diversity and its multicultural society.
Today the 40 groups of the national capital region Chinese
community and I will host a Chinese New Year celebration on the
Hill. Many members of parliament will participate in this
non-partisan joyful event to exchange good wishes.
May you have good health, prosperity and success in the year of
the dragon.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are tired of the government's promises to bring in
effective youth criminal justice legislation.
We are nearing the third anniversary of the appointment of the
present justice minister. After months of promises she finally
introduced Bill C-68 and then Bill C-3 as her response to the
highly criticized Young Offenders Act.
Press releases were long on talk of getting tough on crime. Now
Canadians are discovering that the proposals leave far too many
opportunities for even more leniency toward violent young
offenders.
There is a groundswell of opposition developing across the
country. Two individuals, Bruce McGloan from Calgary and Joseph
Wamback from Newmarket, Ontario, have joined forces and have been
collecting petitions to oppose the government's actions on youth
justice. They now have hundreds of thousands of supporters.
These individuals are just two who have been victimized by
violent crimes against their children. Bruce lost his son to a
young killer. Joseph's son is now paralyzed after a violent
assault. Bruce and Joe are to be commended for their efforts,
but the government should be ashamed of its record.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out how great a need there is for Human Resources
Development Canada's programs, including the Canada jobs fund.
It must be made clear that the mandate of this fund is to create
jobs and provide financial support to private sector industry to
enable it to compete with businesses internationally.
[English]
Since our government has been in power, over 1.7 million jobs
have been created. In my riding, textile manufacturers such as
Christina Canada, Tricot Exclusive and Heritage Decoys have
created 239 jobs. In 1998-99 my riding was able to create a
total of 291 jobs.
1405
This is just one program in one riding but I can speak about all
the HRDC programs which help Canadians find jobs, school help dropouts
learn skills and find employment, help the disabled and
illiterate become productive members of society. So why are the
opposition members attacking a program that does so much good for
so many Canadians?
* * *
[Translation]
GILLES KÈGLE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon, Gilles Kègle, a remarkable resident of my riding of
Québec, will become a member of the Order of Canada.
Affectionately known as the friend of the poor, the street nurse
and the knight of the down and out, he has focused all his
energies since 1986 on relieving human suffering in the
Saint-Roch neighbourhood of Quebec City.
This man works without pay tirelessly 16 hours a day, seven days
a week, with the seniors and the disadvantaged in Saint-Roch.
Maison Gilles-Kègle, which he has founded, serves as kitchen,
laundry, infirmary and meeting place for the team of 77
volunteers that form the Missionnaires de la paix.
Many expressions of gratitude have cited and continue to cite
the devotion of this modest man, devotion that knows no bounds
and that puts hope and dignity in the hearts of the abandoned
people of society for whom he works so hard.
To Gilles Kègle and his missionaries of peace, thanks for making
people the focus of your work.
* * *
[English]
INUUJAQ SCHOOL EXCHANGE STUDENTS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to welcome to Ottawa students from the Inuujaq
School in Arctic Bay, Nunavut who are participating in an
exchange program with Hillcrest High School.
These Inuujaq School students are excellent role models for
Nunavut youth for they are community minded individuals who have
shown great initiative in the various ventures they undertake.
As volunteers in the non-profit High School Café, these
students have raised money for many worthy causes and have
brought great joy to many lives.
I wish the Inuujaq School and the Hillcrest High School exchange
students continued success in their endeavours. I know they
will treasure the memories of their visit for a lifetime. Thank
you. Mutna.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, 25 people from the Montreal region were
honoured by the governor general. These were all people who had
served others in various ways, examples of solidarity reminding
us that there is always a place in a society like ours for
lending a helping hand to others.
These volunteers earned recognition for what often seem very
simple acts, but these are acts perceived almost as a blessing
by their recipients.
This opportunity to celebrate unsung heroes should make us
realize that it is possible for each and every one of us to be a
hero, by extending a helping hand or an act of courtesy when the
opportunity presents itself in our daily lives.
I would also like to draw attention to this ability we all have
within us to show generosity and human kindness at a time when
we are seeking to return to old-fashioned values in order to give
a more human face to our society.
* * *
[English]
DOUG HENNING
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Doug Henning
who passed away yesterday.
Doug was born in Winnipeg in 1947
A city that he might say could be a little closer to heaven.
As a child Doug had become fascinated with tricks
And as a student was well known for his psychedelic hippie
shticks.
Doug flew with friends and heroes in high places of sorts
Houdini, Ivan Reitman, and fellow Canadian Martin Short.
Doug's middle name became known as “Levitation”
An act that earned him world fame and many standing ovations.
But who would have thought that the creator of spellbound alone
Had an idea to make the House of Commons his home.
For in the end it was this entertaining magician
Who dreamed of turning himself into a natural law politician.
I wish that Doug could have worked his magic in this place
To elevate government to a new space.
Doug, you blessed us with your lighthearted, free-spirited rise
If only we could have seen the world through your eyes.
It is with sadness that we say goodbye
And with new wings may you always fly high.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding of Timiskaming—Cochrane communities are
100% behind HRDC. Here is what they have to say.
From the town of Cochrane: “I trust the federal government will
continue with this program despite the negativity created by
opposing parties”.
From the town of New Liskeard: “I request your continued
support for financial assistance programs to improve the quality
of life in Timiskaming—Cochrane”.
From the town of McGarry: “We wish to advise you of our
support for your government. We trust that your government will
continue to provide funding for these very important programs”.
1410
From Cochrane Public Utilities Commission: “Without the
assistance of HRDC, 76 people would still be unemployed in
Cochrane”.
From the town of Iroquois Falls: “Please be assured of my
community's full support on this issue”.
From the town of Kirkland Lake: “I would like to express my
support to the HRDC minister”.
Finally from the town of Charlton: “We would like to support
our MP in fighting the official opposition and extreme right wing
media who want to eliminate these”—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to hear many people support the program.
I am prepared to say that this government has seriously
jeopardized that program essential to areas of high unemployment
in the country. The government has tainted the transitional jobs
fund through at best, mismanagement, at worst, patronage and old
style pork-barrel politics. By bungling and mismanagement the
government has hurt the people who need the program most, the
unemployed.
My colleagues and I in the NDP stand behind programs to help the
unemployed.
The shadow cast over this program by mismanagement has fueled
the Reform Party's call for an end to such programs. The Reform
Party would gladly abandon those in need in high unemployment
areas. The Liberals would help them if it means passing the
money around to their friends. Only the NDP stands for job
creation free from political interference.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government seems prepared to do anything to get what it wants.
After violating the parliamentary rules last December in making
their Bill C-20 public, now we again have the Prime Minister
making a mockery of democracy.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said “We do not want to waste too
much of the House's time on this. We want to move ahead as
quickly as possible”.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to remind the government that, in
a democracy, there is but one rate of speed, the one which
allows the people to have their voices heard and heeded. This
is particularly the case because of the vital importance of Bill
C-20, since it lays open to question the fundamental rules of
democracy and freedom.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois wish to hear what the groups
in society have to say, and they call upon the government to
organize extensive public hearings on this bill.
* * *
[English]
FOOD FREEDOM DAY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, February 7 was Food Freedom Day in Canada when the
average family has earned enough to pay for an entire year's
worth of food.
We enjoy the most affordable food system in the world. Only
9.8% of our disposable income goes to food compared to 11% in the
United States and 33% in Mexico. Our farmers produce high
quality and safe food at competitive prices but the farmer's
portion has shrunk.
The question is, how many Canadians know that from a $1.50 loaf
of bread the farmer gets 9 cents, or that if we have a glass of
milk today for $1.50, less than 16 cents is returned to the
farmer? A waiter or waitress will earn more from tips on a meal
than a farmer earns for growing the food.
Our farmers are the most efficient and competitive in the world
but the return on the raw product they produce gets smaller and
smaller even though exports continue to rise.
Yes, let us celebrate Food Freedom Day while mindful that
farmers must get a fair price to help them stay in business.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to remind the Minister of Finance that he should not
forget health care when he brings down his budget.
The budget has been balanced but there have been serious
casualties as a result of the process. One of them is our health
care system which is now seriously underfunded and not giving
Canadians the level of protection they want and deserve.
The minister is no doubt besieged by demands on his new budget
but I implore him to first and foremost reinvest in health care.
That is what the 10 premiers want. That is what the medical
community wants and that is what the Canadian people want. When
they show up at emergency on any given Saturday night Canadians
want sufficient doctors on duty and they want beds available when
they have to be admitted.
After all, if we do not have our health, how will we ever enjoy
our tax cuts?
* * *
[Translation]
MERCHANT NAVY
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri is home to several veterans
of the merchant navy. I have made numerous representations to
the Minister of Veterans Affairs so that non taxable
compensation be paid to these veterans.
Today, I want to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs,
who announced last week that the war effort of merchant navy
veterans is now recognized by the Government of Canada.
1415
The minister announced a $50 million compensation program for
these veterans. This concrete action means that we recognize the
importance of the sacrifice of merchant mariners and their
contribution to Canada's war effort.
We do live in a beautiful country, do we not?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the human resources minister has known for more than five months
about this billion dollar bungle. She knows that audit
represents just a tiny percentage of what is actually out there
in terms of files. She knows there are billions more dollars at
stake here and she knows that will come out.
She loves to blame her officials, which is unfortunate, but I
would like to ask her how many of her top officials has she
suspended, moved or fired as a result of this billion dollar
bungle.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again the opposition continues on
this firing and resignation treadmill. I want to tell the House
that while the opposition members are on that treadmill I am
making distance.
We are implementing a six point plan so that we will have a
quality administration of grants and contributions in my
department, so that we can track every working tax dollar and
that Canadians can measure us by our results.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it looks to me like a Damascus road conversion. It was just last
week when the minister said they were all in the dark ages.
This minister is responsible for billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money. She has proven that this current team can
bungle a billion dollars, which is no small task. She talks
about her six point plan. Her little six point plan is lovely,
but if the same guys who dropped the ball the first time around
carry it again, we could lose another billion dollars here. We
say enough, stop already.
I ask the minister again how many of her officials has she
moved, suspended or fired as a result of this boondoggle.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member
again that a billion dollars has not disappeared. We know where
it is.
I say again that I take my responsibility as minister seriously.
That is why we are implementing the plan and we will build a
quality administration to ensure this never happens again.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister claims that she takes her responsibility seriously,
but we have seen the Prime Minister for days on the news talking
about what real ministerial accountability was.
He stood here in his place in 1991 and said that when ministers
have problems, and we are talking serious problems in the
department, they should take the fall.
This minister is the political CEO of the whole organization of
HRD. She could come out with a 42 point plan but it is not going
to work because she is at the top. When will she start by firing
herself and sending that signal?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only am I convinced that the plan is
going to work but an independent outside official thinks it is
going to work, and that would be the auditor general.
I remind the House that the auditor general says of our plan:
“In our opinion the proposed approach presents a thorough plan
for corrective action to address the immediate control problems
that were identified”.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has been caught in a glaring
credibility gap. To deflect criticism of this top bureaucrat he
told Canadians that Mel Cappe had specially ordered the HRDC
audit.
This cover-up was flatly contradicted by HRDC officials who
disclosed that it was a routine internal audit. When will the
Prime Minister stop misleading Canadians, covering up—
Some hon. members: Withdraw, withdraw.
The Speaker: I would invite my colleagues to please stay
away from the word misleading. It incites us a little more.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was an audit that was asked for. They do that
under the authority of the deputy minister, and the deputy
minister knows what is going on in his office. He knew there was
an audit, so there was absolutely nothing to quarrel with.
I have to be candid with the House and report that I have
received the last note about the number of cases, the 37 that
have been reviewed. Seven have been reviewed representing
$11,937,000. In five there was absolutely no overpayment and two
had overpayment of $250.
1420
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at the facts. A random sample of over
60,000 receiving one billion tax dollars showed almost no
checking, supervision or tracking. Eight per cent showed even
worse wrongdoing. There are 60,000 cases of virtually
uncontrolled spending with nearly 5,000 of those so bad we may
never get to the bottom of it.
Why is the Prime Minister covering up the massive size of the
problems in HRDC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditors of the department have been reviewing the
files. They have done it in a very professional way. They have
been in contact with the auditor general who has accepted the
work. The auditor general has said in a public letter that what
the department and the minister are doing is the right thing to
do.
When the opposition talked about a billion dollars I reported
that in $11 million of so-called problems there was an
overpayment of a little bit more than $250.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister seemed favourable to the idea of
having the legislative committee on Bill C-20 broaden its
hearings to include not just experts, but other groups with
opinions to offer.
According to the Prime Minister, the bill is at the top of the
government's list of priorities. If this bill is as important as
the government would have us believe, does the Prime Minister
not think that he should let the public express its views, and
that the best way for it to do that is to have the committee
travel throughout Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already answered that question.
This is a bill that affects all provinces in Canada and that
will be studied by the House of Commons committee. The
committee will decide who may appear before it, but we hope that
the bill will be passed as quickly as possible, because it is
not a major concern of the public right now.
The public wants us to address other problems, such as job
creation, health, tax relief; things of interest to Quebecers
and the rest of Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's remarks are a bit strange, because his
parliamentary leader said that it was the government's priority,
and now the Prime Minister is telling us it is not important.
However, if the problem is about travelling only to Quebec, and
the Prime Minister thinks the committee should travel throughout
Canada, no problem; we would go along with that.
So I ask him, because it is well known that the Liberal members
on the committee receive their orders from Cabinet—that is no
secret; everyone knows that is how it works. I would like the
Prime Minister's opinion. Does he agree, yes or no, that the
committee should travel throughout Canada, as the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans did. I imagine this is just
as important.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an important bill which is being debated in the House, and
which will be considered in committee next week. The committee
will do its job; it will hear from a certain number of
witnesses, and the House of Commons will be able to make its
views clearly known.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister and the government House leader
suggested that individuals and groups would be allowed to
testify before the legislative committee, as was the case with
the parliamentary committee that reviewed the issue of
linguistic school boards, in 1997.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirm that the
Liberal majority of the legislative committee will accept that
representative groups from Quebec may be heard by the committee?
