36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-489. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Alternative Energy
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1015
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1020
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motion in Amendment
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 1
|
1025
1030
| Mr. John Maloney |
1035
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1040
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1045
1050
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1055
1100
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Third reading
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1230
1235
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1240
1245
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1250
1255
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1300
1305
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1330
1335
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1340
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1345
1350
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE GILLES LANDRY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| CANADA WORLD YOUTH EXCHANGE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1400
| SYRIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| REGIONAL PRIDE WEEK
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1405
| JOB CREATION
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-LOUIS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| JASON ARNOTT
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1410
| NOTE FESTIVAL
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| CANADIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| BANKS
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1445
| PORT OF MONTREAL
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| FIREARMS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| BANKS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1455
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1510
1515
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1535
1540
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1545
1550
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1555
1600
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1605
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1610
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1635
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1640
1645
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1650
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1655
1700
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1705
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1710
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Second reading
|
1750
(Division 1355)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
|
| Motion
|
1800
(Division 1356)
| Amendment negatived
|
1805
1815
(Division 1357)
| Motion negatived
|
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Second reading
|
1825
(Division 1358)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Third reading
|
1830
(Division 1359)
| Motion agreed to
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Third reading
|
(Division 1360)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Report stage
|
1835
(Division 1361)
| Motion negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
(Division 1362)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Third reading
|
(Division 1363)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
(Division 1364)
| Motion agreed to
|
1840
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-297. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Third reading
|
1845
1850
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1855
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1900
1905
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1910
1915
1920
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1925
1930
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1935
1940
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Committee of the whole
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1945
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1950
1955
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Rob Anders |
2030
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2035
| Hon. Don Boudria |
2040
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2045
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
2050
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2055
2100
2105
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2110
2115
2120
2125
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2130
2135
2140
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2145
2150
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2155
| Mr. Bill Casey |
2200
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2205
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
2210
2215
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2220
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
2225
| Mr. John Herron |
2230
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. John Herron |
2235
2240
2245
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2250
2255
2300
| Mr. Jay Hill |
2305
2310
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2315
2320
2325
2330
| Mr. Mark Muise |
2335
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. John Herron |
2340
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2345
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2350
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2355
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also 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 committee, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the 1999-2000 annual report of the Department of National Defence
and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
* * *
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to establish the
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in
relation to financial institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to
amend the Access to Information Act (cabinet confidences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in June 1999 the government used the
provision for total exclusion of cabinet confidences under
section 69 of the Access to Information Act to keep 172 pages of
gun registry budget information a state secret.
In September the government used the cabinet confidences
exclusion again to hide from the public a 115 page report on the
economic impact of the gun registry. That was enough for me and
I knew the law had to be changed.
The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the
act as recommended by the information commissioner in his 1996
report, The Access to Information Act and the Cabinet
Confidences: A Discussion of New Approaches. The information
commissioner was kind enough to recommend changes to an earlier
draft of this bill.
1010
This bill makes cabinet confidences mandatory exemptions as
opposed to exclusions. This results in the withholding of
information and documents that are considered cabinet confidences
being subject to the independent review under the act, rather
than the entire act being inapplicable to them. The bill also
excludes from the exemption documents that refer to but do not
reveal the substance of cabinet confidences.
Among other safeguards, this bill would require that requests
for cabinet confidences be handled only by officers who have
received the appropriate security clearance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to rise in the House and present over 600
signatures from my community of Dartmouth.
The people of Dartmouth are concerned that the Liberals have
ignored the top priority of Canadians in the 2000 budget by
giving only 2% for health care, and that the federal government
is now only paying 13.5% of the health care costs leading to
shortages of nurses, hospital beds and emergency spaces in our
hospitals.
The people of Dartmouth want to see an immediate injection of
federal money back into our health care system bringing it up to
25% of funding immediately, and also, to implement home care
programs and a national program for prescription drugs. They
want to stop for profit hospitals and federal funding restored
for health care.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am tabling in the House today a petition
signed by 5,400 constituents in the riding of Charlevoix.
Given that the proposed change to the limits of the economic
region for employment insurance purposes in the federal riding
of Charlevoix would have dreadful consequences for the affected
population, and that this proposal does not follow the
employment insurance regulations on the homogeneity of the work
market and the bordering regions,
the petitioners call on the Parliament to maintain the status
quo, so that the riding of Charlevoix can still be part of the
former administrative region of northern Quebec.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present two petitions.
The first one deals with the predatory pricing of gasoline. The
petitioners are from Beauport, Quebec City, Sainte-Émilie,
Saint-Émile, Sainte-Foy, Charlesbourg, Saint-Lambert and
Victoriaville.
Since Canadians consumers cannot take action and protect
themselves against increases in gasoline prices, the petitioners
are calling on parliament to pass a resolution to stop world oil
cartels in order to bring down excessive prices of crude oil.
The second petition is from the region of Fleurimont,
Sherbrooke, Lac-Racine, Saint-Denis-de-Brompton, Saint-Pamphile and
Saint-Marcel.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to find a solution
and to pass a resolution to stop world oil cartels in order to
bring down excessive prices of crude oil to counter the
predatory pricing of gasoline in Quebec and in Canada.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table
a petition signed by constituents from the riding of Shefford
who are asking the government to quickly introduce and implement
legislation that would make the labeling of GMOs and foods
containing GMOs mandatory in all cases.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table in the House today a petition from
constituents of my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
The petitioners call on parliament to allocate sufficient funds
to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near
future, Canadians would no longer be forced to turn to oil as a
main energy source.
BILL C-20
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the session is almost over, I would like to table a series
of five petitions on different issues.
A first petition containing about 125 signatures was sent to me
on Bill C-20. The petitioners wish for the withdrawal of this
bill.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about one hundred
names and dealing with drinking and driving.
The petitioners call on the government to amend the Criminal
Code to toughen up the law.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition on collective bargaining by
rural route mail couriers.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about 200
signatures. The petitioners condemn the excessive gasoline
prices.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about 50 signatures
from petitioners asking for pay equity for all workers.
I wanted to do my duty as a member of parliament by presenting
these petitions from my fellow citizens.
1015
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present this petition on behalf of some 30 citizens of the
riding of Champlain, asking parliament to enact a legislation
making mandatory the labeling of all food products which are
genetically modified in whole or in part.
I take this opportunity to underline the excellent work of our
colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, on the issue of GMOs.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions signed by hundreds
of constituents and people from all over Manitoba. They are very
concerned about the state of our health care system and the lack
of action on the part of the Liberal government to address the
crisis that has now befallen our universal public health care
system.
The sentiments of the petitioners were given some validity
yesterday with the results of the byelection in Alberta where
voters overwhelmingly said yes to the NDP and no to bill 11. The
petitions that I table today say the same thing, that we should
stop the cutbacks to health care, stand up against bill 11, save
the Canadian public health care system, and stop the slide toward
a two tier American style health care system in Canada.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present this petition urging the House of Commons to
take a stand in order to bring an end to the dizzying increases
in the price of gasoline.
The report on Radio-Canada, last night, proves without any doubt
that the major refineries in Canada are abusing their monopoly
position.
Therefore, it is my privilege to table this petition signed by a
great number of citizens of the town of Thetford and the
surrounding area.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to submit the
following petition, signed by 381 citizens from Quebec, in
particular from the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which I
have the honour and the pleasure to represent in this House.
The petitioners point out first that it is impossible for
consumers to protect themselves against the dizzying increases
in the price of gasoline at the pump. They also point out that
they are a captive clientele for oil products, since no
alternative source of energy is presently available at a
reasonable price.
Therefore, the petitioners urge parliament, as a first step, to
pass a resolution to put an end to the actions of world
petroleum cartels and, as a consequence, bring down the
excessive prices of gasoline.
Finally, the petitioners ask parliament to invest sufficient
money in research on alternative sources of energy, so that
consumers will no be longer dependent on oil as their main
source of energy.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the same
vein, I would like to table a petition signed by hundreds of
Quebecers asking that Parliament take action in order to counter
excessive gas pricing.
Among other things, those Quebecers ask that adequate funding be
allocated to research into alternative energy sources so that,
in the near future, Canadians are no longer forced to turn to
oil as a main energy source.
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present which was sent to me by
people in Brandon, Manitoba, and a few folks in Weyburn,
Saskatchewan. They ask the House to abolish the unelected
Senate.
They say that the Senate is undemocratic, unelected, not
accountable, costs Canadian taxpayers around $50 million per
year, and undermines the authority of members of parliament.
Therefore they ask us to begin the process of abolishing the
Senate. Of course that is supported by my friend, the Liberal
member from New Brunswick.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1020
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and
other matters), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment
listed in the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-18.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTION IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make
the government realize that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to
Bill C-18. This bill will increase the maximum penalty for
impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life
imprisonment.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the 14 year sentence currently
provided under the Criminal Code is adequate and reflects the
seriousness of the offence.
We are simply proposing to delete clause 2 of this bill, which
changes the penalty for that crime.