1425
The Speaker: As all hon. members know, the committees are
responsible for their own agenda. In my opinion the question is
out of order, but if the government House leader wishes to
address it, he may do so.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours ago, the hon.
member's leader in the House sent me a memo asking me to address
this issue on behalf of the government. I promised that I would
give him an answer by the weekend.
It seems to me that the hon. member should speak to his leader
to find out what was agreed on yesterday. We will of course
provide a very clear answer.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois and I talk to each other, but we
would also like to get the opinion of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs want
representative groups from Quebec to be heard by his committee?
Does he want, for example, Canadian groups also to be heard,
including the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women, which are asking the
minister to withdraw the bill he introduced in this House?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the committee will determine its own agenda.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government is withholding information that Canadians have a right
to know. What is worse, it is twisting information to conceal
the truth for its own purposes.
Why does the government not just come clean with the facts and
table the detailed documentation already prepared at public
expense on a riding by riding basis of all HRDC grants and
contributions?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members have information available then so that they can ask
questions. These questions will be answered according to the
formula.
I can understand that opposition parties are jealous because the
other ministers and I are well prepared for oral question
period.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
looks like the Prime Minister has already used up all his
lifelines.
When a government deliberately conceals information from its own
citizens there is a name for it. It is called cover-up. Why
does the government not stop concealing the information—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party can begin her question again if she wishes.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, as we know when the
government deliberately conceals information from its own
citizens there is a name for it. It is called cover-up. Why is
the government refusing to disclose all the information riding by
riding on all of the HRDC contributions and grants?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this information is public information.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that the hon. member does not know
what tax dollars are being spent in her riding of Halifax. I
would suggest that she go to her Human Resources Development
Canada office, sit down with the director and go through all the
projects.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a very straightforward and specific question
for the minister. Would the Minister of HRDC please advise the
House of the exact date on which she was first advised of the
problems that were uncovered by the internal audit of her
department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is public knowledge. I received a
briefing on the full internal audit on November 17.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has told us she knows where the money
is, but does she know how the money was spent?
In March 1998, HRDC released a list of TJF grants awarded that
year. On the second updated list produced in December 1999,
mysteriously 20 companies that received $8.2 million had been
deleted.
1430
If there is no cover-up why did these companies disappear from
the list and where did the $8 million go?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to provide me
with that information I will review it and provide him with an
answer.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister just said she knew about the mess in HRDC on November
17, but on December 16 she still denied there were any problems.
She told the House and the Canadian people something that was
absolutely and completely false. She attempted to cover-up a
billion dollar boondoggle. That is something that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We seem to be escalating the
rhetoric, even deliberately misleading. I will not permit that
again. He never said the minister was false, but I would like
the members to please stay away from these words because they
only agitate the House.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the public is very
agitated too at the fact that a billion dollars has gone missing
and this minister is responsible for trying to cover it up.
When is the minister going to admit that she has told the
Canadian people and the House of Commons something that is simply
not the case and that she has betrayed the public trust?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the only party
misleading Canadians is the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult for me
to hear what anyone is saying when there is so much noise. I
appeal to you, my colleagues. I did not hear what the minister
said. I would ask all hon. members to please stay away from
those words today. It simply inflames us and I do not think we
will get the quality of questions or answers we want in question
period.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is the Reform Party
that keeps suggesting to Canadians that a billion dollars has
gone missing. It knows that is not true. We know where the
cheques have gone. They have gone to organizations in the
ridings of those members and all others in the House.
It is that party that is continuing to undermine the important
work that the grants and contributions program does for
communities across the country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's evasiveness does not change the hard facts.
The Minister of Human Resources Development claims she was
briefed on that billion dollars on November 17. On December 16
she told this place that there were no problems in HRDC.
Obviously there is a big contradiction there.
Why did the minister tell the House something that simply was
not the case? Why did she tell the Canadian people that? Why is
she betraying the public trust?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand by my words in the House. If
they choose to read Hansard, they will see that the
questions were about specific projects. I was always forthcoming
when there were indications of administrative problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, an internal audit report on Human Resources
Canada indicates, based on a sampling of 459 out of 30,000
files, or 1.5% of all the department's files, that there are
problems relating to applications from promoters, application
approvals, and financial monitoring.
Is the Prime Minister going to acknowledge that these 459 cases
everyone is referring to are merely a sampling of the 30,000
files and that, applying the auditors' logic to the whole lot,
we end up with thousands of irregular files?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is absolutely normal for any professional audit to turn up
things that need correcting, in any organization. That is why
city governments and the private sector have auditing systems.
They have to see whether the documents are present as required,
and if shortcomings are found, they are corrected.
Take, for example, specific cases in which the auditors found
problems. On a total amount of about $12 million, they found two
problems in seven files, and an overpayment of $251.50.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to realize
that by applying the auditors' logic to all Human Resources
Development files, the amounts involved add up to between $1
million and $3 million.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for before he calls for a
public and independent audit of the department's management?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my reply once again is that we have our internal auditors and
they have done their jobs. We have the auditor general, who
does his job. Yesterday or the day before, he indicated in a
letter that he accepted the department's proposal. As well, the
auditor general can report to the House four times a year now,
rather than once a year as before.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's own departmental audit uncovered about $1 billion in
mismanaged HRDC grants and contributions. But this is just the
tip of the iceberg.
The Canadian Aerospace Group International Inc. received $1
million from the transitional jobs fund to establish Panda
Aircraft in North Bay, Ontario. When Panda ceased operations,
the North Bay development group got its money back.
I would like to know about the Canadian taxpayers. Did they get
their money back?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of individual
projects. There will be projects in the course of these
undertakings that are more beneficial than others.
As I have said before, as minister my job is to look at the
overall impact that the transitional jobs fund has had. Again I
say, 30,000 people, who were not working before, are working as a
result of that program.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is all very nice, but I submit it is also her duty to get the
money back that Canadian taxpayers put in after an industry
fails.
I have just given one example of 60,000 HRDC files. Access to
information requests reveal that there are many other files under
investigation.
Will the minister tell us just how many other files are under
investigation? I would like to know how many other Pandas there
are out there.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just take the
time to read the plan that we are implementing, he would see that
we are going to review all our active files.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is trying to anesthetize us in this House by saying, on
the basis of an audit of a few hundred cases, that they will not
do it again, they made mistakes, they apologize and that is the
end of it.
It is only a sample of 1.5% of the 30,000 cases. Everyone is
agreed that it is serious, very serious.
How can the Prime Minister be trying to anesthetize everyone
with his promise not do it again, when there are thousands of
unaudited cases, cases that have not been examined and probably
reflect the same percentages as the initial cases, that is,
having an error rate of 80%.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not know from what the hon. member
is trying to extrapolate. We are reviewing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
1440
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if he would pay attention
he would know that we are reviewing the 37 files, as the Prime
Minister has said. We will make the results of those reviews
public and then we will see what the circumstances are.
I would also add that besides that review, the six point plan
ensures that we look at all active files and that will, I am
convinced, help us prepare a quality system that will fix this
problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what sort of
credibility does this minister enjoy as she tries to save her
skin and says they are preparing to start from scratch?
Everyone knows that in an audit a sample will reveal how well
things are going in a department. What they discovered is that
things are going very badly in her department.
Why did the President of the Treasury Board say that things were
very serious and give directions to all departments if things
were not serious and all was well at the Department of Human
Resources Development?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
mark of a good government is its knowing how to deal with a
problem.
What do we do? We identify the problem, its nature and its
scope. The minister has done that. We also develop a plan of
action to remedy the department's problems. The minister has
done that.
In addition, we ensure that there is follow up to be sure the
procedure underway will remedy the problems discovered. This is
exactly what my colleague at Human Resources Development has
done.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development is in denial.
Earlier today she admitted that on November 17 she discovered
the reality of the audit that showed the huge waste in her
department. However, on December 16 in this place she said “No
moneys flowed until the appropriate approvals were in place”.
Why the contradiction? Why did the minister stand in her place
and misrepresent the facts? Why did she not tell the truth?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. If the hon.
member would put it in the context of the questions asked, he
would see that the questions from his own party were in reference
to specific projects.
I stand by my words in the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
weasel words will not save this minister from accountability.
Speaking of which, in 1991 the Prime Minister said “When we form
the government, every minister in the cabinet will have to take
full responsibility for what is going on in his department”. He
said “If there is any bungling in the department, the minister
will have to take responsibility”.
Why has the Prime Minister broken his word? Why has he not held
the human resources minister responsible for the bungling in her
department and for misleading the House? Why was the minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask hon. members to please
not use the word misleading. I find the question out of order.
If the minister wants to answer it, she may.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my ministers and I always take responsibility and that
is exactly what we are doing at this time. The auditor general
is working with senior bureaucrats of the department to make sure
that the audit is done professionally. And that is exactly what
is happening.
There were 37 cases where, in the mind of the auditors, there
were some difficult problems. So far, out of $12 million, they
have identified $251.50 in overpayments and we will collect it
back.
1445
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
the Prime Minister's credibility would improve if he were to
play a different tape.
Why would we believe that the problem is fixed and that it boils
down to $200,000 and change, when there are at least 30,000
cases to be examined? At least 80% of the 459 cases already
looked at were problematic.
The Prime Minister should change tapes and tell us what is
really going on in this department.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of the strength of our program is
that we will be reporting to Canadians on a quarterly basis on
the information that we receive on implementing the program and
on the results which that program is going to have.
I am going to be at committee tomorrow. We will be talking
about the results to date. I will be before Canadians on a
quarterly basis talking about the results as we continue.
This is an open process and we are going to fix the problem.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
For several weeks now, consumers and truckers have been angered
by the price of gasoline at the pumps, of diesel and of heating
oil in Canada and in Quebec.
Consumers are right and want to know why the price of gasoline
is continuing to climb and why governments are doing nothing
about it.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to say that the member is right to
raise an issue that is very important to him—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. John Manley: This does not seem to be an important issue
for Reform Party members, Mr. Speaker.
First, I would say that, if there is a problem at the retail
level, it is up to provincial governments to take action.
Second, I have read the media reports from his riding, which say
that diesel prices have jumped from 42 cents a litre to 78 cents
a litre.
I am sure that the Minister of Natural Resources would agree
with me that an explanation is in order and I would like—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the HRD minister has been working on a six point plan.
She bungled a billion bucks. She spent five months trying to
cover up the audit. She stood in this House and pretended that
everything was just hunky-dory. She tried to blame her
bureaucrats. Now we find that the TJF is some kind of photo-op.
Clearly the next logical step is for her to resign. Where is
she now, at step five and a half?
1450
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong, wrong, wrong
and wrong. I received the report of the internal audit. It said
that we had significant problems in the administration of our
grants and contributions. I took that seriously. I demanded
that we build a strong management plan for implementation. That
is now being implemented and we will be reporting to Canadians on
a regular basis until the problem is fixed.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the human resources department is the Bre-X of the
government. Instead of the ore being salted, the taxpayer has
been assaulted.
A small sample audit of one-fifth of the department's activities
found 87% of the files unsupervised and 15% with no record of
application. If it were a CEO making this announcement the stock
would be through the floor and he would be fired.
Why should Canadians tolerate anything less than the minister's
resignation?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, forgive me but I do not think anybody on
that side of the House has actually read the internal audit.
What it talks about are administrative challenges in the
department's paperwork. We are taking it seriously because we
have to have the foundation strong to support very important
grants and contributions that are invested in ridings in all
parts of this country.
We are taking this seriously. Canadians want the problem fixed
and we will do that.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
have all heard of the Book of Kells. The Liberal House leader is
the chief scribe of the book of baloney. The Prime Minister
knows it is the book of baloney or else he would share it with
us, table it and let us have a look at the contents of the book.
I have my own book of facts and my book says that EI cuts took
$20 million out of my riding last year, yet we did not qualify
for a single penny of transitional jobs fund money.
I ask the Prime Minister, under what kind of perverse set of
rules do rich ridings like Edmonton West and Brant qualify for
transitional jobs fund money when my own riding qualifies for not
one red cent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member realized yesterday that he did not know
his riding had received more than anyone else. He should check
that. He knows it is available. Some programs apply in some
ridings, other programs apply in others. But in fact, the
member's riding did pretty well. He was shocked to know that he
did not know what was going on in his riding.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is absolutely horrifying to me that this man who sells himself as
the champion of clarity in this country really is the grandmaster
of obfuscation. He is the Prime Minister of misinformation and
he is hiding behind—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Go directly to the question.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this:
If the transitional jobs fund is not a Liberal slush fund, then
why is it that rich Liberal ridings with far lower unemployment
rates than my riding qualify for millions of dollars in benefits?
My own riding—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are rules that apply to everything. We gave them
money. When we look at this fund, more money went to opposition
ridings of all the other parties than went into the Liberal
ridings, because in Ontario the economy is better than in the
maritimes, for example, or in rural Quebec.
1455
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, at press
conferences held last week, senior officials from the department
told us that the minister had been apprised of the problems at
HRDC in August, during the transition period.
I personally received a document dated October 5. That document
had been completed before the report. Today, the minister is
telling us that she was notified only on November 17. There is a
great deal of confusion. Who is telling the truth?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the hon. member referred to money given to businesses
and to contributions made to the Liberal Party.
I have here a list of projects in his riding that received money
from the Canadian government and contributed to his party's
campaign.
Perhaps the hon. member should call the police about that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
according to documents from public accounts there are eight
numbered companies that received $3.9 million, yet these
companies do not even appear to exist.
Can the minister please tell us who owns these companies and
where the money went?
The Speaker: It is not in our rules to answer questions
as specific as this. I find the question out of order. I saw
the hon. Prime Minister on his feet. If he wishes to address
what was said I will permit him to do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a minister cannot be asked to give information about one
of the thousands upon thousands of cases that are handled by a
department. The order paper is there for these requests. The
minister will appear with officials before the committee
tomorrow, which is also the place to ask these questions.
Yesterday the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked
about contributions and about the RCMP. I would like to tell the
House that there is a company, C. F. Dickson Forest Products,
which gave $1,000 to the PC House leader during the campaign, but
did not give a cent to the Liberal Party.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $3.9
million—how could anyone be expected to know about something as
insignificant as that?