Bill C-18 gives us an opportunity to reflect on the
appropriateness of a jail sentence. In doing so, we must first
ask ourselves about the needs of the victim, of the offender and
of the community once a crime has been committed.
Victims need to express what they went through and to receive
compensation for the harm caused to them. They also need to have
their rights upheld.
Offenders, on the other hand, need to understand their actions
and to take responsibility for them. They should be given the
opportunity to explain their action to the victim and also to
change their behaviour.
The community also has needs that must be met. Those needs are
more abstract, but they are just as important.
The community wants to be protected from crimes. Sometimes, a
token bid of restitution is necessary to repair the harm caused
to the community. Doing community work is a good example of a
measure that makes up for the prejudice caused by the offender
to the community.
Are these needs met by imposing a jail sentence? I am tempted to
say that they are not entirely met under the existing system and
that they are sometimes not met at all.
The main reason for this situation is that the system pays more
attention to the fact that a criminal act is perceived as a
violation of a law, rather than as an action that causes a
prejudice to the victim and to the community.
Within this view of criminal justice we are seeking to punish
the offender instead of trying to remedy the harm he has done to
the victim.
The preferred way of punishing criminals these days seems to be
imprisonment. We are stuck in our present approach for
determining sentences and the reason we are is that we have no
other means for responding to the needs of the community, the
victim and the perpetrator.
The Bloc Quebecois does not see any way in which increasing to
life imprisonment the 14 year sentence for impaired driving
causing death can meet the needs of the community, the victim
and the perpetrator.
The message the Bloc Quebecois is attempting to deliver here is
not that imprisonment must never be used.
We know that, under certain circumstances, there is no other
solution but imprisonment to meet the needs of victims and the
community.
The criminal code provides a maximum sentence of 14
years for impaired driving causing death, and we do not feel
that increasing this to a life sentence will do anything more
than punish for the sake of punishment.
As we have said on a number of occasions, the rate of
imprisonment in Canada is the highest of all democratic
countries in the west, with the exception of the United States.
It has, moreover, been proven that not only do incarceration
rates and sentence lengths do nothing to improve the rate of
recidivism and the crime rate in general, but they sometimes
have the opposite effect, and make it worse.
Nevertheless, we continue to incarcerate people and the federal
prison population is increasing at a rate that points to a 50%
rise within the next 10 years.
1025
The adult correctional system cost some $2 billion in 1992.
It cost about $52,000 a year to keep one offender in prison,
whereas it would have cost $10,000 to supervise an offender in
the community. Where are we going with Bill C-18?
The minister is not addressing the problems coherently and is
proposing a simplistic solution to the scourge of impaired
driving.
I would like to conclude with an example to illustrate my
remarks. I refer to the case of Kevin Hollinsky of Windsor,
Ontario. The events of which date back to 1994.
This young man went with friends, as many adolescents will do,
to a bar in downtown Windsor. On his way back, at the wheel of
his 1985 Firebird, he and his friends tried to catch the
attention of a group of girls in another car. Kevin Hollinsky
was driving too fast and lost control of his car in a dangerous
curve.
The consequences of these acrobatics were disastrous. Two of
Kevin's friends died in the accident, two others were injured.
Kevin himself was not hurt.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing
death. For dissuasion purposes, the crown prosecutor sought a
sentence of 8 to 14 months imprisonment, in order to teach a
lesson to other young drivers.
Local police who worked on the case felt that a very clear
message needed to be sent that impaired driving causing death
would carry a jail sentence.
Kevin did not go to jail. This was because of the
extraordinary actions of the parents of the two boys who were
killed and a courageous and innovative judge, who dared to hand
down a community service sentence instead.
Here is what was decided. With the co-operation of the Windsor
police, a program was set up whereby Kevin would visit schools
with what remained of his car to speak to students about the
events of that tragic evening.
Kevin Hollinsky was sentenced to 750 hours of community service
and met with 8,300 students in the course of this innovative
program.
For anyone doubtful about the effectiveness of this sentence, I
should mention that, during the summer following Kevin's
presentations, no secondary school students were involved in any
serious or fatal car collisions in the counties of Windsor or
Essex.
A secondary school principal told the police that he was sure
that this initiative would save lives. During his 30-year career
as a teacher, he had never heard a talk that had such a
powerful impact on students.
Admittedly the dissuasive effect would not have been the same if
young Kevin had been given a jail sentence.
This case was appealed by the crown prosecutor. Let us not
forget that the appeal courts have established that a jail
sentence is appropriate in almost all cases of death resulting
from a highway accident caused by gross negligence.
In November 1995, after deliberating half an hour, three appeal
court judges confirmed the initial sentence.
There are many people who have committed a serious crime for
which jail is not necessary and could even be ineffective for
the offender and for the real needs of the community. That is
why the Bloc Quebecois is vigorously opposed to Bill C-18 and is
proposing that clause 2 simply be dropped from the bill.
I urge all members of the House to reflect on the consequences
of tougher sentences for impaired driving offences. I hope that
the example I have given will convince them to support the Bloc
Quebecois amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I could ask for the indulgence of the House to revert
to routine business to allow me to present a unanimous committee
report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to presentation of reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1030
[Translation]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-18.
The bill before us today is in part the product of the work done
by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
The standing committee tabled its report “Toward Eliminating
Impaired Driving” on May 25, 1999, one year ago. The committee
appended to that report a draft bill that the government followed
very closely when it introduced Bill C-82 on June 7, 1999.
At the time of introduction, Bill C-82 included a provision that
would have increased the maximum penalty for impaired driving
causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment.
This provision was removed from Bill C-82 and then placed in Bill
C-87. As amended, Bill C-82 passed and came into force on July
1, 1999. Bill C-87 died on the order paper.
In October 1999 during this current session, the government
tabled its response to the committee report on impaired driving.
The government response indicated the intention to reintroduce
the provision found in Bill C-87 that would increase the maximum
penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment.
In December 1999 the government introduced Bill C-18 which
includes the provision relating to impaired driving causing
death.
Raising the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death
will indicate that this crime is viewed with the same seriousness
as manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death, which also
carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I remind the House
that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst offender and
the worst set of circumstances.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a
unanimous decision in the Proulx appeal. In the course of its
reasons the court noted that:
—dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for
which harsh penalties plausibly provide general deterrence.
These crimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding
persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably,
such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the
threat of severe penalties.
To the extent that penalties deter, the amendment would help in
the battle against impaired driving. The increased penalty would
also be valuable for its denunciation of impaired driving causing
death.
Bill C-18 also includes, as promised in the government response
to the committee's report, a provision that was recommended by
the committee but not included in the draft bill. This provision
would amend section 256 of the criminal code by adding drugs as a
basis to seek a warrant to obtain a blood sample.
This section currently allows a peace officer to apply for a
warrant to obtain a blood sample from a driver based on alcohol
consumption in certain circumstances. The peace officer must
reasonably believe that the driver, within the previous four
hours, was involved as a result of the consumption of alcohol in
an accident resulting in injury or death. Also, it must be the
opinion of a qualified medical practitioner that the driver is
unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample and that taking
the sample would not endanger the life or health of the person.
It is anticipated that situations where police will seek a
warrant for a blood sample based upon drug consumption will be
relatively few and that these would involve illegal drugs or the
abuse of legal drugs.
With the impaired driving causing death provision and with the
blood sample provision, the government will have acted upon each
of the recommendations for a specific criminal code amendment
contained in the standing committee's report “Toward Eliminating
Impaired Driving”.
Bill C-18 includes two other amendments. It would change the
French version of the definition of a motor vehicle to indicate
that these are vehicles moved otherwise than by muscular power.
The English version does not have this problem.
Finally, Bill C-18 would delete the offence of driving while
prohibited from the list of indictable offences that are within
the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge under
section 553 of the criminal code. Bill C-82 of the previous
session raised the maximum penalty for driving while prohibited
from two years imprisonment to five years imprisonment. The
charter of rights requires that an accused be given the right to
a jury trial for an offence that carries a maximum penalty of
five years imprisonment or more. The amendment in Bill C-18 will
bring section 553 into compliance with the charter.
I am pleased that we have seen progress over the past dozen
years in reducing the fatalities involving impaired driving.
However, there is yet much distance on the road that lies ahead
of us on our journey to eliminate impaired driving. Legislation
alone will not eliminate impaired driving. I think we can agree
that continued efforts by governments, public and private
organizations, and families and individuals are required to
eliminate impaired driving.
1035
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in
support of Bill C-18. It should be clear that the Canadian
Alliance has been supportive of this process from the very
beginning going back to Bill C-82 as well as Bill C-18. These
government bills came about because of a supply day motion
introduced by the then Reform Party, the official opposition of
Canada, back in 1998. Of course we support it and we commend the
government for finally getting to the stage where we have the
complete package together.
I want to speak for just a moment in opposition to the motion
put forward by the Bloc. Through the different stages of this
bill, including report stage, we have seen that the Bloc members
basically have a different attitude toward those people in our
society who would drink and drive. We firmly believe that this
must be regarded by the Criminal Code of Canada and by parliament
as a criminal offence because that is clearly what it is. It is
not simply a social ill as the Bloc would have us believe; it is
a serious criminal offence. Approximately 1,500 deaths a year in
Canada and in excess of 80,000 injuries are a direct result of
irresponsible unthinking people who would choose to drive their
vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I am
happy the drug aspect has been introduced into taking of blood
samples and the process that is involved.
Bill C-18 and clause 2, which the Bloc seeks to have removed, is
not about the Kevin Hollinskys of this world and the Bloc member
knows it. She knows that all through the committee stage we
clearly discussed that the extension of the maximum sentence to
give the judges more latitude was designed specifically to be
used in the case where there are serious and aggravating factors
involved in the offence.
We are not talking about the Kevin Hollinskys of the world, but
about hard core offenders who have shown by their actions that
they care nothing about the safety of society. They care nothing
about the laws of the country. They care nothing about
responsibility and on occasion after occasion have gotten into
their automobiles while they were impaired, caused an accident
and been arrested. If it was not the ultimate accident which
resulted in the death of someone, they injured someone. While
being under suspension and under the influence, they go out
driving again, get caught and get some other sentence. Then they
get out and are caught again driving while under suspension. We
are talking about the incorrigible offenders. That was made very
clear during all the discussions we had on Bill C-18.
We are talking about the incorrigible offenders who simply
refuse to listen to the law. As a result, they make themselves a
menace and a danger to society by their actions. They get behind
the wheel of an automobile and pose a serious threat to everyone
else on the roads. When they kill somebody, it is because they
have not taken the responsibility. They have not recognized the
law. They have not recognized the danger they have put the rest
of society in.
1040
They are clearly the type of person that for the sake of the
safety of society and even for the sake of the safety of their
own lives, should be sent to prison at the judge's discretion for
a maximum life term. It removes them from the highways. It
removes their irresponsible acts from the highways. It removes
their menace from our highways. It protects society. That is
what we are trying to do.
We strongly oppose the Bloc amendment. First of all, it is
presented in the wrong vein. It is presented using an example
such as Kevin Hollinsky which is clearly not the intent of Bill
C-18 or clause 2.
We enthusiastically support Bill C-18. We commend the
government for dealing with this. Mr. Speaker, you cannot
imagine how it tears my heart to commend the government on a
government bill but it is deserved. I am sure the government
will return that praise to our party for introducing it in the
first place as a supply day motion. We support the bill and hope
for its quick passage.
In closing, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the
House, to delete the coming into force section of the bill in
clause 5 which reads:
I would like to ask for the unanimous consent to delete this so
as to allow the bill to take effect immediately upon royal
assent.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose this amendment?
An hon. member: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise
in the House today to discuss the concern that is on the minds of
every Canadian when it comes to safety on our roads and highways.
Before I start my preamble today, I would like to give a warm
welcome to all those veterans and legion members who descended
upon Halifax for the 38th Dominion convention. They had a
wonderful parade on Sunday in the pouring rain. It was great to
see Haligonians come out in pride to say thank you to the
veterans and to the legion members for the continuing great work
they do on behalf of our elderly veterans across the country. We
are going to give a special tip of the salt and pepper cap to all
those people across the country.
Also, I am wearing my tall ships pin today. I invite all
members of parliament, their staff, anyone in the viewing
audience and in Ottawa to come on down to Halifax between July 19
and 24 to witness the greatest gathering of tall ships in the
history of our country, a great mariner nation.
Back to the subject at hand, when it comes to impaired driving,
I do not think there is one Canadian or one parliamentarian who
would not agree that this is something that we should not even be
discussing in the new millennium. Impaired driving is a scourge
and a curse in our society. Through proper education and
enforcement hopefully we can reduce it or eradicate it
completely. However, it does absolutely no good to put in all
the toughest regulations possible if there is not proper
enforcement.
Many communities in my riding never see a police officer for
days. I am sure it is the same right across the country in the
rural parts of the nation. The cuts to the RCMP and to
provincial and municipal police forces have really put our roads
in jeopardy not only in terms of impaired drivers but unsafe
drivers right across the country.
If we are going to eradicate this problem and save lives, we
must encourage the federal government and all provincial
governments to reinvest in our law enforcement officers so they
can have not only the proper safety checks on the road,
roadblocks and everything else at New Year's and on special
holidays but throughout the year.
Spot checks are a great way of deterring the general public from
drinking and driving.
1045
Another problem is the lack of public transportation. There is
absolutely no excuse for someone to drink and drive. Absolutely
no excuse at all. In many cases an individual may have a bit too
much to drink and because there is no access to public
transportation, or quick access to it, that may encourage the
individual, albeit not rightly of course, to think that because
they cannot get a ride home and a cab is too expensive they will
chance it and drive. We have to take that type of thinking away
from the people who patron our taverns, bars and lounges, or who
drink in their homes or their neighbours' homes. We have to
encourage them to use public transportation or hire a cab if they
are going to have a few drinks.
I have to give credit to the Brewers' Association of Canada.
Over the last few years it has been very proactive in encouraging
its customers who drink spirits, wines and beers to drink
responsibly. Kudos go to that association for taking the lead
approach in that regard, but there is much more it could do. It
could start by putting voluntary labelling on bottles. Or, if it
refuses to do that voluntarily, it could become mandatory that
labelling be put on beer bottles, liquor bottles and so on to
encourage people not to drink and drive. That is my personal
point of view.
We have quite graphic advertising planned for cigarettes and I
believe we should have the same on liquor bottles. I do not
necessarily mean pictures, but a warning saying “Please do not
drink and drive”. That would go a long way in encouraging
people to understand that when they drink, getting into a vehicle
is the worst thing they could possibly do.
MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is a wonderful association
which reaches across this country. It deserves all kinds of
kudos. I would go so far as to say that the individuals involved
with MADD deserve the Order of Canada for all the great work they
do in bringing this issue to the attention of all members of
parliament and all legislatures across Canada. This organization
brings awareness to this very terrible aspect of our society.
Statistically it is true that impaired driving charges have
decreased through proper education and through efforts of
organizations like MADD and the Brewers' Association of Canada.
Those organizations encourage and educate all people in our
society to not drink and drive. However, it still happens and
there are many more things we could do.
Our enforcement people need adequate resources. We have heard
enough excuses about budgetary cuts. If someone dies because of
budgetary cuts, why the hell were those cuts made in the first
place? There is a cause and effect to budgetary restraints and
cuts. I am not saying we should operate on deficits for the sake
of operating on deficits, but if essential services like policing
are cut in Canada that will have an effect on road safety. We
have many concerns about home invasion in rural communities. We
also have problems with carjackings, drugs coming into Canada
through our ports, poor morale in the RCMP and the municipal and
provincial police forces, which are a direct cause of the cuts
these departments have had to face.
All of the police officers I have met love to do what they do.
They love to serve their country in their capacity as law
enforcement officers. Unfortunately, the support they receive
from the federal and provincial governments is not adequate.
That has to change. I believe if we can change the thinking of
all governments at all levels and work co-operatively together
with law enforcement agencies we could reduce drunk driving. It
is difficult to control 31 million people and their individual
behaviour, but we could reduce drinking and driving even more.
It is most unfortunate that the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley was unable to get unanimous consent to
have this legislation passed quickly. As the House knows, we
will be rising possibly this Friday or next week. I would
encourage this government and all members of parliament to put
aside their political differences and move to quickly pass this
bill. It would be the right thing to do. We must do everything
we can to protect our children, our families and anybody visiting
Canada who travels on our highways and byways, regardless of
which political party we belong to.
I encourage all members of parliament to support this initiative
and to do it quickly so that we can protect lives on our streets
in Canada.
1050
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in
the debate, which everyone is aware focuses on a motion that is
now before the House to essentially remove a subsection of the
criminal code, which is before us within Bill C-18. The proposed
subsection arrived back here, and I would suggest it is arguably
the most important part of much needed and anticipated
legislation pertaining to impaired driving.
The proposed subsection would replace subsection 255(3) of the
criminal code with the following:
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and
thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
This bill is very much aimed at the emphasis and putting forward
parity in the criminal code with respect to individuals who
embark on this type of reckless behaviour that results in threats
to life and limb. We have seen repeatedly the carnage on the
highways that is the end result of impaired driving. This is a
criminal code change that would address that particular problem
in a direct way.
The Conservative Party of Canada was very encouraged when the
government and all other opposition parties, with the exception
of the Bloc, finally came around to support Bill C-18.
We know that last year there was capitulation on the part of
other parties when the government agreed to take this proposed
subsection out at the urging of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of
our party were very tough with this particular item and insisted
that it remain, and we did receive personal assurances from the
Minister of Justice that this bill would be reintroduced as a
stand-alone. I want to acknowledge and commend the minister for
following through on her word. Sadly, we have not seen her
ability to deliver Bill C-3, the new youth criminal justice act,
with the same level of efficiency, or timeliness.