It is the tradition at this time of year to ask a very specific
question of the Minister of Finance. Now, we know that the Prime
Minister really tried to upstage the finance minister; a little
leadership rivalry perhaps.
Can the finance minister tell us when he will deliver the
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to get in practice.
It is true that there was a bit of speculation last week from an
unknown source as to the date of the budget, and I am pleased to
announce that speculation was accurate.
1500
[Translation]
It is my pleasure to announce that the budget will be tabled in
the House on Monday, February 28, at 4.00 p.m.
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
all hon. members to a very special moment in the history of our
Chamber today.
It is my pleasure and indeed my honour to table a new and
original reference book entitled House of Commons Procedure
and Practice—La Procédure et les Usages de la Chambre des
Communes.
Most members, and this is why it is important to us, are
accustomed to using certain procedural reference books at our
disposal here at the table, for example Bourinot's
Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of
Canada which was written in the 1880s, and Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, written in the 1920s.
Starting today we, the members of Parliament of Canada, will be
able to have at our disposal a multitude of references to the
rules, precedents and practices of our own House, explained in a
clear and thorough manner.
This new book reflects our current procedures and practices, and
has been written by procedural experts working at the House of
Commons. They were headed of course by our own Clerk, Mr. Robert
Marleau, and our Deputy Clerk, Mr. Camille Montpetit.
[Translation]
This reference book includes 24 chapters, 15 annexes and 5,800
footnotes. It deals with issues such as parliamentary privilege,
speakership, rules and conduct of a debate, the legislative
process, committees, private members' business items and many
more.
The main rulings and statements made by Speakers are reviewed,
and the numerous customs, interpretations and precedents that
apply to the House of Commons of Canada are clearly explained.
[English]
This is our own book. I am sure it will be used
not only in the House but throughout Canada and the Commonwealth.
I invite all of you to use it with pride. I do thank our clerks
and all those who were involved in the writing of this
magnificent new book which will be sent to all of you. I table
it in your name.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order to which I trust you will give serious
consideration.
Over the last number of days questions have been asked of the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development
over the misuse of funds at HRDC. In several instances members
of the official opposition, and I believe other parties, have
used specific examples of the misuse of funds that they have
uncovered. You have ruled their questions out of order because
they deal with specific examples of wrongdoing that they cannot
be expected to know anything about.
When questions are asked in a general sense, the government
shoots back with specific examples of where money has been spent
in an effort to discredit and embarrass members of parliament. I
find that to be entirely objectionable. I am asking if you would
rule those kinds of answers out of order as you have ruled the
questions out of order.
The Speaker: This has been our practice and our
tradition if a question is so specific that a minister or the
government cannot be expected to know. Let us say there are 500
of anything. I do not know if the minister can be expected to
know the 500. However, when a member asks a question I presume,
and I think most members do, that the hon. member wants to get as
much information and details that he or she can when the answer
is forthcoming.
You may argue that on one side you are getting too much detail,
but from what hon. members have been saying to me they are not
getting enough details. We have to have that fine balance that
the question has to be general enough that you can get a
response, but if it is too specific I think we are expecting the
impossible from our ministers. That is why we proceed in the way
that we do.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
1510
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.
* * *
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 the 16th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the legislative committee on Bill C-20, an act to give effect
to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. This
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
In addition, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the liaison committee. If the House
gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 15th
report later this day.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I want to be sure that I heard the hon.
member correctly. I think he said he was tabling the committee
report dealing with Quebec only.
He referred to Bill C-20 as being for Quebec, while the Prime
Minister is telling the House that Bill C-20 concerns all of
Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: If I am not mistaken, what the hon.
parliamentary secretary did is read the title of the bill, which
contains the word “Quebec”. I believe that is the answer.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-421, an act to amend the Export Development Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation is
exempted from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the
Access to Information Act, and the provisions of the Auditor
General Act requiring all federal departments and some agencies
to undertake sustainable development strategies and implement
them. As a result, the Export Development Corporation has
supported certain projects that are harming the environment and
even human rights in nations in which Canadian companies operate.
For example, the EDC has helped fund mining companies
responsible for massive mine tailings spills. Do hon. members
remember the Kumtor cyanide mine spill in Krygyzstan, the Omai
gold mine in Guyana and the OK Tedi copper mine in Papua, New
Guinea.
It is not only very desirable but also urgent that the policy of
the Export Development Corporation be guided by sound
environmental principles, and this bill aims at ensuring such a
goal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-422, an act to amend the Criminal Code to
prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's
religion or belief that human life is inviolable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce today this
bill to amend the criminal code to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that health
care providers working in medical facilities of various kinds
will never be forced to participate against their wills in
abortion procedures or acts of euthanasia.
The bill itself does not prohibit abortion or euthanasia but
makes it illegal to force another person to participate in such a
procedure or an act of euthanasia.
1515
Incredibly, there are medical personnel in Canada who have been
fired because the law is not explicit enough in spelling out
those conscience rights. The bill will make those rights
explicit.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of the
Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament presented
to the House on December 16, 1999, be concurred in. This report
establishes the mandate of the committee, its quorum and its
entitlement to sit during sittings of the Senate.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that the first report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, presented on Monday, November 15, 1999, be concurred
in.
It is my pleasure to rise and address this issue. I would be
completely remiss if I did not address the ongoing problems in
human resources development.
It is rather obvious that the government today has a huge
problem when it comes to how it monitors and controls its
spending. I do not think I could find a better example in the six
years that I have been here than what we see going on today in
the Department of Human Resources Development.
I will begin first by making some reference to the facts and
then, second, to draw attention to the response of the minister
today in question period to these things.
I will run through some of the audit highlights that have been
revealed to us by the internal audit that was made possible when
the Reform Party, through an access to information request,
forced the minister to reveal the mess and forced her to come
clean on what was happening in that department.
I will run through the facts again because I think there was
some information today in question period that probably left some
people unclear.
Of the 459 project files reviewed, 15% did not have an
application on file from the sponsor. This is a random audit.
There are thousands and thousands of files. This was only a very
tiny percentage. Seventy-two per cent of the files had no
cashflow forecast, 46% had no estimate of the number of
participants, 25% had no description of activities to be
supported, 25% provided no description of the characteristics of
participants, and 11% had no budget proposal. These things are
fairly basic.
Eleven per cent of the files had no description of expected
results and 97% of all files reviewed showed no evidence that
anyone had checked to see if the recipient owed money to the
Department of Human Resources Development.
Eight out of 10 files reviewed did not show evidence of financial
monitoring and 87% of files showed no sign of supervision.
1520
These grant applications represent a billion dollars. A lot of
people are rightly referring to this as the billion dollar
boondoggle or bungle. It is atrocious. I do not think anybody
who is alive today can remember anything so poorly managed by any
level of government. It is absolutely outrageous.
I will talk about some of the things we heard in question period
today when we posed serious questions to the minister about her
handling or mishandling of this case. A moment ago we saw the
Minister for International Trade who certainly had a hand to play
in this. However, I want to talk about the current minister's
role in all of this. Whenever we ask a question about her
accountability she instantly tries to draw attention away from
that and talk about what she will do in the future.
The concept of accountability includes taking some
responsibility for one's role in a past problem. That is an
aspect the government has run away from at every opportunity. It
simply refuses to talk about what has gone on in the past as
though it does not matter. In the private sector, when there is
an issue of accountability the very first thing people do is
either admit their responsibility and take their punishment or,
if they refuse to admit it, they are ultimately punished by the
people in charge and in some cases are let go.
Somehow the government thinks we are all going to ignore that,
that it does not matter what it has done in the past and that we
should just forgive and forget. Well, we are talking about a
billion dollars of taxpayers' money at a time when many Canadians
are rightly concerned that very important and essential services
may not be getting money. People argue, and I think correctly,
that taxes in Canada are far too high and yet the government is
mismanaging an incredible amount of money, a billion dollars that
we know about.
Many of us suspect that there is a culture of neglect that runs
right through the government. We can point to other departments
where there are all kinds of grants and subsidies handed out and
we suspect that in many cases they are handed out for completely
the wrong reasons.
Did the minister accept any responsibility today? Absolutely
not. When it came to something that was such a glaring
contradiction, she tried to sweep it under the rug. We pointed
out, and she admitted this in the House today, that on November
17 she knew about these problems. She may have known about them
earlier, we do not know, but she certainly admitted knowing about
these problems on November 17.
However, on December 16, when my colleague questioned her about
problems in human resources development, she said “no money
flowed without appropriate approval”. That is a direct quote
from Hansard. She completely covered up what was going on
in that department. She is solely responsible for holding back
these facts from the public, facts that I think are critical. We
are talking about a billion dollars at a time when people are
concerned about health care, when taxes are too high, when
emergency aid is not forthcoming to the prairies, and on and on
we could go.
Although it is true that the mess goes well beyond this
minister, that it goes back to the previous minister, the
minister before that and the human resources bureaucrats, and
there is no doubt about that, there is also no question that the
minister today is the one who is responsible for hiding the facts
about what was going on. She alone is responsible for that. I
would argue that is a firing violation.
I would argue that she should resign because it is the
honourable thing to do. However, if she will not do that, then
the Prime Minister has an obligation to fire her. We remember
his words from 1991. He said in this place that if he should
become prime minister and one of his ministers did something like
this and there was a problem, that the buck would not get passed,
that the buck would stop with that minister and that the minister
would accept responsibility.
Now we see the Prime Minister expecting Canadians to just ignore
all those promises that his government would somehow be better
than the previous government and that it would deal with things
directly. However, we cannot do that.
It is wrong. It is a billion dollars. Again, it is one of the
biggest bungles that I can ever remember in the history of this
place and somehow the Liberals want us to ignore that. We will
not do that. I can guarantee the House that the official
opposition is on the job and we will pursue this until we do get
some justice from the government.
1525
I want to talk a little bit about something else the minister
said during question period today. She wanted us of course to
forget about the past. She wanted us to forget about it and let
bygones by bygones, even though it is only a billion dollars.
She also said that she has a six point plan, that her department
has implemented this new six point plan and that from here on in
things will be hunky-dory, things will go great.
What the minister did not mention is that under the Financial
Administration Act those procedures that she is talking about
should be followed already. Those are already supposed to be
followed by the government. This is nothing new. It is her
responsibility to follow those things. I do not know how many
times the auditor general has taken the government to task for
not following these basic procedures in the Financial
Administration Act, but somehow it never gets through.
Now we uncover this huge mess, not because the government wanted
it to happen but because it was forced to reveal it. Now the
Liberals say that they have this new plan. It is not an old
plan, it has simply never been executed.
The auditor general has told us time after time that there
should be clear, measurable objectives when the government
embarks on an initiative. What do we find when we look at this
mess? We find that all kinds of money was sent out which did not
create one job in many instances. In fact, lots of times the
money went to things that were never approved in the first place,
but there was no monitoring, so how would the government know
that.
We had the case of the money that was supposed to be used for a
child care study. Money for furniture had been requested by a
native band in British Columbia but it was used instead to
purchase jewels.
I think Canadians are right to be not only concerned but
outraged that the government is so sanguine in its response to
this, saying “Forget about it. It happened in the past and we
will fix it in the future”.
The concept of accountability demands that there be some
punishment. I think right-thinking Canadians everywhere believe
that someone should take responsibility for this. So far no one
has. No one has said “I will take responsibility and I will
willingly step down”, or “I will fire officials who made these
sorts of decisions”. None of that has happened.
I argue that the government is way off base if it thinks that in
the next budget that comes down Canadians will sit idly by and
allow the minister to take taxpayers' dollars to embark on all
kinds of new initiatives or increase spending in existing
departments when we know that the government is rotten to the
core when it comes to mismanagement and lack of accountability.
Why would the taxpayers willingly give the government a single
penny knowing that this goes on and that the government is so
eager to sweep all of this under the carpet?
I would argue that Canadians today have a right to ask that we
go through every department, that we go through the Department of
Human Resources Development, not just the projects that were
audited, but all of the projects and find the waste, the
mismanagement and the corruption and root it out.
We could do the same thing in the Department of Canadian
Heritage where we know that the government issues hundreds of
millions of dollars of grants every year. We should go through
every one of those programs.
We should go to the Department of Industry, where we know that
the government spends millions of dollars propping up very
profitable businesses, and asking tough questions like “Why are
they getting that money? Is there accountability? Should they
get that money at all?” Of course, we would argue, no. We
would argue that the money is better left in the hands of
taxpayers who would be a lot more responsible with it than
bureaucrats and politicians.
We think we should go to the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. I do not know how many times we have had
the auditor general come forward and say that there is a lack of
monitoring going on in the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and that we do not know what happens to
money that goes to native bands.
We see cases, even recently in Alberta where people are being
brought up on charges because of mismanagement in those bands.
Does the government take any of this seriously? No, it tries to
sweep it under the carpet.
1530
We could go on and on. It is time to have a serious look at
what goes on in CIDA today. A lot of people rightly argue, and
we have raised these questions in the past in this place, that
some of the money spent by the government through CIDA is done
for political reasons, the political allocation of economic
resources.
I would argue that not just $1 billion is mismanaged and
improperly accounted for. I would argue that it is billions upon
billions of dollars. The government does not have the moral
authority to ask for one penny more until the auditor general
undertakes a review of every department and roots out the waste
and mismanagement that we all know is there.
I remember seeing a finance department poll about a year ago.
That poll indicated that the public said at the time that they
thought there was still lots of waste in the federal government.
Of course at the time the federal government would have denied
that. It would have said, “Waste? Well you know, we have
embarked on this program review and we have done away with that
problem”. Again the public would have been way out ahead of the
government which has no clue how to spend taxpayers' dollars. It
spends money as if it were its own, as if it were free money that
grows on trees.
Canadians today bear the highest personal income taxes in the
G-7 by a long, long way. They are rightly concerned that the
government has no concept of how hard they work to earn that
money, that the government sees the taxpayers as geese that need
to be plucked once in a while, and it wants to do it while
eliciting the least amount of hissing. We see it every year with
the bracket creep and other tax measures that bring in ever more
money. The government completely wastes it in so many cases.
I urge my colleagues across the way to pay attention not only to
the concerns of the official opposition but to the concerns of
Canadians everywhere. They have raised a lot of questions and
are very concerned about this. Any time we turn on a talk show
we hear about these concerns. We are urging the government across
the way to pay serious attention to this.