Bill C-82 was the original bill from which this proposed
subsection was deleted. It was because our party was insistent
on it being reintroduced that we see it here today. After that
long period of delay, it is encouraging. The timing, of course,
is very important. With the summer months now upon us,
graduations coming up, with more and more people on the highways
headed to cottages and to the shore, impaired driving sadly is a
threat to all individuals on the highways. This bill would send
a proper message of deterrence, both general and specific
deterrence, for those who are foolhardy enough to embark on
impaired driving and jeopardize other's lives in a very serious
way.
All members of the committee will recall, and I certainly
recall, working closely with members of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, who have been very much in support of changes to toughen
up our legislation pertaining to impaired driving, and this
subsection in particular was one upon which they were insistent.
The life imprisonment provision does send the message of
deterrence that we seek to send. I want to personally thank
members of MADD for their consistent support for legislative
change, and this bill in particular.
I also want to acknowledge the contribution of all members of
the justice committee for enabling this legislation to make
it through the committee, and to do so quickly. Now that we have
the amendment at report stage, although I know the Bloc Quebecois
may be opposed to this provision, I do commend and acknowledge
its commitment to exercising its right to oppose and to its
participation in the debate.
I hope the report stage will not be delayed any further,
particularly with respect to this important legislation, with the
timetable we have and the likelihood that parliament will wrap up
this week.
I spoke earlier of the summer vacations that our now upon us.
There are many families and individuals across the country who
will be on the roads, and needlessly impaired drivers could cause
fatalities and absolute horrific carnage to individual lives.
The hard-core drinkers who continue to embark on this exercise
of drinking and driving, getting behind the wheel and endangering
Canadian lives, is exactly the type of individual who this bill
addresses.
The message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in
that form and fashion is one that we wish to send from this place
forward.
From day one the Conservative Party stressed this as a
priority. The government has acknowledged that by bringing it
forward today.
It is high time that we put emphasis on the protection of human
lives and the needless tragedies and loss of life that we see on
the roads and highways throughout the country. They are a
testament to the need and to the void that existed prior to this
bill coming into effect.
1055
During the original debate of Bill C-82 we were very worried
when other parties softened their position with respect to the
life imprisonment aspect of the bill. This was done, many will
recall, in exchange for speedy passage through the House, but now
we have come full circle and we are seeing the inclusion of this
important provision.
The bill is now before us in a separate form, but it very much
complements and works with the previous legislative changes that
took place in the last session. This will improve the bill and
will give police further powers and the courts the further
ability to mete out sentences that are more indicative and more
reflective of the serious type of negligent behaviour that is
encompassed by impaired drivers.
Bill C-3 was another important bill that we would have liked to
have seen come through, as I mentioned earlier, but that has not
happened. However, we do embrace this bill and support it
wholeheartedly.
The Conservative Party has been adamant all along that the
provision of life imprisonment be reinstated and that judges be
allowed greater leeway, greater discretion to reflect public
outrage and public sentiment about the seriousness of taking
another's life through an automotive accident where alcohol is
involved.
Tragically, many people have experienced an impaired driving
accident. There are few Canadians who have not been touched by
the tragedy of an impaired driving accident. Careless actions
and careless behaviour of drivers when it involves alcohol have
to be treated with the same type of response that we see in other
actions that are reflected in the criminal code.
Criminal offences involving drunk drivers declined by 23%
between 1994 and 1997, but we do know that there are staggering
numbers who are not caught and continue to drive under the
influence. It is hoped that through the efforts of all present
we will have this legislation before the Canadian people. It
will benefit all in the country and send a message of deterrence
that is so important in changing and refocusing the attitudes
toward this criminal behaviour.
That is very much a part of this exercise. Putting forward a
more vehement message of deterrence, emphasizing that this is
behaviour that will not be tolerated, emphasizing that this is
the type of behaviour that will warrant serious criminal
sanctions up to life imprisonment, will help to send that message
out.
If and when Bill C-18 passes, the Liberal government should not
rest on its laurels, for certainly it and all governments should
continue their fight against impaired driving. Many suggest that
we should be lowering alcohol levels even further, some to a zero
tolerance level. There was lengthy discussion of other ways to
approach the problem of impaired driving, so the fight is not
over and there is more to be done.
Ontario and Alberta are two provinces that have been at the
forefront in bringing forward legislative changes and putting in
place provincial statutes to address this problem. Provincial
statistics show that more than 300 people were killed in drunk
driving related accidents in the year 1997. In Ontario there is
a legislative initiative that if caught three times for impaired
driving a lifetime suspension will follow.
We know that fines have been increased. Judges now have the
ability to impose sanctions with respect to the use of driver
interlock systems, which is an innovative technical advance that
will allow a person convicted of impaired driving to continue
driving if they comply and take full responsibility for the cost
of installation.
It is time for the government to follow the lead of some of the
provinces that are moving in that direction. Innocent victims
who are killed as a result of thoughtlessness and selfishness on
the part of impaired drivers have to be addressed in a serious
way. The federal government has an opportunity to send the
message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. Bill
C-18 is a step in that direction.
This legislative initiative, as I said, complements legislation
that was brought in in the last session, legislation that
expanded the window of time that police have to take samples up
to three hours. The legislation also strictly enforced the .08
blood alcohol concentration level and made effective amendments
to help police in the performance of their duties. Surveys
indicate that it takes police officers on average two hours and
48 minutes to process criminal code charges involving impaired
driving. Therefore, there is a greater need for a streamlined
approach to the way in which impaired drivers are handled by the
police.
Physical sobriety tests and passive alcohol sensors will also
help the police in their important task.
1100
As well, we know there is a need to fill another gaping hole in
the criminal code as it pertains to impairment by drugs, which is
not as easy to detect as alcohol. The province of British
Columbia has taken very innovative steps in training police
officers to be able to recognize the impairment symptoms brought
about by the use of drugs.
Police do their very best, and I commend all officers and those
involved in the criminal justice system, but they are often
frustrated by the fact that technicalities result in cases being
thrown out of court on many occasions. Police are still denied
the right to demand an automatic breath or blood sample from
those involved in accidents.
I just wanted to indicate that there is more that can be done. I
believe education plays a big part in that. Part of this debate
will hopefully educate the public in that regard.
Parliament has put aside its partisan attitudes on this level.
We are glad to see this legislation come in. Graduations are
coming up and we hope that all students will embark on a very
safe, alcohol free graduation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the vote
stands deferred.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1999, Human Rights Day,
our Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled Bill C-19, the crimes
against humanity and war crimes act.
This legislation will implement in Canada the Rome statute of
the international criminal court and strengthen the foundation
for criminal prosecutions in Canada.
The bill is now in its final stages. I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize the very important work done by members
of the standing committee and the many witnesses who contributed
to the examination of this bill.
Bill C-19 brings Canadian law into line with the Rome statute
which was adopted by delegates of the Rome Diplomatic Conference
in July 1998. Once 60 countries have ratified this treaty, a
permanent international criminal court will be created in the
Hague which will try individuals accused of committing the most
heinous crimes known to humanity.
There are already 97 countries which are signatories to the
statute, 12 of which have already ratified. The 12 ratifications
represent a doubling in number since the introduction of this
bill in the House.
1105
This progress is excellent, and It is especially encouraging to
note that the most recent country to ratify was France, which did
so last Friday. France's ratification is of particular
significance as its government was initially quite opposed to the
international criminal court. This demonstrates the momentum
that is occurring worldwide for this initiative.
The creation of the court is a revolutionary progression in the
struggle for universal peace. Many individual Canadians have
fought diligently at every step to ensure that the ICC would
become a reality. In particular, I would like to highlight the
contribution made by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch who chaired the
negotiations in Rome and was assisted by a committed team of
Canadian officials. They have demonstrated tremendous leadership
in bringing the nations of the world together on an extremely
complex issue. In this same spirit, many other Canadians have
acted as leaders at the non-governmental level to ensure that
every individual in the global community is able to live in an
environment of peace and security.
The opportunity for Canadians to be leaders in ensuring that the
international criminal court is made a reality has not, however,
ended. Rather, Canadians must remain vigilant and demonstrate
resolve in our efforts to make the ICC a success at every stage.
For the moment, we as parliamentarians must play our part in the
implementation of the Rome statute. The importance of Canada
ratifying the Rome statute cannot be overstated. A common theme
that echoes throughout parliamentary committee hearings came from
NGO representatives who stressed that it was of importance not
only to Canadians but to the global community that Canada ratify
the Rome statute as soon as possible.
There are two reasons why Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, Rights and Democracy, Women's Caucus for Gender Justice
and other esteemed organizations continuously stressed the need
for Canada to quickly act.
The first reason is that most countries prefer to follow rather
than lead. Many countries are hesitant to ratify the statute
because many countries that normally take the lead on such issues
have themselves not yet ratified. Our ratification of the
statute will place Canada in its familiar role of leadership in
the national arena. We must demonstrate this leadership as
atrocities continue to be committed throughout the world. It is
incumbent that we exert every effort to bring the ICC into being
as soon as possible.