I do not think that the government really got the message during
the recent furor over the $20 million that was proposed to go to
the NHL. That was bad enough but this problem is literally 50
times worse.
Colleagues across the way do not seem to think it is an issue at
all. I warn them that unless they take responsibility, this
issue will plague them right into the next election campaign.
The official opposition will make a point of ensuring that it is
an issue in the next election campaign.
It is also time to talk about what is going on in the other
departments we have mentioned. We do not believe it is limited
to the Department of Human Resources Development. We believe
there is a culture of neglect within the government, that the
government is rotten to the core when it comes to simple neglect,
incompetence and managing taxpayers' money. We already have
evidence that that occurs in the department of Indian affairs as
I pointed out.
We saw it also fairly recently with the issue of parties on
coast guard vessels off the coast of Atlantic Canada. Taxpayers'
money was being improperly spent there.
My colleague from St. Albert repeatedly raises these issues. As
the chair of the public accounts committee, he produces a waste
report that points not to just a few dollars but millions of
dollars of waste that occur every year in every department.
I do not think I can emphasize enough why it is important that
we have an independent audit of what goes on in the government.
Obviously the government simply cannot be trusted to do it. We
have seen what happens when it is allowed to go ahead and make
all these decisions itself.
In closing I will caution one final thing. The tendency will be
for the government to say that it had this problem under control.
It will try to limit the debate to the issue of human resources
development. I do not think we should allow it to get away with
that.
1535
It is fairly clear now. The current Minister of Human Resources
Development came from the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Department where there were problems. The current
international trade minister was the human resources minister
before that and the current foreign affairs minister was the
human resources minister before that.
If those ministers allowed all of this to happen on their watch,
I would be very interested in knowing what is going on in their
present departments. I suspect the same lack of attention to the
management of those departments is rampant today in their present
portfolios. I would also argue that the Prime Minister, who
seems so sanguine and carefree about this whole issue, should
ultimately be held accountable for the decisions he has made in
putting those people in there in the first place.
To sum up, the government should be ashamed of its lack of
response to this billion dollar boondoggle. The concept of
accountability decrees that people should be punished for this
mismanagement.
Ultimately we believe that a resignation or resignations are in
order. Ultimately the way out of this mess is to call into
question whether or not all of these grants are necessary and
whether they should be done by this level of government.
Ultimately we believe there should be transparent financial
administration in place, something we have yet to see from this
government which whenever it has the chance tries to hide what is
going on. That was made abundantly clear by the Minister of
Human Resources Development today in question period.
That is a cautionary note to the government across the way. I
think it ignores the concerns of the public at its peril.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully and with interest to the remarks of the Reform Party
member, which were very justified, given the scandalous
situation in which the federal government has placed us. We are
talking about waste. Right now, the thinking is that $1 billion
has been wasted, but it could be more.
A simple calculation shows that, if only 459 of the 30,000 cases
were studied and 80% of them were problematic, then 24,000 of
the 30,000 cases could be incomplete, fraudulent or otherwise
come up short.
I would like him to comment on this. How many billions of
dollars could be involved overall?
I would also like to hear what he has to say about quotas. We
know that this is not a case of mismanagement across the board
because, when it came to administering quotas, i.e. cutting off
EI benefits—
An hon. member: It was good at that.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: —cutting off essential family income, in
the maritimes, Quebec, or wherever, they were over 100% on
target.
In my riding of Repentigny, the quota rate for people cut off EI
hit 140%.
I would also like to hear what he has to say about another topic
that is being discussed in the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, and that is financial information strategy.
Wanting to better manage the taxpayers money, which is
understandable, this government proposes new accounting
procedures for managing public funds. A new accounting system,
known as the Financial Information Strategy, is being introduced
in all the departments and agencies.
We learned recently that this system should be in place in every
department by April 1, 2001. This may come as a surprise to you
but, if you ask Treasury Board Secretariat officials how much
the system implementation will cost for all federal departments
and agencies, they will tell you that they do not know.
They think it might cost $400 million, perhaps $500 million or
even $1 billion. A system is being put in place to better manage
money, but they cannot even tell how much its implementation
will cost.
We are not talking about $211 or $200,000, as the Prime minister
suggested in the House, trying to hide the real figures.
1540
We are talking about $400 million, $500 million, $1 billion or some
indeterminate amount. We are talking about a financial and
accounting system. I would like to hear what the Reform member
has to say about this new evidence of fiscal profligacy on the
part of the government. I would have many more questions for
him, but I will first hear what he has to say.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his thoughtful questions. I appreciate his interest in this
matter. We are all very concerned about the government's lack of
response on this very important issue.
I want to address the member's last question first about the
financial information strategy. It is more than a little ironic
that the government would implement it on April 1, April Fool's
Day, because I suspect that could speak volumes about how well
this plan will work. It will probably work as well as the last
one which the government simply did not follow through on. The
government did nothing which is why we are in this situation
today. It strikes me as well that it is very ironic the
government had no idea how much this plan would cost. This is a
plan that is supposed to monitor the spending of the government.
That is the problem right there.
I think my friend is correct. When the government wants to be
efficient it can be coldly efficient. It is coldly efficient at
taxing Canadians below the poverty line. Every year auditors
swarm like locusts on people who can hardly afford to put bread
on the table and they wring every nickel out of their pockets.
I do not know how many businesses have come to me. Colleagues
have raised this with me in the not very distant past. The GST
people and income tax people have become so much more aggressive
than they ever were before. Again they descend like locusts to
wring every cent out of business people, afraid that somehow they
are going to cheat the government out of a few nickels when they
already pay incredibly high taxes.
On the other hand, we know how inefficient the government can be
when it suits it. One of the best examples is the AIDA program.
Prairie farmers have been sideswiped by low commodity prices due
to European and American subsidies. The government's plan is to
put in place a 40 page document that would require a Philadelphia
lawyer to figure it out. Farmers have to pay $500 to have it
filled out. They send them in and in many cases are rejected.
In Saskatchewan 62% are rejected. The government has allocated
$1.5 billion but has only paid out $400 million. It probably is
not going to pay out much more than that. It does not want to pay
it out because it does not care about the problem on the
prairies. When it suits the government, it can be very
inefficient.
The minister across the way who is responsible for the wheat
board and sits as a member from the prairies is concerned about
what I am saying. He is saying horse feathers. The fact is the
minister knows this. As farmers sit in the legislature in
Saskatchewan today, I am surprised he is not a bit more concerned
about the failure of his government's program to deliver relief
on a timely basis. He should be ashamed of his comments. That
is all I have to say.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we heard the member's very eloquent 20 minute speech
regarding the problems in HRDC and the billion dollar boondoggle.
I think it is much deeper than that.
In my few years sitting here as a member of parliament I have
witnessed exactly the same thing within the fisheries with TAGS.
The government paid $2.4 billion for fishermen to stay at home
and again the auditor general had no accountability. We see it in
ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. There are
billions of dollars going out.
I would like the member's comments with respect to other
departments. We have just hit the tip of the iceberg. It seems
to be a culture within the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question. There is no doubt that in the six years we have
been here we have seen all kinds of examples of unbelievable
waste by the government.
Every year, in fact four times a year, the auditor general
produces reports that lay out all kinds of mismanagement. We must
remember also that he has a limited budget. There are only so
many departments he can look into at any one time.
Certainly the TAGS program comes to mind as one of the most
ludicrous, wasteful programs that has ever come down the pike.
1545
I would argue that not only was it wasteful, it was probably one
of the most cruel programs I have ever seen, because the
government was setting out to train people for jobs that simply
did not exist. Whole towns in Newfoundland were trained to be
hairdressers. It is ridiculous to give people false hope and
then ultimately take that hope away from them and at the same
time insult the taxpayers by spending $2.5 billion.
Canadians need a small, lean government, an accountable
government, a transparent government, with low taxes. That would
ultimately benefit all Canadians because the economy would move
faster and citizens would get real jobs that would allow people
to provide for themselves and their families and to have the
dignity that goes along with that. That is what we need, not a
bunch of ridiculous programs that come forward, as we have seen
in the past from this government, such as TAGS. We need real
jobs. They will come when the government finally figures out
that it cannot be the big daddy, the sugar daddy, to everybody
and understands that it is the private economy which will create
real jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the key element is found in the
introduction of the report referred to earlier today, which reads
as follows:
Recently, an agreement was struck with nine provinces (except
Quebec) and two territories (the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories) on the main points of new mechanisms as part of the
Social Union initiative.
The Bloc Quebecois had the words “except Quebec” added.
Does the hon. member think it is normal to have an agreement on
social union in Canada that can be implemented without first
consulting Quebec and without its consent? It seems to have
become a habit of this federal government to do any number of
things by denying the reality of Quebec?
It did so in 1982, with the unilateral patriation of the
Constitution, and it is doing it again now, with the social
union. I would like to hear the hon. the member on this.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
government has failed completely to address the legitimate
aspirations of the province of Quebec, as well as other provinces
which have sole jurisdiction in many areas, including training
and education. It is time for the government not to use just the
stick when it comes to dealing with Quebec. We believe that it
should use the carrot as well. It is time for a fundamental
reform of the federation. If we had that in Canada today we
would not have the problem of people agitating to leave the
country.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
proceed to orders of the day.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe I rose to speak in this debate before the government
member. I have a speech to make on this motion and I would have
appreciated being recognized since I was already on my feet.
The Deputy Speaker: I have a lot of sympathy for the hon.
member, but, after the beginning of a debate on a motion moved
by a member of the opposition, it is customary for a member of
the government party to respond. This is why I recognized the
parliamentary secretary who, as we know, is a government member.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
proceed to orders of the day.
1550
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I know
you are an expert in procedural matters. As a matter of fact,
you just tabled a new book entitled House of Commons Procedure
and Practice, which was brilliantly put together by the clerks
of the House. I am sure you have noticed that, according to our
standing orders, when the Speaker recognizes a member who is
rising, that member is supposed to speak.
In this case, not only did the member not rise, but even when
the Speaker recognized him, he refused to speak. I rose.
Therefore, it seems to me that I should be allowed to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Roberval surely noticed that
the parliamentary secretary hung on every word the Speaker said.
I know he heard what I said, but he was waiting for the
interpretation. So I think the parliamentary secretary wants to
have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1635
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 133
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 90
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed a bill to which the concurrence
of this House is desired.
* * *
1640
The Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at
the time adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead, Immigration and Refugee Board.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved the second reading of, and concurrence in,
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act to amend the
Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the
House today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal
Records Act.
Hon. members will remember an identical bill received unanimous
support from all parties, as Bill C-69, in the previous session
of parliament. I am happy to report that Bill C-7 received
unanimous support at third reading in the other place.
Moreover, and I feel it is important to stress it, every justice
minister and General Solicitor in the federal, provincial and
territorial governments have supported the thrust of this
document. In the long run, Bill C-7 will help us ensure the
security of our children and other vulnerable persons.
Bill C-7 will help us to better protect our children by
authorizing the use of a special notation in the Canadian police
information centre system, also known as CPIC, to indicate to a
police force doing a check that a pardoned person has already
been found guilty of a sexual offence. It will then be possible
to ask the CPIC management to make the sealed records available.
Thus, organizations responsible for taking care of children that
are considering hiring an applicant or using a volunteer will
have a better way to determine if that person received a pardon
for a sexual offence conviction. The special notation will
ensure that such records are not overlooked during the criminal
records check for screening purposes.
My distinguished colleagues will probably remember that the
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
had expressed some reserves about the bill. Consequently, the
honourable senators adopted some motions to amend it.
Without prejudice to the thrust of the text adopted by the
members in this House, the motions resulted in four amendments
that change the structure of the bill to improve its
implementation.
The first amendment specifies that the notation system only
applies to sexual offences. Indeed, it has always been very
clear that this bill was aimed at this type of offences, not
others.
The second amendment takes the list of sexual offences out of
the regulations and incorporates it in the legislation as a
schedule to the act. This being said, the list of offences has
not been amended as such since it was reviewed by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The third amendment takes the definitions of “children” and
“vulnerable persons” out of the regulations to incorporate them
into the act.
Finally, the fourth amendment changes the wording, but not the
substance, of the definition of “vulnerable persons” by removing
the word “handicap”, but keeping the word “disability”.
I would like to thank the members of the Senate Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their
judicious comments. I am convinced my distinguished colleagues
will be pleased with the proposed amendments which, I say it
again, have to do with the wording and not the substance of the
bill passed by the members of this House.
1645
I want to thank all my colleagues in this House and the other
one for their invaluable contribution to and support of Bill C-7.
Passing Bill C-7 will result in significant changes based on
efficient measures already put in place by the current
government, on the unanimous recommendation of the provincial
and territorial justice ministers.
These changes have been endorsed by every party and I believe
they are consistent with our common concern and commitment to do
everything we can to protect our children and other vulnerable
persons against sexual predators who might be out to harm them.
On this side of the House, we encourage the members of the other
parties to express interest and support for this essential piece
of legislation. I therefore ask the House to concur in these
amendments.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are debating Bill C-7 which would amend the Criminal
Records Act to make criminal records of pardoned sex offenders
available for background checks. This will ensure that the
sealed records of sex offenders seeking positions of trust
particularly over children will be available for screening
purposes.
I appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General of Canada. His involvement in the entire
process from the beginning has been positive. He has been true
to his word as an hon. member all the way through. I am glad to
see we are at this stage today where hopefully the bill will go
on to royal assent.
This bill has a long story behind it. I will not go through all
of it but I will highlight it briefly a little later. It is
important that we understand what this bill is actually doing. We
talk a lot in the House about the importance and the care of
children. This bill makes a significant step in the direction of
caring for children.
A lot of people do not realize today that when those convicted
of a criminal offence finish serving their time of either four or
five years, they can apply for a pardon. A pardon does not mean
they did not do it; it just means their record is no longer
accessible by the public. Just about everybody who applies for a
pardon gets a pardon. That means there are many people who have
been convicted, who have served their time, who have received
their pardon and whose records are not accessible to the public.
Maybe that is okay.