The human rights NGOs also stated that it was imperative that
Canada ratify the statute because the proposed crimes against
humanity and war crimes act is the first comprehensive
implementing legislation to be developed by any country. The
Canadian legislation has been heralded by NGOs as model
legislation that will be studied and borrowed from by other
countries throughout the world.
I would now like to focus for a moment on the committee stage
which, under the direction of the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale, the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, was thorough and comprehensive.
The enlightened debate that took place at the committee meetings
between parliamentarians and witnesses representing a wide
variety of interests, has ensured that Bill C-19 is well crafted
and that it meets the needs of all Canadians.
Many amendments have been made to Bill C-19 as a result of the
suggestions that were put forward by NGOs and committee members.
I would now like to highlight some of these amendments.
1110
The crimes against humanity and war crimes act has been amended
to ensure that Canada will be able to fully prosecute individuals
who commit mass murder, rape, torture or any other similar
heinous crimes against humanity. The customary international law
definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
will now be recognized inside Canada.
Canada's ability to assert universal jurisdiction for these
crimes has also been streamlined and simplified. Now, as long as
the person accused of the crime is found in Canada, they will
fall under our jurisdiction, regardless of when or where the
crime took place. This change ensures that those who have
committed or who commit in the future the most egregious crimes
will not find a safe haven in Canada.
I would also like to ensure that one issue raised by some NGOs
at committee stage is fully clarified. Much trouble has been
caused by the words direct and indirect which appear in the Rome
statute but not in the corresponding article in the Geneva
Conventions section on transfers of population. I want to
reassure the House that the preparatory commission in New York
has resolved the problem, agreeable to all, by adding a footnote
which essentially reaffirms that the provision has the same
effect as the corresponding offence in the Geneva Conventions,
ratified by Canada and implemented by parliament twice.
The fundamental importance of the ICC is that it will ensure
that individuals who persist in committing shocking violations
against the global community will be held accountable for their
actions.
It is sad that humanity can make so many advances in knowledge,
in the sciences, in technology and in so many other areas, yet
peace has always eluded the world. The world has never known a
period when war did not rage somewhere.
The 20th century in fact, despite our progress, has been the
bloodiest century known to humanity. The violence that we have
known this century has been so unparalleled that the word
genocide itself had to be created to denote the level of violence
that had previously been unknown.
In this century we have seen far too many peoples targeted and
murdered en masse simply because of who they were. All too often
those who perpetrated the violence have escaped justice. The ICC
will ensure that the Stalins, the Hitlers and the Pol Pots of the
world will never again be able to act with such impunity. The
ICC will be the permanent, independent institution which will
serve humanity blindly and ensure that the 21st century will be
one in which universal accountability is demanded and protected.
The international community must show resolve in continuing to
push countries to ratify the Rome statute. The situation in
Sierra Leone is an unfortunate illustration of the immediate need
for the ICC. It is also useful as serving as an example of how
the ICC will serve the interests of Canadians in doing our part
in promoting the values which we hold dear to our hearts.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done tremendous work in the
promotion of human security. Human security puts the needs of
people first, and the situation in Sierra Leone illustrates how
the ICC can promote the rights of individuals throughout the
world.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been making great efforts to
promote awareness on the issue of war affected children. Many of
us have seen the images of small children wielding weapons that
were bigger than they were. Children as young as nine in some
conflicts are routinely drugged and sent out as cannon fodder to
benefit and protect cowardly warlords.
1115
To take advantage of children in this manner is beyond
unconscionable. It is outrageous and it cannot be tolerated by
individuals who consider themselves to be civilized. The ICC,
once established, will provide the global community with the
mechanism to go after the individuals who turn children into
killers by providing within the Rome statute that it is a crime
against humanity to employ children in warfare.
Sadly the image of children brandishing guns is not the most
horrific to emerge from Sierra Leone. Instead it is the image of
children as well as those of countless men and women who have had
their limbs hacked off that is more enduring. It is perhaps this
image of small children with stumps where their hands once were
that best exemplifies why the world needs a permanent court to
hold the individuals who perpetrate these acts accountable before
the world.
The ICC will ensure that the climate of impunity that has been
tolerated for centuries will be replaced by a culture of
accountability. The court's creation will send a strong signal
to all corners of the world that the international community will
no longer stand idly by while innocent persons are massacred.
Criminals will no longer be able to stand behind borders safe
from prosecution. They will instead answer for their crimes.
The act and the ICC will also ensure that those who aid in
committing these crimes or who profit from these crimes will have
to likewise answer for their actions.
The situation in Sierra Leone, for example, has been financed by
the trade in diamonds. Without the trade in diamonds there would
be no guns. Canadian diamond companies have acted responsibly in
Sierra Leone. Yet there are companies from other countries
operating in Sierra Leone that have provided the people who hack
off children's hands with the money to commit these crimes.
Legislation such as this act will help ensure that these
companies, like the perpetrators themselves, will be held
accountable for their actions.
It is also important that it be made clear the ICC will be a
neutral, non-politicized court whose prosecutors and judges will
meet the highest professional standards and will be elected by an
assembly of state parties. It is worth citing the excellent work
done by Madam Louise Arbour who served as the chief prosecutor on
the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Madam Arbour, who now serves Canadians as a supreme court
justice, demonstrated the level of professionalism, integrity and
commitment to justice that we can expect to see from those who
will perform similar functions for the international criminal
court.
Canadians have long demonstrated the intellectual and moral
courage to play a leadership role in promoting peace and security
for all of humanity. I praise those Canadians who have
ceaselessly contributed to ensuring that the rule of law is
extended throughout the world to all persons irrespective of who
they are. I hope we as parliamentarians, as representatives of
the Canadian people, can continue to demonstrate the commitment
of Canadians to ensuring that mass murderers, rapists, those who
mutilate children and all war criminals will never again escape
justice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statement by the secretary of
state with interest. Now I rise on behalf of the Canadian
Alliance as the official opposition chief critic for foreign
affairs to deliver our final answer to the government's proposed
Bill C-19 that will fulfil Canada's obligations in the
establishment of the international criminal court.
In my 40 minute speech in early April I highlighted our position.
This bill and the code will deal with cases of genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes.
1120
Canadians support this effort. We want the perpetrators of
these heinous crimes to be brought to justice. We support the
codification of the crimes that this legislation formally
creates. We understand that no nation stands alone in the global
arena. We must work with other countries in assisting and
ensuring that criminals, those monsters who have blood on their
hands, are held responsible and accountable for their crimes and
that justice is served. This is a very important justice issue.
Criminals must be brought to account.
On behalf of the official opposition I extend an hearty thanks
and acknowledgement for the hard work done by everyone, including
members of the foreign affairs committee and particularly the
witnesses appearing before it. I acknowledge the work of the
clerk of the committee, the legislative counsel assisting us with
the amendments to the bill, and the government's lawyers who are
to be congratulated for working very diligently under short time
constraints and succeeding in terms of helping the government
with the bill.
I also extend my thanks to my legislative assistant, Dan
Wallace; the staff of the Canadian Alliance; and the member of
parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands who during my absence on a
trip to China helped the committee to proceed with the bill's
amendments.
The Canadian Alliance and many of the witnesses appearing before
the committee hearings on Bill C-19 went to great lengths to hold
the flashlight for the Liberals in order to help them do a good
job. It is unfortunate that the government's treatment of the
bill cannot be helped. The Prime Minister and Minister of
Foreign Affairs have proceeded with this legislation in a
perfunctory manner. By that I mean there are many outstanding
issues in the international community concerning the
international criminal code. The Liberals know this but still
they have gone ahead with this legislation.
The bill was substantially amended by the foreign affairs
committee. Even so, many unanswered questions remain concerning
the effects of Canada fulfilling our obligations under the ICC.
The international community is currently negotiating many of
these concerns as we speak. In their haste the Liberals have
placed the cart before the horse by having parliament pass
legislation before definitions, procedures and other details have
been decided. All Canadians want the interests of the victims of
these crimes to be addressed and justice to be done with respect
to heinous crimes that too often go unpunished. This is a step
in the right direction, the creating of an international judicial
system which declares that no one including the heads of state is
above the law.
An amendment of the Canadian Alliance was put forward at
committee to make sure that the Liberals would include
prosecuting heads of state. That was not clear in the original
bill, Bill C-19, that was introduced before the committee
hearings.
1125
The ICC rules of procedure and evidence, including the
definition of terms such as aggression, conditions of
imprisonment, judicial protocol and many others need to be
clearly defined. In addition we are concerned about the
proliferation of the United Nations bureaucracy when temporary ad
hoc human rights tribunals such as the international tribunals
for Bosnia and Rwanda will suffice to deal with these crimes on a
case by case basis.
The advantage of an ad hoc tribunal is that it can be dismantled
when its work is done and no permanent bureaucracy is created.
Until the international community reaches agreement on these
kinds of ICC related details we believe this is a superior
option.