Where there is concern and why this bill is before us today is
in dealing with children when those applying for positions of
care or trust over children have a previous conviction of a
sexual offence particularly toward children. This bill would open
up those records or allow access to those records so that those
who are hiring people or bringing on volunteers or putting people
in place to care for children can perform thorough checks. The
criminal records check would penetrate right into the pardoned
record so there would be no doubt that there is no history of
such grievous crimes against children. It would give parents and
the people involved the peace of mind that everything possible
had been done.
As the parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier, the way we are
going about doing this is simply by flagging the records in the
existing police information system, CPIC. We have the information
so all we are really doing is flagging it to make sure that when
necessary this information can be accessed.
A number of controls have been put in place throughout the
process and throughout the committee examination of this bill to
make sure all the various interests are protected. I am not going
to go into that. We have done that in previous debates on this
bill and I do not think we need to cover that ground again. The
House has heard it, the committees have heard it, it has been
passed two or three times. We are at the final stage of this
whole process.
There is another reason that this is important. The police made
it very clear to us in their testimony before the committee that
there is a high rate of recidivism, of repeat offences for those
who have been convicted of a sexual crime particularly against
children.
That is why this kind of legislation is needed.
1650
In fact, the police who were before the committee mentioned that
they only catch a fraction of those who commit these kinds of
offences. This is all the more reason that we need thorough
record checks so children are not put in positions of risk, or
offenders in a place where they can reoffend.
Bill C-7 has also brought some other improvements to the mix.
There are changes on how pardons are processed. This is long
overdue. We could do more than what the bill does but one thing
it does is once someone has applied for a pardon and has been
turned down, they have to wait at least a year before they can
reapply. That is a step in the right direction.
I am pleased to say that when it looked at the bill, the other
place improved it. I was concerned that the list of sexual
offences which this bill applied to was in the regulations before
it went to the other place. This meant that they could be
changed by bureaucrats without coming back to the House for
debate. The Senate incorporated those types of offences into the
bill itself so that there is assurance that it is all covered by
the legislation. It did a good job.
This debate and the debates on previous bills which have brought
us to where we are with Bill C-7 have been interesting. The
committees heard testimonies from witnesses. Victims groups
mentioned that sexual crimes committed against children were not
a one time thing. The victims stated that it was like a life
sentence. It was something they would never be free from or be
able to forget. This is the reason we do not want to submit any
more children to that kind of life sentence and we are doing
everything we can to protect them from being in those situations
ever again.
The police also pointed out that people who have this sickness,
a predisposition to sexual offences, often work their way back
into a position of trust with children. There is no way to make
sure they are excluded from those positions unless we have access
to every possible record we can find. That is another reason
Bill C-7 is before us and has broad support in the House.
The police associations had also documented along with
Correctional Service Canada that the psychiatric community holds
no confidence that there is any kind of reliable treatment for
people who have this predisposition. Even though they may have
served their time and have had no further convictions and have
received a pardon, there is no confidence that the problem has
been addressed or that there has been any reliable treatment
applied to the individual who has this illness.
I will touch briefly on another link that ties into a current
issue that is also before the House and the supreme court. The
Canadian Police Association and two detectives from British
Columbia who deal with these kinds of crimes came before the
committee. They said that in almost 100% of the cases, people
who were involved in sexual crimes, particularly those against
children, were consumers of pornography. Often they would find
child pornography with the individual.
That issue is before us. That issue has generated the largest
petition, by fourfold, that the 36th Parliament has ever seen.
There are 350,000 signatures on petitions from coast to coast.
The petitioners want to see the laws upheld and strengthened that
make sure that the possession and purchase of child pornography
is something that Canadians do not have to tolerate.
Our party put forward a supply day motion where the House could
have used the notwithstanding clause in the charter. We could
have upheld the law in B.C. and we would not have had a delay of
a year plus where the gates have been open to the consumption of
child pornography in this country.
I am sad to say that the government did not take that opportunity
and use the charter as it was intended.
1655
In fact the Prime Minister himself had once written that that
was the very intention, the very reason the notwithstanding
clause was included in the charter, to protect against the
legalization of child pornography. Yet his own government did
not take advantage of that opportunity which the official
opposition presented to the House. The consequence is we have
opened the door to the consumption of this grievous material. We
are still waiting for a ruling on the issue from the supreme
court.
We can see these two issues are linked. If we are going to all
this effort to protect children and make sure they are not put in
the hands of sexual predators who target children, why would we
not also ensure that the child pornography issue is dealt with
straight up and firmly, as quickly as we can, to make sure we
close that door?
Often the people that are caught up in this cannot tell the
difference between fantasy and reality after a while and children
end up being the victims.
When the arguments of freedom of speech are used and it makes
the most innocent of our society a target for abuse, we have gone
too far. We must all be responsible for the health and welfare
of our community and take a more balanced approach to these
arguments around freedom of speech, because they just do not
work.
I will give a brief review of how this important bill came to
the House. Back in the 35th Parliament, almost five years ago, a
petition came to the House from 25,000 people in British Columbia
who were concerned about the need to better protect children. It
was presented by the hon. member from Fraser Valley, a member of
my party. When he presented it, he did not stop there but also
went on to submit a private member's bill that would have done
fundamentally what Bill C-7 does, which is to give to
institutions that are caring for children and parents the access
to the pardoned record of anyone they are putting in a position
of caring for children.
That was five years ago. That private member's bill was in the
mix. It was not drawn but it was waiting. When the election was
called it died on the order paper. It never did see debate in the
House. In 1997 when I came to the House and I looked for a
number of private members' bills to submit, I saw the bill from
the member from Fraser Valley and thought it made a lot of sense.
I wanted to put it forward. That was Bill C-284.
Most of the members of the House understand this, but for those
who are listening, unfortunately there are more private members'
bills than we can get to the floor of the House so there has to
be a draw. Fortunately Bill C-284 was drawn. The next test it
had to go through was whether it was going to be votable or just
debated and aired in the House with no vote. Very narrowly it
was deemed to be votable. That meant we could debate the issue
and vote on it.
Every member of the House debated it. There were mixed feelings
at the time. Some supported it but some did not. Some had
reservations. When it came to the vote it passed second reading
in the House. A private member's bill from the opposition passed
second reading in the House. It was a good sign that we had
consensus on the need to do all we can to better protect
children.
I submit that if we could have had the same vote on the
notwithstanding clause on the child pornography issue in B.C., we
might have seen the same positive result. Unfortunately it did
not happen.
Once the bill passed second reading it went on to committee. I
have to commend all the members of the justice committee. They
did a good job. They listened to the witnesses. They listened to
the police. They listened to the victims groups. They listened
to parents who had children who had been victims. They even
listened to some of the civil libertarians who thought that once
pardoned always pardoned and we should not have access to the
record. They questioned hard, saw past the partisan politics and
said, “We are talking about children and we want to minimize the
risk”. Clearly at the end of the day in that justice committee
there was consensus for supporting Bill C-284, which is the bill
I had been fortunate enough to bring to that point.
1700
About that time, through access to information, we know the
government was aware this private member's bill was to come to
the House and it proactively drafted a piece of legislation which
was very similar to my Bill C-284. That was fine. I felt there
were some weaknesses in the government's bill and decided,
together with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General of Canada, to bring both bills to committee. I am
sharing this information with members of the House who may think
private members' bills cannot have an impact. They do and this
is a real life story of one that did.
The government bill, which is a copy of the one I submitted more
or less in intent, went to committee and we effectively as a
committee combined the best parts of both bills into the
government bill. The committee agreed to accept four amendments
which strengthened the government bill. I felt they were
critical amendments that took the discretion out of whether or
not we would release these records. At the end of the day the
committee supported the four amendments and in turn I withdrew my
motion and said that Bill C-69 should be brought back to the
House for a vote.
It is important to note that there was some give and take
throughout the process. What was good about this process was
that for once we saw some partisan politics being put aside and
people actually working together.
Bill C-69 was brought back to the House and I must say it was
good when the bill was passed at third and final reading and
moved on to the Senate. With all this work, all these witnesses,
all this cost and all this time, I wondered if we would ever see
it come back from the Senate.
I know other bills went to the Senate later than Bill C-69 but
came back to the House sooner. I thought maybe we had lost the
sense of priority on this bill. I must commend the parliamentary
secretary to the solicitor general. He has continued to fulfil
his commitment that he would get it back from the Senate. In
fact when it came back from the Senate there were a number of
improvements. Things that were in the regulations and subject to
change by bureaucrats were now incorporated right into the bill
in an appendix. They did a good job and strengthened the bill.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to go back to my riding and
to thank the many associations across the country that sent in
letters of support. I will be sending each one of them a letter
when the bill goes for royal assent thanking them for their
efforts.
I personally applaud members of the House for passing this bill
and the justice committee which put aside partisan politics and
worked to improve the bill before us. I also applaud the
parliamentary secretary and some good Senate amendments.
The media may never cover this bill because we did not fight on
it. There is no arm wrestling or sensationalism around it. They
may never hear too much about it. We worked too long to get it
here, five years to make it happen, but finally we are here.
Some may say it is not a big thing and ask what is the big deal
in getting access to pardon records. In the scope of all
government legislation out there maybe it is not a big thing.
However, if one, two, ten or a hundred children are protected
from being in a situation where they are assaulted by a sexual
predator because of access to this information, then for each one
of those children this is a big thing.
I thank members of the House for supporting the bill. I hope we
send it quickly for royal assent and not let things get stalled
at this point. It is critical that we do it. It would give us
all a refreshing sense of purpose in light of some of the other
things we face in this place.
1705
At this point in time I would like to move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), the House continue to sit
beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of
considering the Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend
the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
The Deputy Speaker: Will those who object to the motion
please rise in their places?
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: More than 15 members having risen the
motion is deemed withdrawn.
(Motion deemed withdrawn)
* * *
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
BILL C-20—NOTICE OF MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-20, an act to give
effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession
Reference.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
* * *
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion pertaining to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act to amend the
Criminal Records Act and to amend another Act in consequence.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
We have just seen the government act once again with respect to
a very important bill.
I would seek the unanimous consent of this House to permit us,
after approving an amendment by the Bloc Quebecois, whose vision
of the country is very different from our own, to move an
amendment that, in short, would add a positive element to a very
negative bill.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move this
amendment. The amendment would be debated after the House has
voted on the Bloc Quebecois amendment. I ask for unanimous
consent to move an amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think I understood correctly what
the hon. member is asking. This afternoon, we are debating the
Senate amendments to Bill C-7. Is the member moving an amendment
to this bill?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying it that, on a
very important bill, a negative but nevertheless important
measure, namely Bill C-20, the clarity bill, the government House
leader has announced that, tomorrow, a minister of the crown
will bring forward a time allocation motion that will limit
debate to a certain amount of time.
1710
What I am asking at this stage is to have the unanimous consent
of the House so that our party can move an amendment after the
amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois has been disposed of.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member to
move an amendment to the bill at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather surprising to have such an audience at this late
hour, but I am still very happy to speak today to the Senate
amendments to Bill C-7, which amends the Criminal Records Act.
Bill C-7 proposes preventive measures against recidivism for
sexual offenders who have been granted a pardon and who would be
tempted to work with children or other vulnerable groups.
So that members can fully understand the proposed amendments, I
would like to remind them of the circumstances under which the
present legislation was enacted and to say a few words about the
amendments.
In 1969, the Ouimet report recommended the adoption of a federal
act on rehabilitation.
At the time, the goal was to rehabilitate offenders who had been
of good conduct since having committed their crime.
The Criminal Records Act was passed in 1985. This act allows the
offender to apply for a pardon. It sets out the terms and
conditions for obtaining what is commonly known as a pardon.
Under the present legislation, an individual is eligible for a
pardon if he or she participates in good conduct for a certain
length of time after the legal termination of his or her
sentence. That period is of five years if the person was
convicted of an indictable offence, and three years, for a
summary offence conviction.
What are the effects of a pardon for the offender? According to
section 5 of the act, the grant of a pardon is evidence of the
good behaviour of the applicant. It restores his or her
reputation and vacates the conviction in respect of which the
pardon is granted. There is controversy over what the expression
“vacates the conviction in respect of which it is granted”
means. Based on the French version of the text, some claim that
the pardon retroactively erases the conviction. Others maintain,
based on the English version, that the pardon simply makes the
information concerning the conviction confidential.
in fact, this matter was debated by the Quebec appeal court in
the Justice Richard Therrien case. The court reached the
conclusion that the safest interpretation of the law
acknowledges that, while a pardon does not erase the conviction
retroactively, it mitigates its effects by extinguishing them as
much as possible and by banning discrimination against a person
who has benefited from this measure.
The court adds that section 5 of the Criminal Records Act is
therefore limited in scope. Essentially it is intended to
remove the effects of any disqualification created under an act
of Parliament. In addition, the legislation does not contain
any provisions preventing the criminal record of an individual
from being questioned.
In practice, a pardon eliminates the criminal background from
the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system
maintained by the RCMP, known as the CPIC, the Canadian police
information centre.
1715
This is the official criminal records bank in Canada. When a
pardon is granted, the record is removed from the system and is
no longer accessible, unless authorized by the Solicitor General
of Canada.
The present law provides for the revocation of a pardon. A
pardon may be revoked if a person is convicted of a further
criminal offence punishable by summary conviction or is no
longer of good conduct, has knowingly made a false or deceptive
statement, or concealed some material particular. On the other
hand, the pardon granted to an individual convicted of an
offence punishable by way of indictment is automatically
cancelled.
The Criminal Records Act provides that applications for pardon
must be submitted to the National Parole Board. The board then
investigates the applicant. If the National Parole Board decides
not to grant a pardon, there is no provision in the existing
legislation preventing the applicant from immediately submitting
a new application after having been denied a pardon.
About 250,000 pardons have been granted since the act came into
effect, and the recidivism rate among those who were granted a
pardon is approximately 2%. Fewer than 2.4% of the pardons
granted have been revoked.
Some 4,000 of these 250,000 pardons were granted to people who
had been convicted of sexual assault. It is estimated that 114
of these 4,000 offenders committed another crime of a sexual
nature.
We have heard sordid stories about children sexually assaulted
by individuals who were in a position of trust relative to them.
Even if the number of repeat sexual offenders who have been
granted a pardon is low, just one sexual assault involving a
child is one too many.
The government adopted a series of measures to prevent child
sexual abuse. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Records
Act are part of that arsenal. The main measure proposed in Bill
C-7 is the development of a system to identify child sex
offenders who were granted a pardon and who are trying to work
with children or vulnerable persons.
Any person who applies for a job that would put him or her in
the presence of children or vulnerable persons might be subject
to a review of his or her criminal record.
That check will allow officials to determine whether the
applicant was granted a pardon for an offence of a sexual
nature.
Bill C-7 also includes other amendments to the Criminal Records
Act. It clarifies the effect of pardon. The controversy
regarding the interpretation of section 5 is eliminated.
Moreover, amendments are made regarding the time when an
individual can re-apply for a pardon following a refusal.
Finally, the grounds for the revocation of a pardon are changed.
Let me elaborate on these changes.
First, clause 6 of the bill stipulates that an applicant for a
paid or volunteer position of trust or authority with children
or other vulnerable persons may be subject to a verification for
the purpose of determining whether they have been granted a
pardon for a sexual offence. This flagging mechanism would work
as follows.
An individual submits an application to an organization or
person responsible for the well-being of children or other
vulnerable persons. Under the proposed legislation, a future
employer will be able to verify whether an applicant has been
granted a pardon for a sexual offence. The applicant must,
however, consent to this verification in writing.
The manner in which consent is to be given is governed by the
regulations. Once consent has been obtained, a police force or
other authorized organization will conduct the verification.
1720
Detection will be as follows: the RCMP commissioner will be
required to include a notation in the automated criminal
conviction records retrieval system so that police will know
whether someone has been granted a pardon for a sexual offence.
The flag in question could take the form of a red warning light.
It will not reveal details of the offence in question to the
police.
If the red warning light appears during a verification, it will
mean that an applicant has been granted a pardon for a sexual
offence. The RCMP commissioner will then send the file to the
solicitor general, who will disclose the file, in part or in
whole, to the authorized police force. Consent will have to be
obtained again from the applicant before his or her file can be
transmitted to a future employer.
Under this bill, it would be up to the governor in council to
prescribe by regulation which offences should be flagged. Also,
“children” and “vulnerable persons” would be defined in the
regulations. However, the Senate proposes that the list of
offences to be flagged be incorporated in the act. I will get
into the details of this proposition made by the Senate a bit
later.
The government proposes to define the word “children” as
“persons who are less than 18 years of age”. The definition of
this term would then be based solely on age, as is the case in
several other pieces of legislation.
As far as the expression “vulnerable persons” is concerned, the
proposed definition is the following: persons who, because of
their age, an impairment, a disability or other circumstances,
whether temporary or permanent, are in a position of dependence
on others, or are otherwise at a greater risk than the general
population of being harmed by persons in a position of authority
or trust relative to them.
But we will see later that, in its proposed amendment, the
Senate has removed the terms “impairment” and “disability”.
The second change brought about by Bill C-7 is the elimination of
the controversial section 5, which is replaced by clause 4
designed to further clarify the effects of a pardon. It very
simply states that it “requires the judicial record of the
conviction to be kept separate and apart from other criminal
records”.
Bill C-7 makes a third amendment I should mention. It provides
that the pardon will be automatically revoked if a new offence
is committed, whether it is an offence punishable on indictment
or on summary conviction. Finally, it provides for the
imposition of a one year waiting period prior to reapplication
for a pardon following a denial by the parole board.
This bill received strong support from members of the House of
Commons. The proposed measures respond to a basic concern of all
of us, namely the protection of our children against sexual
offenders.
The record of a pardoned sexual offender, like the record of any
other pardoned offender, does not come up during a search of the
CPIC computer files. As I explained earlier, the record of a
pardoned offender is sealed and cannot be disclosed.
However, when an individual wants a job that might put our
children or vulnerable persons at greater risk, an exception to
this rule seems justified to me. This is why I support the
proposed amendments. These changes are preventative measures
which will prevent tragedies.
Yet it is important to mention that only the police and
authorized personnel will have access to the information
regarding the offender, and his consent will be needed to have
his record checked. This guarantees the protection of the
pardoned individual.
1725
Bill C-7 was referred to the Senate on October 18, 1999. After
reviewing it, the Senate has proposed four amendments on which
we have to vote today.
First, the Senate is suggesting that the definitions of
“children” and “vulnerable persons” be included in the act
itself, whereas the government was proposing that they be
defined in the regulations.
Criminal law is particularly important as it condemns those acts
society finds the most reprehensible. It concerns the Canadian
population as a whole. For this reason, I believe using
regulations in matters of criminal law should be avoided.
Parliament must retain the power to determine the categories of
persons affected by these acts, and these must be subject to
debate. In its amendments, the Senate confirms the definition of
“children” as proposed.
In the definition of “vulnerable persons”, The Senate recommends
that the words “handicap” and “infirmity” be replaced by
“disability”. The definition of vulnerable persons would be as
follows: persons who, because of their age, a disability or
other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent, are in a
position of dependence on others; or are otherwise at a greater
risk than the general population of being harmed by persons in a
position of authority or trust relative to them.
The words “handicap” and “infirmity” are seen as inappropriate
or obsolete and the word “disability” seems more appropriate.
Second, the Senate proposes that clause 6.3(1) of the bill be
amended in order to describe the type of offence covered by the
legislation.
I support these amendments since they specify the scope of the
legislation. What this legislation seeks to do is to identify
the individuals who were granted a pardon for a sexual offence
and who might be likely to reoffend when in a position of trust
with children or other vulnerable persons.
The other types of offenders are not affected by this
legislation. This sets a balance between the protection of the
public and the right of individuals to enjoy the full effect of
a pardon.
Third, the Senate proposes that a schedule be added listing the
sexual offences provided for in the criminal code and referred
to in the legislation.
I repeat the comments I made earlier.
Originally, the government wanted to let bureaucrats make a list
of offences, through regulations, without having to report to
parliament. I believe it is essential, in criminal law, for the
freedom of bureaucrats to be limited and for parliament to
retain the responsibility of determining which offences must be
provided for in the legislation. This is why I support this
Senate amendment.
The last amendment relates to the possibility for the governor
in council to change the schedule, through an order in council,
to add or remove a sexual offence. I am in favour of this
amendment, because it gives the latitude required for developing
and updating the list of offences provided for by the
legislation. If the criminal code provides for new sexual
offences, the schedule could be changed accordingly.
A pardon has an important value in our society. People facing
criminal justice are, following a conviction, punished for their
crime. Often, we see that the stigma of a criminal record
remains long after the sentence has ended, even if the
individual does not reoffend and leads an exemplary life.
The Criminal Records Act was passed to allow these people to
lessen the effects of a criminal record by obtaining a pardon.
However, some people who were pardoned for sexual offences have
reoffended. Often, they commit their crime while in a position
of trust with children or vulnerable people.
1730
I have found two very disturbing cases that are good examples of
what we want to avoid with this bill. The first one concerns
Paul Gervais, who received a suspended sentence in March 1999
for sexual assaults on several teenagers in Ottawa in 1997 and 1999.
We read in the Ottawa Citizen that it was discovered during
submissions on sentencing, that Paul Gervais had been sentenced
20 years earlier for similar crimes. He was granted a pardon for
those offences, and it was impossible to retrieve his criminal
record.
The second case reported by Shafer Parker Jr. in the British
Columbia Report concerns Paul Leroux, who was accused of
pornographic material possession in April 1997 and indicted on
32 counts of sexual assault on 15 boys.
During the investigation, it was discovered that in 1979 Paul
Leroux had been sentenced for molesting a boy when he was a
supervisor in the students' residence at Grollier Hall high
school in Inuvik. He had been granted a pardon.
It is true that there are very few repeat offenders but there
should be zero tolerance when it comes to the protection of our
children. Bill C-7 was introduced to prevent abuse and to protect
our children from it.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill and the
Senate amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: The next time this bill is before the House,
the hon. member will have a ten minute period for questions and
remarks.
[English]
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
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
The House resumed from November 23, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-213, an act to promote shipbuilding, 1999, be
read for the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, who has done an extraordinary job
for two years on this matter.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. René Canuel: Even on his holidays, he took time to visit
shipyards. In the area of shipyards this is not always easy.
The purpose of the bill he introduced is to promote shipbuilding
in Canada and to make Canadian shipyards more competitive.
There is a lot of support for these demands. One hundred sixty
thousand people have petitioned the Prime Minister of Canada.
They sent postcards saying that something had to be done in this
area in Canada.
In addition, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada supports the
Marine Workers' Federation of Canada and the Shipyard General
Workers' Federation of British Columbia.
All these people support the bill, which may help enormously.
Some shipyards are nearly bankrupt, others are doing well. In
my riding of Matapédia—Matane, one shipyard is doing very well—the
Verreault Navigation shipyard.
I am not going to give the history of this shipyard, which is a
family history. But they also need help.
They are not asking for subsidies, they want the bill to be
passed because it will help them enormously.
Yesterday, Ms. Verreault said the following at a press
conference she gave “I do not necessarily want money. What I
want is for certain standards to be eliminated and ones
comparable to those in the United States to be set. That would
be enough for me”.
1735
Verreault Navigation's present project is to equip this shipyard
with a second dry dock. Mrs. Verrault herself entered into
alliances with the employers in order to reach a common agreement.
This would result in a huge increase in employment. If there
were a second dry dock, this would immediately create 119 more
jobs on top of the existing 225. For a region like the Gaspé,
that is really great.
We heard in the House today, and since Monday, that $1 billion
had been squandered or at least not having been properly
accounted for. I can say that, if we had standards, not
subsidies but standards, government-backed loans as my colleague
has called for, 129 jobs could be created immediately, or just
about, with this $1 billion.
When we meet the minister, he tells us there is a moratorium and
that it cannot be lifted. How can there be a moratorium when we
are calling for job creation? Nowadays competition does not
come only from Vancouver, the Maritimes or Quebec, but from all
around the world.
The Canadian government has a duty to provide assistance to
shipyards, and I cannot therefore see how one could not support
this bill. It was introduced by my colleague from Lévis, and I
will be going over certain provisions in a moment.
It contains three major demands, and I will tell you more about
them if time permits, but the House is already aware of this
bill. These are our demands, and it is very important that the
bill be passed as quickly as possible.
Mrs. Verreault is an extraordinary woman. My colleague came with
me to meet her. We toured her shipyard with her, and it is quite
impressive. We often think that something like that can only be
found in large cities but, for once, it is in the Gaspé
Peninsula. Mrs. Verreault wants to create jobs. She is not
asking for money; she would just like to be granted loans like
everybody else. I cannot see how such a request could be denied.
The problem is when people dig their heels in. The government implements a
policy from coast to coast, but when a request is made that is a
little bit too unusual, albeit very legitimate, they say “No.
There is a moratorium. Everyone must comply”. I cannot help but
think that, if we were a sovereign state, we would not have to
beg, and the problem would be solved in no time. This is just
one more reason. Even in the Gaspé Peninsula, people want to
achieve sovereignty because the government bureaucracy is such
that jobs are being lost, with the result that families are
getting poorer and young people are leaving.
Moving to one of the demands contained in the bill, I will read
our request concerning a loan guarantee program.
(i) is guaranteed by the federal government in the event of
default in the repayment of the loan,
(ii) bears a rate of interest comparable to that available for
loans from financial institutions to large and financially
strong corporations, and
(iii) is repayable on terms comparable to those usually granted
by financial institutions to large and financially strong
corporations for the repayment of their loans;
1740
This is what we are asking the government for. Mere peanuts. It
is only peanuts compared to the $1 billion boondoggle. I hope
that, this time, the government will understand something must
be done.
Going back to our shipyard in Les Méchins, I invite anyone who
has never been to Les Méchins to come and visit this beautiful
shipyard. This small village is an economic hub; a lot of
development is taking place in surrounding areas. When people
are working, they can help other people, and it snowballs.
I am asking for the co-operation of the House as a whole to pass
this bill so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.
Otherwise, this would be all the more reason to go the
sovereignty way, as far as I am concerned.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to stand in the House of Commons in Ottawa, representing
the people, the taxpayers from my riding on this issue of great
importance.
I appreciate the member who brought this bill forward. He, like
many of us, recognize that there is an economic climate in Canada
which makes it very difficult for our businesses, both small and
large, to compete in the international market. Having this bill
brought forward helps to signal to all that we have to do some
things better than they are currently being done.
However, right at the beginning I have to indicate that although
I am much in favour of promoting industry, business, and
especially international trade, at this stage in my analysis of
the bill I will be voting against it because of reasons I will
express during my speech.
I would like to outline some of the things that are included in
Bill C-213. I know that the deputy leader of the Tory party, the
member for Saint John, who has major shipbuilding interests in
her riding, has expressed interest in this and has said
repeatedly that this will not cost the taxpayer a penny. She
keeps assuring us that this will not cost the taxpayer any money.
However, in my reading of the bill I do not see how that can be
avoided since there are several provisions in the bill which I
believe will cost the taxpayer money in directly subsidizing and
propping up an industry which is not viable under our present
rules in the country.
I am not sure that members of the Tory party, the Clark party,
are true Conservatives because they are also promoting this type
of socialistic propping up of a company. I am sure when their
turn comes they will express what they really think about this. I
look forward to hearing their arguments. I will put forward my
arguments now. When their turn comes they will say what they
want to say.
This bill, in its purpose, indicates that it is to promote
shipbuilding in Canada and to make Canadian shipyards more
competitive. I cannot argue with that.
That is a very high and viable goal. I think all members in the
House would agreed to it. However, it then goes on to say that
this will be done through the establishment of a program where a
maximum of 87.5% of the money borrowed by a company from a
financial institution to purchase a commercial ship built in a
Canadian shipyard will be eligible for a couple of benefits from
the taxpayer.
1745
This is where the cost to the taxpayer comes in. Canadians may
say that they want to do that. They may say that they want to
pool all their money and give it to these other businesses
whether they can compete globally or not and in that way they
will keep them in business and keep people working. That is not
a bad goal. When we come right down to it, it is good to have
people employed. It is good to have them working on things,
especially when it comes to an export market.