The Canadian Alliance supports the principles and the idea
behind the Rome statute providing the means for prosecution of
war crimes. The Rome statute is a document that initiates the
ICC. Canada's ratification of the Rome statute is the genesis of
Bill C-19. Our ratification of the Rome statute is not due until
December 2000.
There are certain questions which still remain unanswered. Why
has the government insisted on passing the bill this week when
the House is recessing? Why not wait until the important
meetings concerning the ICC have been held by the international
community when we will have more information available to decide
on? Why not wait until the definitions and rules of the ICC have
been decided by the international community? When we know the
rules of the game it will be easier to play the game, but when
the rules of the game have not been decided how can we think of
going into the field and playing?
Yesterday the United Nations began three weeks of meetings
concerning the ICC, but today the House will have finished debate
on this matter. The matter will be closed after today. This is
a travesty of democracy. Bill C-19 requires Canadians to support
something that is still under negotiation by the international
community. It is premature.
The Liberal government is extremely negligent in failing to seek
approval for Canada's position from parliament. Instead
parliament is being treated as a rubber stamp for negotiations
carried out with input from unelected lobby groups but with no
input from elected representatives of Canadians. Canadians are
forced to watch from the sidelines as the Liberals sign and
implement yet another international agreement. We have seen this
pattern too often. It was quite evident when we went to the
Kyoto, Rio, Cairo and Beijing conventions.
The Liberals are used to going to conventions without doing
their homework and in the back seat of the bus writing the
policy, the terms and the conditions of their position. Then
they present us with a fait accompli. This is a disgrace to
Canada's democratic institutions and the spirit of openness and
accountability which Canadians deserve.
The legislation remains unfinished business. Whether or not the
government passes it, it will remain unfinished business. I
wonder sometimes if the Prime Minister is forcing his own
political agenda on Canadians and our international allies. Is
he causing the premature passage of this bill so that he is free
to call an election in the fall without worrying whether Canada
has ratified the creation of the ICC by December 1?
That would be irresponsible and negligent. It is a very
important bill, a very important treaty and we need to scrutinize
it carefully.
1130
Witness after witness who appeared before the foreign affairs
committee on this bill warned the Liberals that they should not
be passing such an important bill with such serious ramifications
for the free world unless it was foolproof and ironclad. This
bill is full of holes and it is largely undefined. Everyone
knows that this is not a secret.
The committee heard witness after witness testify to a litany of
problems with the bill, yet the Prime Minister is forcing the
country to take the risks of passing legislation that may see our
own Canadian forces personnel prosecuted and punished because the
government passed legislation before it knew what the law was
about.
However, I do not believe that. I feel that we will be here
next September until probably December, and that is when this
work should have been done. This bill needed to wait until at
least September in order for elected representatives in the House
to take into consideration the most recent possible developments
in the international negotiations concerning the ICC.
If necessary, the new Canadian Alliance government would have
passed this bill before the December deadline. In fact, I would
recommend that an alliance government would repeal Bill C-19 so
that the work that needs to be done actually gets done.
The ramifications of the bill are not going to disappear for
some time. There is work to be done once the decisions
concerning procedures, evidence and the definitions are finalized
by the international community. That is when this bill should
come before the House.
The Canadian Alliance delivered 20 amendments to the bill at
committee stage. I would like to highlight a few of those
amendments so that members of the House, as well as viewers, can
see it from our perspective.
We proposed an amendment calling for the Rome statute to be
appended to the bill. That is the practice parliament followed
with the Geneva Convention on the Laws of War and Protocols I and
II to the conventions. That is also the practice parliament
followed with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why does
it not want to do that in this case?
We also proposed to amend the interpretation clause of the bill
by adding a clause declaring “notwithstanding anything this act,
Canada's national sovereignty is to be protected”.
In another amendment, we proposed adding two lines ensuring
“international law is not to be permitted to supersede Canadian
law”.
These amendments were needed because it was not even clear in
the bill that Canada's sovereignty would be protected and that
Canadian law would remain supreme.
The Canadian Alliance also received numerous representations
from Canadians who maintained that it violated the rule of law to
create retroactivity. This would have the effect of convicting
an individual in an uncontested manner. We proposed an amendment
that said “nothing in this act should cause Canadian courts to
treat crimes allegedly committed outside of Canada
retroactively”.
We tried to help the government with its bill. We proposed
adding the contents of subsection 21(2) of the criminal code to
the bill. This useful section of the criminal code should be
Bill C-19.
1135
Subsection 21(2) reads:
Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry
out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any
one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an
offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the
commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of
carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
In the committee's discussions with the lawyers we were assured
that the Criminal Code of Canada would be applied if need be.
The bill had two definitions of war crimes and crimes against
humanity: one definition, if the crimes are committed in Canada;
and the other, if the crimes are committed abroad. We proposed
one definition: no matter where the crimes are committed. How
can we have two definitions of crime whether it is committed in
Canada or abroad? It is a matter of common sense. The
government had its own amendment which took care of that.
Another amendment ensured that the accused had to intend
inhumanity and know that the act was inhumane without using the
word inhumane. The bill needs to state what the mental element
is for the crimes. There is such a statement in the Rome
statute, article 30. The problem Cory J. posed in Finta said
that an accused had to intend inhumanity, that the trial judge
was right in saying that the accused must know that his act was
inhumane, is not addressed.
Mr. Justice Cory in the case of R v Finta said:
It seems that the (war crimes) section was passed to bring to
trial those who inflicted death and cruel suffering in a knowing,
pre-meditated, calculated way. The essential quality of a war
crime or a crime against humanity is that the accused must be
aware of or wilfully blind to the fact that he or she is
inflicting untold misery on his victims. The requisite mental
element of a war crime or a crime against humanity should be
based on a subjective test.
The Canadian Alliance proposed another amendment making it clear
that non-state actors and heads of state can be prosecuted for
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is not
clear in the bill. We proposed an amendment to add the contents
of section 21(2) of the criminal code to the bill.
The current criminal code provision 7(3.77) was not to be found
in the bill. We called for it to be included, but I will not go
into the details.
We proposed many other amendments. The Canadian Alliance forced
these issues to be dealt with by the government. We proposed an
amendment preventing pardon without trial. We proposed an
amendment that would exclude the defence of superior orders.
This could not be done as it was already provided for under
Canadian law.
We also proposed an amendment that would have the effect of
establishing that the judge should decide whether the order was
manifestly unlawful.
Finally, we proposed another amendment obliging the government
to table documents concerning the negotiations taking place to
decide rules of evidence and certain definitions for the ICC.
Surprisingly, Liberal backbenchers also offered amendments to
Bill C-19. Everyone tried to fix this bill but it is still
broken. It could have been divided into two: One bill for the
ICC and the other for the codification of the crimes. This would
have helped. It at least was going in the right direction.
This bill is full of holes and may threaten our national
security. The United States of America is adopting strong
legislation to deal with suspected war criminals and perpetrators
of these crimes. This may cause suspected criminals to use
Canada as their hideout.
1140
We are concerned that these suspects will try to join with
organized crime and people smuggler brethren already in Canada.
Those undesirables are already here because of the Liberal
government's lax money laundering and illicit drug laws, and its
flawed and broken immigration and refugee system.
By the time the international community has completed work on
the ICC, the Liberals will have long forgotten about it. The
Liberals will think they have washed their hands of it.
At the report stage last Friday, the House was forced to
consider nine amendments from the Bloc Quebecois, which was a
waste of the government's time. The Liberals were surprised to
see those amendments. The submission of the amendments was a
denial of the work by the foreign affairs committee. By the time
the report stage arrived, everyone knew that as many changes as
possible were completed. There was no more work to be done on
Bill C-19 and its state of incompletion could not be corrected.
Until more developments take place in terms of the international
community's work on the bill, where negotiations are taking
place, everyone knows that the government has moved as far it is
going to move. That was about three hours of wasted time at
report stage.
In conclusion, on behalf of right thinking Canadians who believe
in getting the job done, doing a good job and doing things right,
I will work to save taxpayers' money. I will not waste any more
of the House's time on this bill because the taxpayers are paying
for this.
The Canadian public expected the government to do a good job in
satisfying Canadian obligations under an international criminal
court. They trusted this government to properly enact the crimes
against humanity, genocide and other war crimes, but it has not
done that. It has again disappointed Canadians, like so many
other badly managed federal government responsibilities, such as
tax relief, criminal justice, youth criminal justice system,
health care, HRDC, gas prices, brain drain, and the list goes on.
This is work that has not been done or done badly.
The Canadian Alliance supports Canada withholding our full
acceptance until parliament has ratified the rules of procedure
and evidence for the ICC. These rules will not be ready for some
months. The government should have waited before proceeding with
Bill C-19.
Canadian negotiators met with the foreign affairs committee
approximately one week before their departure to Rome. Upon
cross-examination at committee, the officials said that they did
not know what the details of the agreement might be. They did
not know what it might cost. They did not think that any major
offending countries would sign it. They did not think the
Americans would sign it. They could not answer questions about
the make-up of the court at that time. Above all, they would
sign the agreement without knowing all these things. This is
what has happened. It is not new. They have done it again and
again, and that is wrong.