However, the first of the benefits that the taxpayer will have
to pick up is the guarantee by the federal government in the
event of a default in the repayment of the loan. I do not see
how the taxpayer is off the hook on that clause. Very clearly,
some of the people who will be entering into a contract with a
shipbuilding company for the building of a ship will not be able
to pay for whatever reason. That happens in some proportion in
all industries. With this guarantee, the taxpayer will end up
paying the banks the amount of the default. That is what this
says and that is how I understand it.
The other members who are promoting the bill may try to convince
me that is not what it says, but those are the words and I can
only go by the words.
The bill goes on to say that there are some conditions of
bearing a rate of interest comparable to other loans from
financial institutions to large and financially strong
corporations. This is not a bad idea. This one would cost the
taxpayers nothing. To say that a company is maybe not as strong
as it could be and guarantee that its interest rates would be
lower should actually increase the probability that it will be
able to pay back the loan and it would increase the probability
that the taxpayers would not be on the hook for it.
Then we go on. The Liberals are saying that they want to
improve the tax treatment for lease financing for the purchase of
a ship built in a Canadian shipyard. I would venture to say that
it is probably a laudable goal for all businesses to have better
tax provisions so that business can thrive whether it is a
shipbuilding company or any other company in the country.
I would love to hear an explanation from the proponents of this
bill about the last item, which I also believe will cost the
taxpayers money. It says that this will provide for a
refundable tax credit for a portion of the costs relating to the
construction or refit of a commercial ship in a shipyard located
in Canada or the conversion of a ship in such a shipyard. This
is a tax expenditure. It is a refundable tax credit that will go
to either the shipyard, if the ship is being built for someone
outside the country, or to the owner of the ship if it is a
Canadian shipping company. Perhaps this would be a way to
provide an incentive for our finance minister's company to bring
its ships back to Canada and actually fly a Canadian flag on them
and pay Canadian taxes. That would be very interesting. Maybe
we can buy the finance minister back. The costs to the taxpayer
are included in that.
As I said at the beginning, given my present analysis I will be
voting against the bill because of the very broad principle that
I do not think the government should have the ability to take
money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians right across
the country in order to prop up businesses that are not able to
compete on an international basis because we have gone
international now. It is not a valid use of the taxpayers'
money.
I know exactly what they are going to say now, “How about the
western farmers?”
How about them? I had a farmer in Saskatchewan say to me “If I
would have had a reasonable tax rate in the last 30 years, thanks
to the Liberal and Conservative governments, I gave so much money
in taxes, I would now be out of debt and I wouldn't have to worry
as much in hopefully this short time of an agricultural income
downturn”. We are taxed to death in this country”.
1750
We need to have a reasonable tax regime not only for the
shipbuilding companies but for all of them.
Whereas rolling stock on the railroad has a depreciation rate of
about 10% per year and there is a decreasing balance of up to 40%
for rolling stock for trucks, we already have a rule in place
that allows them to depreciate on a straight line depreciation of
one-third of the cost per year. In four years, because it has
only half in the first and the last year, the total cost of the
ship is totally written off as a tax write-off. That is a very
favourable provision. I think taxpayers are already giving a
considerable impetus to this particular industry.
We also need to get really with it in terms of our negotiations
with other countries, particularly our large next door neighbour,
and insist that we get fair rules. It is generally known, for
example, that ships that are built for the American market, both
military and domestic, must be built and must be maintained in
the United States, whereas in Canada that is not true.
I am so sorry that my time is up. I would like to say that my
mind is still open but I have those questions about the bill. I
think we have a better way of solving this problem.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today on
behalf of my friend and colleague from Lévis, Quebec who has been
a strong advocate for the augmentation of the shipbuilding
industry in Canada.
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity because we are
starting to build a coalition in the House of Commons on the need
to establish and develop a modern shipbuilding policy to ensure
that we have a viable and sound industry based exclusively on a
reduction in tax and not through subsidies.
I would like to share some of my comments with the hon. member
for Elk Island. I agree with some of his comments, but I also
disagree with some others.
Right now we have a new coalition of individuals trying to
augment the bill: members of the Bloc, the New Democrats, the
Progressive Conservatives and now a chink in the Liberal armour.
Members of the Liberal caucus, who tabled a document on September
30, 1999, fundamentally recognize that we need to have a modern
shipbuilding policy in Canada so that the men and women, whether
they reside in Vancouver, B.C., Port Weller, Ontario, Lévis,
Quebec, Marystown, Newfoundland or closer to my home in Saint
John, New Brunswick, can work.
With respect to Bill C-213, I will touch on three basic
principles that the hon. member is advocating in the bill. First,
the member wants to revise the Revenue Canada leasing regulations
and combine them with an accelerated depreciation. What that
would do is recognize that shipbuilding does not play on a level
playing field internationally.
I am not advocating that the taxpayers of Canada should actually
shell out cash in order to prop up this particular industry.
However, I would argue quite convincingly that it is much better
to take in a certain amount of revenue by actually having
economic activity going on in the sector than receiving no
revenue whatsoever.
This actually goes to the whole corporate tax regime that we have
in Canada today.
1755
There is only one industrialized nation, which is a principal
trading nation of this world, that has a higher tax regime than
Canada, and that is the country of Japan. What I am advocating
here is that we have a more aggressive tax system with respect to
lease financing in Canada. That means no dollar is transferred
from the Canadian taxpayer to this particular industry. In fact,
by having economic activity in the industry we actually bring
revenue in.
The second component which my hon. colleague from Lévis, Quebec
is advocating is the need to have a loan guarantee program. Some
people might actually advocate that perhaps that is a benign
subsidy of some form. What we are advocating they adopt is a
loan guarantee program known as Title XI, which the Americans
have had in place since 1936. Their criteria has been very
prudent.
I say to the member for Elk Island that I would not want to be a
Reform candidate running in Fundy Royal given the comments made
about this being a dead in the water industry and that
shipbuilding is not viable in Canada.
Does anyone how many loan defaults the Americans have had since
1936? I know the member from Lévis knows that answer. They have
had absolutely none. It works. Because the Americans have that
loan guarantee program to guarantee purchasers who actually
reside outside the United States, they are actually building
ships for foreign companies now compliments of Title XI.
A company in Atlantic Canada, Secunda Marine Services Limited in
Halifax, had a ship built compliments of Title XI. The program
has been in place since 1936 and they have not had a single loan
default. The American taxpayers have not shelled out one red
nickel in order to implement the program.
If we copy something in university it is called plagiarism. In
the real world it is called being resourceful. Why do we not
just adopt something that is actually working in the United
States and implement it here in Canada?
I will give some credit to members on the government side of the
House. They have headed in the right direction with respect to
that particular issue. The Export Development Corporation is a
loan guarantee program that will guarantee loans for the export
of a ship. That is a step in the right direction.
However, what I am advocating we do is we use that program to
guarantee the construction for domestic consumption as well.
Canada is a viable and competitive shipbuilding nation. Our
labour rates are not only competitive, they are in fact less than
the EU. What we are looking for is a competitive tax regime.
I know our finance critic, who is here listening to this speech,
understands the Conservatives stand on tax reduction. Perhaps
the Reform populace does not, but that is the principle that I am
advocating.
[Translation]
I am proud to have the opportunity to take part in this debate,
and to suggest some improvements.
The member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has worked very hard
on this issue, as the member for Chicoutimi.
[English]
There are numerous members who are trying to advance this
particular debate, including the member for Saint John.
What I am advocating are four basic principles.
Let us change our tax regime to make lease financing in Canada
more cost competitive. Let us ensure that our shipowners have
access to the best financing rates by guaranteeing their loans
under prudent criteria like the Americans have with Title XI.
1800
We also need to address the trade issue. Free trade has been
wonderful for the growth of this country. Prior to 1988 our
trade with the Americans was around $88 billion each and every
year. Compliments of free trade, our current trade with the
Americans is around $260 billion. Free trade was a win for
Canada. However, we were not able to leverage the Americans to
drop the Jones Act and their protectionist regime.
The Liberal government on countless occasions has said “It was
you who negotiated the free trade agreement. It was you who
negotiated the NAFTA. It is your fault”. The Liberal
government has been in office for seven years and never once has
it knocked on the door of a congressman or a senator in the
United States to ask if we could open up some kind of bilateral
trade agreement for certain types of ships, whether they be
ocean-going tugs, offshore drilling rigs or any other type of
ship. Canada has developed the expertise for the Hibernia site,
off the shores of Newfoundland, which includes areas such as
Terra Nova, Ben Nevis, White Rose and Sable Island. We have
technology that has been developed in Canada that we want to
export.
I will support this motion, even though I disagree with one
component of it.
The member for Elk Island may be right with respect to the
refundable tax credit. In my opinion, it is a direct subsidy.
If Reform members had any clue about this industry they would
support this.
We stand for tax reduction. We do not mind revising Revenue
Canada leasing regulations. Even though it would be precedent
setting, there would be no money coming from the pockets of
Canadians.
We do not mind supporting the bill. Should we adopt the
American style for the loan guarantee program? We could probably
do that. However, we do not support the third item. We could
modify it and not support that aspect of it.
If we had more parties standing for this particular industry we
could advance this, especially given that we have some Liberal
members heading in that direction.
The work that the hon. member from Lévis has done in advancing
this issue should be commended, as well as the work done by the
member for Saint John and the work done for my private member's
motion, which we have discussed as well. We are advancing this
debate. We need a quarterback to lead this issue. I do not
think the Minister of Industry has done a respectable job in this
regard. I think we should change the quarterback and involve the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am very eager to ask questions. I wonder if we could have
unanimous consent to have two minutes for questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a
two-minute period of questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-213.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. He has spent a lot of time on this
issue. Since I was elected here two and a half years ago he
has been fighting for this industry.
I believe this industry belongs just as much to Canada as to any
other country in the world. When we look at our shipyards, we
can be proud.
Given that in Canada we are surrounded by oceans, the Pacific on
one side, the Atlantic on the other side, it is important to
look at the jobs that can be generated. Shipyards are a good
example of that.
In 1993, in the red book, the Liberals promised Canadians a
shipbuilding policy.
1805
We are in the year 2000 and we have yet to see a policy. We are
still waiting for a policy concerning shipyards; yet it could
save the jobs of Canadian men and women. Instead, Canadians are
currently forced to move to the United States to put their
expertise to use. This is totally unacceptable.
Les Holloway was here on May 11, 1999. He met all the opposition
parties and made suggestions, along with the unions, to save our
shipbuilding industry. I do not agree often with the Irving
company, but for once even Irving agrees with the unions.
Irving is not the unions' biggest fan, but in this case, it is
asking for the same thing as the unions. They want Canada to put
in place concrete policies to save the shipbuilding industry.
I think it is really important that the Liberals keep their 1993
promise to implement such a policy. We are asking for loan
guarantees with reimbursement, tax exemptions, anything to save
Canadian jobs, because we can no longer accept to see good
paying jobs being lost, jobs that we could have in our regions,
for example in St. John, New Brunswick. A small shipyard in
Caraquet had to close its doors. But we know how important it
is to be able to create jobs in the Acadian peninsula.
I wish to congratulate the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
on all the work he has done and the attention he has given to
it. I wish to congratulate him on travelling throughout Canada,
on coming to see us in Saint John and Caraquet in New Brunswick,
on going to Nova Scotia, to Vancouver and to other countries to
do the work of the Liberals elected in 1993, who have since cut
jobs and who are not even able to save jobs here at home.
The Minister of Finance, who owns a shipping line, and who is
not even able to have his ships built in Canada, tells Canadians
that they must tighten their belts, that Canada is in trouble,
that we must save money and be careful. He is not even able to
help our own Canadians. He is not even able to save our jobs.
In the Acadian peninsula, unemployment tops 40% in the winter
but he has lumped us in with the major regions, which lowers it
to 13%.
Our Minister of Finance has ships that he has not been able to
have built in Canada. It is a real disgrace. Our Minister of
Finance, who wants to run the country, be the leader of the
Liberal Party and prime minister of Canada, has an industry that
is not even able to support our Canadians. It is a real
disgrace.
I strongly urge the Liberals to keep their promise to Canadians
and not to take the approach they took with the GST, which they
did not scrap even though they said they would in the 1993 red
book. This was a promise made by the former leader of the
opposition, now the Prime Minister. In 1993 he promised
Canadians that he would develop a shipyard policy. He is not
able to keep that promise either.
It is important to be able to save our jobs here in Canada
because they are needed. They are needed in places like Saint
John, New Brunswick, like Caraquet, Halifax and Dartmouth. Good
policies such as those presented by our colleague from
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, for example loan guarantees and tax
exemptions, are what will make it possible to save this
industry, which is so important.
1810
The Minister of Finance, who owns a shipping company, prefers to
go to Vietnam for his ships, instead of having them built here
to save Canadian jobs. That is a disgrace. A minister with
prime ministerial aspirations who is not even capable of
supporting Canadians, that is disgraceful, and I am saying so
here in this House.
In the Acadian peninsula and the Acadie—Bathurst region, we are
losing over $65 million in employment insurance benefits because
of the cuts made by the Liberal Party over there, which is in
power today. That is what we are losing in our area.
I can guarantee that the government party did not train the
workers and create the jobs in our area. That is not true, and I
am prepared to rise in this House at any time to speak out
against the damage the Liberals have done in continuing the
policies of the Conservatives, the likes of Valcourt, who took
employment insurance funds back in 1986 to add to the
consolidated revenue fund.
Since then, workers have had to struggle day after day, and
there is no money coming in. Today we are calling for a simple
policy, one which would make it possible for us to keep our jobs
in our area. When you were in the opposition, you were opposed
to changes in employment insurance. The Liberals were against
that. And yet they have made changes as well. They were in
favour of a shipbuilding policy and today they cannot even
follow that policy.
They should be ashamed of themselves. They should pack their
things and leave, because they are not doing what they promised
Canadians they would do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, it is important to look at the
industries globally to find solutions. The NDP supports policies
that promote shipbuilding. The Liberals on the other side of the
House have a power that was given to them by Canadians, but not
the majority of them, because I believe they got about 33% of
the votes in Canada. Ontario is the only province that voted for
you. You have basically killed health services with your
policies.