The Canadian Alliance will hold the Liberals responsible by
voting against Bill C-19. It is too bad. I hope there will be
an election soon.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise here this morning to speak to third reading of Bill C-19.
The full title of this bill is an act respecting genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
1145
The short title of this bill is Crimes Against Humanity Act. I
was looking for the bill's title at report stage, because I
wanted to point out the spirit of the committee's deliberations.
It transcended partisan divisions.
I would therefore point out that thanks to a Bloc Quebecois
amendment, the short title reads Crimes Against Humanity and War
Crimes Act. It is our understanding that genocide is a crime
against humanity.
Although we would have liked the bill to be even more
progressive and to give Canadian courts broader international
jurisdiction, we will vote for it with enthusiasm.
This bill is the stone Canada is adding to the international
edifice that will be the international criminal court once 60
countries have ratified the statute of Rome. What point have we
reached today? I believe that 12 countries have ratified it so
far. So we need another 48 to make the 60.
I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government of
Canada and senior public servants, who worked with international
officials to draft the statute of Rome first and then Bill C-19,
were in a hurry, just like the NGOs that came before us to say
how it was urgent for Canada to pass this bill.
Despite this context, we wanted the committee to work as
responsibly as possible. I have to say that it did and that we
reached an honourable conclusion, even though it is not quite as
we would like it.
Canada is therefore adding its stone.
As soon as the bill is passed by the Senate, Canada will become
the 13th, 14th or 15th signatory. I must point out that we are
still far from having 60 countries. All those who support this
initiative are hoping that it will not take years, as is the
case with some conventions, before getting the required number
of countries for the Rome Statute to reach its full potential
with the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
Bill C-19 does not only seek to have this international court in
place some day, with the powers provided under the Rome Statute.
It also means that, until then, Canada will have the authority
to try criminals who committed crimes under the definition
provided in the Rome statute, not the letter but the spirit of
that statute.
1150
After consultation—and we agreed with that proposal—we ensured
that the definitions would be exactly the same for the
implementation of the Rome statute and for trying criminals in
Canada under the criminal code.
I will read these definitions because they give the exact
measure of what the Canadian courts will deal with when they
have the mandate to do so, and what the international criminal
court will tackle.
These definitions are as follows:
“crime against humanity” means murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual
violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that
is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable
group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary
international law or conventional international law or by virtue
of its being criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it
constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and
in the place of its commission.
“war crime” means an act...committed during an armed conflict
that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes a war crime according to customary international law
or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts,
whether of not it constitutes a contravention of the law in
force at the time and in the place of its commission.
A country could not use the argument that a person accused and
prosecuted under the applicable conventional international law
had the right to say “But that is not the law of my country”.
This is why there is international law and an international
criminal court.
In the definitions given in the bill we read the following:
“genocide” means an act or omission committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons,
as such, that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes genocide according to customary international law or
conventional international law or by virtue of its being
criminal according to the general principles of law recognized
by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a
contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place
of its commission.
For Canada, implementation of the Rome Statute marks the
beginning of the realization of a dream. That dream is one of
justice that cannot be less than international, because it is a
justice that cannot be blocked by the rank, the power or the
wealth of those who it is felt must be prosecuted under
customary international law by this International Criminal
Court.
The Rome Statute marks the realization of a dream.
The definitive realization of that dream will be ratification of
the Rome Statute, or almost so, for there are still some
obstacles to that realization.
Until now, the acts or omissions
covered by the three definitions were viewed, with amazement,
horror or sometimes admiration, within the country concerned or
elsewhere, as the expression of a relationship of power within
humankind, whose cruelty seems to know no limits. Consequently,
the only thing that could be used against that force was another
force, either the force of numbers, in the case of democracy, or
the force of arms against another country, and this would mean
war.
1155
This marks a turning point in world history, a desire to break
with relationships of force alone, both within and between
countries. Obstacles lie ahead however. The Rome statute must
be ratified by 60 countries, and we hope that we will have those
signatures soon. But there will be other obstacles.
Naturally, the court does not have jurisdiction over non-member
countries, although, through the UN Security Council, the
court's investigator is empowered to investigate anywhere at all
and to lay charges.
But there will understandably be wrestling matches with a number
of countries.
We know that we have not reached the end of the road yet. But
at least we have the emergence of a tool that could, to a
certain degree, ensure that justice is done.
Our troubles are not over yet, however, because once a highly
placed criminal is brought before the criminal court, evidence
and witnesses will still have to be produced. The case of the
international court established for Rwanda shows only too
clearly how difficult it is, when charges are laid against the
leader of a country or a member of a victorious organization, to
come up with witnesses, because they might find themselves in
situations beyond the control of the court or of other countries
should they return to their own country.
That is all I will say for now about the many obstacles we face.
I am not going to dwell either on the scepticism some feel about
this court, and who have said “Will the existence of this court
not cause dictators to do all they can to remain in power as
long as possible or to create some pretence of justice or an
international court in their own countries?”
I will avoid this scepticism in order to point out just how
much, like other major international movements in support of
human rights, which have enabled the international community to
create mechanisms that, unfortunately, often go unheeded,
because they are not used enough or because it is tempting, in
certain circumstances, to forget or ignore them.
However, this great desire for international justice will begin
to take shape in each of the member countries and, we hope, in
every country, with a little pressure.
1200
This means of course that each of these countries is a
democracy. We know that the record of these countries is less
than great and that the trends we are seeing now in the former
Soviet Union, in many African countries and even in South
America, and in other major countries as well, cause us some
concern.
I note—I am not making a direct link between the two, although
sometimes I wonder—that the United States' desire to be exempt
from the application of decisions by the international criminal
court does not please many countries.
The fact that the United States did not want any criminal to be
tried without Security Council concurrence, which means a veto
by the U.S. and other countries, did not please democrats and
those wishing to see justice throughout the world.
In other words, Bill C-19 is but the first step in a lengthy
process, which must be built not only on justice but also on
democracy. This will be a lengthy process, because democracy
cannot take root in countries where hunger is rampant and there
is governmental corruption because it is so easy to be corrupt.
I know many share my concern about this.
Bill C-19 is also going to transform the landscape of Canadian
justice in a way.
In future, the courts will no longer be unable to follow up on
their jurisdiction, as some felt had occurred in the Finta case.
From now on, Canada and Canadian courts will be able to
prosecute criminals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide
or war crimes.
What we find regrettable is that the accused will have to either
be Canadians or have perpetrated their crimes against Canadians.
This universal jurisdiction Canada assumes is not, therefore,
the broader universal jurisdiction which we would have liked to
have seen and which other countries, such as Belgium, and Spain,
have assumed. This is regretful. We do, however, take note
that the witnesses before the committee have said that Canada
could, at a later date, extend that jurisdiction.
While there is general support for the bill, we felt it would be
appropriate to submit these amendments, not to delay the
proceedings, but to say before the House and to put it on record
that there is still work to be done. It may be that, at some
future stage, surely because of the pressure by NGOs—certain
events may occur—that position will become mandatory for Canada.
Until then, I have another regret, namely the fact that the
whole Rome Statute is not included in a schedule to the bill, to
the act. Why? Because if the Rome Statute had been included in a
schedule to the act, it would have been easy for all those
involved in Quebec and in Canada to provide training on the
International Criminal Court.
1205
Of course, we are told that it is easy to find this statute on
the Internet. That is true, but I hope that we are not about to
be told “No need to give you a hard copy of the bill, you can
access it on the Internet”. If it is desirable to have the bill
on paper, it is also desirable to have the Rome Statute in a
schedule to the bill.
We also regret that the Rome Statute was not submitted to the
House of Commons, and we say that of every treaty or convention.
I just came out of a committee meeting on globalization.
Witnesses told us that one of the great dangers facing us right
now in the process of globalization is the lapse of democracy.
This lapse concerns not just parliament and parliamentarians, but
also means that the executive branches of countries will
increasingly find themselves exercising responsibilities far
broader than those they had when there were not as many
international agreements affecting our daily existence.
This is true of trade agreements, which affect individual
citizens and provincial jurisdictions in particular, but it is
also true of citizens in their dealings with the Government of
Canada.
I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, who introduced a private member's bill
designed to ensure that treaties are submitted to the House of
Commons. I say to him that the Bloc Quebecois will continue this
battle for the democratization of parliament in the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
In conclusion, I hope that the vote will be unanimous. I am
certain that there is strong support for this bill in Quebec, to
the extent that people are aware of its existence, and I would
like to see that support deepen. The momentum created by the
first signatories must help take us quickly up to, and hopefully
past, the magic number of 60 countries, and still we must not
expect miracles.
With international crime increasing in tandem with
globalization, and the gap between rich and poor and between rich
and poor countries growing wider, neither democracy, peace or
justice are better served in the world as we know it today.