I am asking you to think about what you are doing, about what
you are thinking, and to be able—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I have nothing to learn from you, dear
colleague. I take my cue from the Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member has something to learn
from the Speaker, it is that he must address the Chair.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that. It is
not up to the member to tell me about the rules of this House.
It is the Chair's responsibility. I have no problem with that.
I will conclude by once again asking the Liberals, who were
elected on the basis of the promises they made in 1993, to
fulfil their commitments once and for all and to give us a sound
shipyard and shipbuilding policy, so as to promote job creation
and to keep our jobs here and not let them go to the United
States.
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to bring something to the attention of the House that I
think everybody here is concerned about. In a minute we will
hear a speaker from the government side. I am very interested to
hear those remarks, but I am a little concerned that not one
Atlantic Canadian Liberal MP has ever had a chance to speak to
this—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of
order.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond to private member's Bill C-213, put forward
by my hon. colleague, the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. This is essentially a money
bill. We could even call it a subsidy bill. The first time this
bill was debated at second reading the hon. member argued that
one way to promote the Canadian shipbuilding industry would be to
improve the loan guarantee program of the Export Development
Corporation.
There is a myth that loan guarantee programs are free of cost.
This is not true.
In fact, in 1998 in the U.S. the costs to the government were
roughly $3 billion for contingent liabilities and almost $2
billion on default payments. Based on the experience in the U.S.
it would be very costly to set this up. I have talked about this
many times before. Taxpayers have told us repeatedly that they
do not want more programming. They want tax cuts.
1815
The hon. member also contends that if ships built in Canadian
shipyards were exempted from the regulations relating to lease
financing, the existing depreciation rates for ships would apply
without any restrictions. In consequence, according to him, the
tax disadvantage that prevents ownership or lease financing of
ships would be eliminated.
The fact is that the shipbuilding industry already has access to
the accelerated capital cost allowances, known as CCA. These are
more generous than for any other industry and even more generous
than tax credits in the U.S.
Furthermore there cannot be both an accelerated CCA and an
exemption from leasing regulations. If such a thing were
permitted, the cost of a ship could be written off more than once
and this would constitute a tax shelter. This is just the kind
of situation the current leasing regulations help us to avoid.
Moreover, lease financing is contrary to the specified leasing
property rules in the Income Tax Act.
The third measure in Bill C-213 is another subsidy, just like
the loan guarantees and the exemption from leasing regulations.
It would amount to creating on a national basis the same type of
program that Quebec set up in 1996-97. Quebec decided to
complement the federal shipbuilding policy by creating its own
program. I would strongly encourage the other provinces to follow
Quebec's example.
These tools are not only subsidies. They are the tools of the
past. As we enter the 21st century, the way to take charge of
the future is not by returning to the past by way of government
subsidies that have proven so disastrous to Canada by nurturing
uncompetitive industries. Instead, it is by investing in
innovation, by training smart workers and giving them upgraded
equipment and production techniques to do the job right, and by
forging alliances that will lead industries in the pursuit of
excellence.
Canada's shipbuilding and repair industry is quite a small one
by world standards accounting for only .04% of the global market
share and not the .4% as stated by the hon. member for
Fundy—Royal in yesterday's debate. If the industry says it
needs to reach only 1% of the world market, this would mean that
the industry would have to increase its current share by 25-fold.
The top three shipbuilding and repair nations in the world today
are Korea, Japan and China. Together they account for more than
75% of the global market. I think members realize that even the
most generous subsidies will not enable the Canadian shipbuilding
and repair industry to be competitive in these conditions.
The government's shipbuilding policy does not rely on subsidies.
Instead it concentrates on the areas that can make a real
difference and that use taxpayers' money wisely.
The acquisition of ships, their repair and refit in Canada by
the federal government is done on a competitive basis but is
restricted to Canadian sources.
Tax measures such as the accelerated capital cost allowance on
new ships built in Canada allow purchasers to write off 100% of
the entire cost of the ship over a mere four years.
We have in place a 25% tariff on all non-NAFTA foreign built
ships of more than 100 tonnes that enter Canadian waters with the
exception of fishing vessels over 100 feet in length.
In response to the shipbuilding and repair industry's
conditions, the government spent $198 million on an industry led
rationalization process between 1986 and 1993. This money was
given directly to the industry for upgrading facilities and
assisting displaced workers adjustment programs because the
industry itself decided it was necessary to reduce its capacity
so that the remaining shipyards could survive and continue to be
competitive.
1820
At present, shipyards in Canada employ some 4,950 Canadians.
Under the federal government's procurement policy, yards have
received more than $8 billion in federal shipbuilding and repair
national contracts tendered through the competitive bidding
process in the last 10 years.
Canada's research and development tax credit system provides
more than $1.3 billion a year to companies that carry out R and
D. This source of financing is available to the shipbuilding and
repair sector as it is to any other sector.
The federal Export Development Corporation promotes export sales
of Canadian products, including ships. For ships alone, this
assistance provided on commercial terms has grown from $3.5
million in 1996 to more than $130 million in 1999.
Yes we should be doing all we can in an intelligent way to
foster shipbuilding and repair in Canada, but surely this is a
shared responsibility. Provinces also have a role to play.
Currently only two have set up programs to complement the federal
package: Quebec and Nova Scotia. Others may want to follow
suit. The members for Fundy—Royal and Saint John if they are
serious may want to get their cousins in New Brunswick to follow
the Quebec and Nova Scotia lead. Maybe they should put their
money up first and complement the Canadian shipbuilding policy.
Just a few minutes ago the member for Fundy—Royal was taking
all his credits. He also may want to take credit for when the
government was negotiating those agreements and giving everything
away, it also allowed the Jones Act to continue in the United
States. Now he says it needs to be changed. In other words,
after he has given everything away, he now wants to go and
resolve it. He might want to take credit for that in all his
future speeches.
Our shipbuilding policy is very clear. We have purchased in
Canada. We have an accelerated capital cost allowance write-off.
We have a 25% tariff on all non-NAFTA foreign built ships. The
Export Development Corporation is working with the industry. The
more co-operation we get from the shipbuilding provinces, the
sweeter the package might be.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, despite my hoarse voice, I too am very happy to support
Bill C-213 introduced by the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
I have great respect for the effort my colleague put into
preparing this bill. He was tireless. He started from nothing
three or four years ago. He has succeeded in rallying all the
major players in Quebec and in Canada to unanimously call on the
government to do something about the shipyard problem.
He formed parallel committees, here in the House. He visited
every shipyard.
He met with all the stakeholders, both unions and employers. In
my 16 years as a member of the House of Commons, I have never
seen anything to equal what the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has accomplished.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: The message to Liberal MPs in all the
letters, petitions, and meetings was the same “Wake up”.
The Progressive Conservative Party's support of the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière was solid and very determined. We
heard the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst speak on behalf of his
party, which also supported this initiative. It is not a
question of party politics. It is a question of logic. It is a
question of getting this industry up and running, or better yet
of getting it afloat. It is literally a question of survival.
I have been through a shipyard closing.
I remember it well. It was in Tracy. I think of the families,
the human tragedy that was played out there, when between 1,500
and 2,000 employees lost their jobs.
1825
This was done in the name of restructuring, so there would be a
single shipyard in Quebec and some in the rest of Canada, that
would have be able to get repair work, contracts and tax relief
to enable them to get off the ground, become competitive and
provide a living for many workers.
Instead the government has once again reneged. This is the
Liberal Party personified. This is the double talk party, as I
call it.
During the election campaign in 1993 and in the red book, it
clearly promised to give the Canadian shipping
industry comparative and competitive advantages and to promote a
consolidation of research and development activities in the
area of shipping.
It said things during the election campaign that it forgot
right after. It did that with the GST. It said it would
scrap the GST and cancel the
helicopter contract. After the campaign, it forgot all that.
This is the double talk party. All the while, the workers are
waiting. The industry is waiting for help to become competitive
with the rest of the world.
People are not asking for anything special, just a little needed
support such as they get in Europe, Asia or the United States.
It is as simple as that, and the government keeps blocking its
ears.
But now there are surpluses. The government could revitalize
this industry, but instead it is trying to get into areas of
provincial jurisdiction rather than look after its own business,
namely shipping, which is under federal jurisdiction.
What were the Liberal members doing throughout this debate led
valiantly by the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière? The
Liberal members were absent. They were absent from committees,
from consultations; they did not meet with workers or with the
shipping industry. Some came, like the last speaker, and quoted
statistics, trying to convince us that it would be better under
provincial jurisdiction.
This is always going on. I appeal to the Liberal members from
Quebec who said “We will defend the interests of Quebec”.
Well, now is the time. The shipping industry has called for
help, but they still say nothing.
I wonder if a change of name would not be in order. Maybe we
should call the Liberal Party the muffler party, since we hear
nothing from them. The muffler party; that is it.
Since 1993 they could easily have implemented some measures
gradually. But no; they give us statistics. They say that
something has to be done. They quote production data from Asia
and Japan, like they did earlier. They talk about shipbuilding
statistics in the United States. But if the Americans build
ships, it is because they get help from their government. It is
because some tax measures were implemented to help them. Their
shipbuilding industry became competitive because it received
some support.
As I speak, for example, they need an extra ferry between Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland. Do you know what the coast guard is
doing? They stalled for so long that they are now looking all
over the world for a second-hand ship instead of seizing that
opportunity to help the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
Such situations are unthinkable and they happen year after year.
We do not have to look far to find those who destroyed that
industry. They are right here. Those famous measures were
first implemented under the Liberal government in 1983; that
government did not know where it was heading then and it was
wiped off the political map in 1984. That government, the
Liberal government of the day, was instrumental in the demise of
the shipbuilding industry and, when it came to power again, it
never implemented measures to rectify the situation it had
created.
It is unacceptable for the government to promise the help it had
promised in the red book, and now to hide behind statistics,
saying yes, something should be done, we are going to think
about it, a committee of the House might consider it. They say
the same thing year in and year out. In the meantime, the
hardworking Bloc member in this House, the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, has been working on it.
1830
He set about this task three or four years ago, bringing all the
stakeholders together to conduct extensive studies, which now
show that a sound shipbuilding industry in Quebec and Canada
would yield major financial benefits within five or six years.
In this way, the help given temporarily now would more than be
compensated by tax revenues and economic benefits flowing from
the building in our shipyards of ships ordered from all over the
world.
The aerospace industry got some help. The farmers got some help,
and rightly so.
Why not support this important industry when we have two
countries, Quebec and Canada, with the largest bodies of water
in the world? Would it not be normal for us to build ships? No,
this is something we do not think about. Yet it would be so
logical.
I will conclude by asking the Liberal Party, the one in office,
to accept to vote with the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative
Party, the New Democratic Party and many members of the Reform
Party so we can put aside party politics and say with one voice,
“yes, we are going to work together to help the shipbuilding
industry”.
I am asking them to hear the distress call coming from several
regions. I heard this distress call in my riding and I know what
it would be to have an industry that would create 1,500 or 2,000
jobs.
Let us stop the hemorrhage.
This is something I have been saying in this House for 16 years
and I wonder how it is that no Liberal member was ever able to
take a leadership role like the Bloc member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has done with the help of many
colleagues from our party and from other parties, in a non
partisan way.
I salute him again and I hope his call for help, his work and
his bill will be favourably received by the governing party, the
Liberal Party.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
October 18 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
about the troubling selection process for the chair of the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
So many times well connected Liberals are appointed to positions
of power and prominence in this country. I implore the minister
to involve parliamentarians, specifically committee members, in
this selection process. Parliamentarians have a mandate to
represent and work on behalf of their constituents. How can
Canadians be adequately represented when appointments are fait
accompli by the time MPs are informed?
I refer specifically to the appointment of Mr. Peter Showler.
He was appointed chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board by an
order in council dated November 16, 1999. First, I applaud the
appointment. Mr. Showler is duly qualified to take on the
daunting task of chair of the IRB, a quasi-judicial post.
Despite that, the issue I have is one of principle. Why was the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration not consulted?
Allow me to refer to Standing Order 108(2) which mentions
additional powers of standing committees. It says that the
standing committees will be empowered:
Standing Order 108(2)(e) widens the powers of the committee to
investigate:
—other matters, relating to the mandate, management,
organization or operation of the department, as the committee
deems fit.
Is the appointment of the IRB chair deemed to be not crucial to
the administration of the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration?
Standing Order 111 allows for the review of the appointment.
Reviews are fine but do not allow the committee members any
authority over the hiring in the first place.
Standing committees are intimately familiar with the issues and
would be an excellent source of advice for an appointment as
chair of the IRB.
Even if it were a bad review it would not necessarily lead to the
dismissal of an appointee.
1835
I fear the committees, and indeed the House itself, are becoming
rubber stamps for policies and motions already approved and
formulated by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's
Office.
The House is consulted less and less by government but I remind
the governing party that 38.5% of voting Canadians in the 1997
election supported it. That is far less than the majority. By
not consulting with the House of Commons, the voices of a vast
majority of Canadians are not being heard. This is not the
correct practice in a liberal democracy like Canada's.
Committee members are powerless over anything the Prime Minister
and cabinet wish to do. It is interesting to note that the
Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees
are both on record as disapproving the present selection process.
They want a more fair, more transparent hiring process.
The next time an order in council appointment is made, will the
minister exercise some democracy, take the high road and consult
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
point out that under the Immigration Act, immigration and refugee
board members including the chairperson are appointed by governor
in council.
As a result of the government's commitment to transparency a
notice of vacancy for the position of chairperson was published
in The Canada Gazette on June 26, 1999. The notice allows
the opportunity for any qualified candidate to submit his or her
resumé to the Prime Minister's Office.
Subsequently a selection process was initiated and the governor
in council announced the appointment of Mr. Peter Showler as
chairperson on November 29, 1999. I appreciate the vote of
confidence of the hon. member in terms of Mr. Showler's
qualifications.
Let me review some of them. Mr. Showler has extensive
experience as an immigration and refugee law practitioner. He
has initiated numerous public education programs and has
developed law reform initiatives. Mr. Showler has taught
immigration and refugee law at an Ottawa university. Previous to
his appointment as IRB chair, Mr. Showler served five years as a
member of the convention refugee determination division.
I can only say that this was a very good appointment and we
expect that Mr. Showler will serve the country well.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)