The work done on Bill C-19 on the international criminal court
is part of a much larger effort which is vital if we are ever to
hope that all human beings, regardless of their country of birth,
their age or status, may enjoy well-being, security, justice and
the fundamental right to make democratic decisions.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier on
her excellent speech on Bill C-19. I am not going to reiterate
her criticisms, but I do agree with her suggestions for
improving the bill.
This is an important bill. It is an important step forward in
the international criminal court file. On behalf of my
colleagues in the NDP, I say once again that we support this
bill at third reading.
1210
[English]
I want to again highlight the important role that was played by
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
in improving and strengthening this legislation, Bill C-19. I
want to signal the contribution of a number of members of that
committee who worked in a truly non-partisan spirit, in
particular, the member for Mount Royal, the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the
member for Mercier and others who made a good bill a better bill.
Certainly as we now debate this legislation at third reading, on
behalf of my colleagues in the federal New Democratic Party who
have long supported the international criminal court, we welcome
the adoption of this bill at third reading.
The member for Mercier appealed to the House to support this
bill unanimously, but unfortunately we heard a speech from the
Reform Party representative, the member for Surrey Central, that
was quite frankly shocking. Basically he said that if his party
were ever to form a government, one of its first acts would be to
repeal Bill C-19. It would repeal the bill that sets up an
international criminal court. It would repeal a bill which says
that the community of nations wants to ensure that those who are
responsible for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, for
genocide must be brought to justice.
I could not believe my ears when I heard that member speaking
for the so-called Canadian Alliance, supposedly a new party, with
that kind of destructive approach to human rights globally.
“Tear up the bill,” he said. “Forget the international court
of human rights being ratified by this parliament. We in the
Reform Party, we in the Canadian Alliance do not believe in this
bill”.
I fervently hope that the people of this country in the next
election will send a clear and powerful message to that party, a
message that this kind of intolerance, this kind of contempt for
fundamental human rights has no place in a decent and civilized
society and members of that party will be turfed out of this
parliament.
I want to touch on a couple of concerns with respect to the
issue of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I
want to note first of all how profoundly important it is that the
resources be in place to properly investigate these crimes and
allegations of these crimes.
Earlier this year I was in East Timor. I had the opportunity
while there to meet with United Nations representatives who were
investigating the absolutely appalling atrocities that took place
particularly in the aftermath of the referendum on a free East
Timor. They were pleading with the global community to do far
more to bring in forensic experts to ensure that indeed we are in
a position to investigate and bring to justice those who were
responsible for these crimes.
I am very proud of the fact that there were a number of
Canadians, in fact Canadians were leading the investigative
effort into these terrible crimes that took place. A number of
Canadian doctors and others have played a significant role.
Frankly, CIDA should be doing far more to support this kind of
forensic investigation.
We note as well the recent decision of the court of appeal in
Chile to ensure that former President Pinochet is stripped of his
immunity and brought to justice. There again we welcome this
development in the international community, the recognition that
those like Pinochet who are responsible for such terrible
atrocities must be brought to justice. We hope that the supreme
court in Chile will uphold that historic and landmark decision.
At the same time we must recognize that in other jurisdictions,
including Sierra Leone, Rwanda and elsewhere, justice remains to
be done and far more must be done.
I mentioned East Timor. I want to recount the story I heard
from a woman who witnessed with her own eyes the brutal murder of
three Catholic priests in Suai, a village in the southern part of
East Timor.
1215
The woman was present when thugs, paramilitaries supporting the
Indonesian government, murdered in cold blood a Catholic priest
who many Canadians got to know and love when he spent some time
here in Windsor and elsewhere recently.
The woman was able to clearly identify the perpetrator of this
crime. The tragedy of this situation is that the perpetrator of
the crime is in a camp in West Timor with complete impunity. No
steps whatsoever have been taken by the Indonesian government to
bring him to justice. When we speak of war crimes and crimes
against humanity surely we must recognize that this is not
acceptable.
I want to touch on two other areas. First, as I noted in the
debate at second reading in the context of the discussion on war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, the global
community must recognize that the impact of years of sanctions on
the people of Iraq has been nothing short of genocidal.
UNICEF has documented the death of over half a million children.
The infrastructure in that country has been destroyed. The
bombing continues today. Innocent civilians are being killed.
The impact of depleted uranium particularly in the south remains
devastating. In the context of this debate I want once again to
appeal to the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
I want to ask our government to respond positively to the
unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade calling for the immediate lifting of
economic sanctions against Iraq.
[English]
The foreign affairs committee held hearings on this issue. We
heard compelling and moving evidence about the impact of the
sanctions on the people of Iraq. I visited that country in
January of this year along with a delegation from a group called
Voices of Conscience. I met with former UN humanitarian
co-ordinator, Hans Van Sponeck. I met with Dennis Halliday, his
predecessor. All of them are pleading with the community of
nations, with the United Nations, with our government, with
Canada, to recognize the appalling and inhumane impact of these
sanctions on innocent human people. Saddam Hussein is not being
touched by these sanctions but innocent lives are being lost.
The standing committee on foreign affairs issued a strong and
unanimous report calling for the de-linking of economic and
military sanctions. Yet to date we have had no response
whatsoever from the foreign minister or from the Government of
Canada.
I appeal today to the Government of Canada to respond before the
House rises positively to that report, to listen to the voices of
Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are demanding that our
government stand up and be counted in the security council and
call for an end to these genocidal and inhumane sanctions. I
appeal to our government to respond to that strong, positive and
unanimous report of the foreign affairs committee at the earliest
possible time.
The final issue I want to touch on in the context of this debate
on war crimes and crimes against humanity is the issue of alleged
war crimes committed by NATO forces during Operation Allied Force
last spring in Kosovo and Serbia, the bombing that took place
there. Along with all people who value humanity we strongly
condemn the attacks on ethnic Albanians that were taking place
there. We urge the community of nations to work together
collectively to put a stop to that brutal inhumanity.
I was shocked and appalled to learn recently that our government
had decided to extend one of our highest military honours to the
United States Supreme Commander in Kosovo, U.S. General Wesley
Clark.
General Clark was granted by the governor general Canada's
meritorious service cross because he “exhibited the highest
standard of professional dedication in Operation Allied Force”.
1220
This award should never have been granted. I want to be very
clear. This is not in any way a criticism of Her Excellency
Governor General Adrienne Clarkson because she has no option. All
honours including the Order of Canada and bravery decorations are
awarded by the governor general on the advice of duly constituted
committees. There is a military advisory committee which
recommended to the chief of defence staff that General Clark
receive this recognition.
Far from recognizing the military valour of General Clark, we
should pay attention to the very eloquent report issued this week
by Amnesty International on NATO and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia under the heading “Collateral Damage or Unlawful
Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation
Allied Force”. This is a devastating indictment of the conduct
of NATO under Supreme Commander Wesley Clark during the bombing
campaign in Kosovo.
I personally walked through the rubble of the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade, one of the mistakes of those who could not properly
read a map and killed innocent human beings in the Chinese
embassy.
I walked through the rubble of the Serbian radio-television
headquarters building as well. It was not a mistake. That
building was deliberately targeted by NATO. Sixteen innocent
people, make-up artists, technicians and journalists, were
murdered in cold blood in that building.
As Amnesty International points out, NATO has legal obligations
under international laws of war to minimize civilian casualties.
In the particular instance of this direct attack on the
headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, in the view
of Amnesty International it did indeed constitute a war crime. I
agree that on the face of it that is exactly what it constituted.
As well the Amnesty International report went on to document
other attacks such as the attack on the Grdelica railroad bridge.
A passenger train was carrying civilians travelling from one
place to another. It was not a military target by any stretch of
the imagination, but that passenger train was hit by a NATO bomb.
NATO said it was a mistake, that it was aiming for the bridge.
Surely the question is: If indeed that was a mistake and it hit
that passenger train initially by mistake, why did it then turn
around and fire a second time? That was deliberate, and the
ultimate author, supreme commander of that attack, is being
honoured by Canada.
What about the bombing in broad daylight of a bridge in
Varvarin? A little girl, nine years old, cycling on her bicycle
was murdered in cold blood because of the violation of the rules
of war contained in the Geneva convention of 1949, as updated by
the protocol of 1977. NATO showed contempt for its obligations
to minimize civilian casualties both through negligence and by
deliberately attacking. If the bridge in Varvarin was a
legitimate military target, why was it bombed in the middle of
the day when people were going to the market? There is no
acceptable answer to that question.
There are many other examples of the incompetence of this
campaign. NATO bragged about how many tanks, armoured personnel
carriers, pieces of artillery and so on it had taken out.
1225
It turns out that after the bombing campaign ended and the
Yugoslav armed forces withdrew from Kosovo they took out massive
quantities of military supplies. Newsweek reported last
month that pentagon officials had suppressed a U.S. air force
report that found that the number of Serb targets verified
destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed by NATO. U.S. air
force investigators who spent weeks in Kosovo found that NATO
aircraft had destroyed a grand total of 14 tanks, 18 armoured
personnel carriers and 20 artillery pieces. That is a pretty
incompetent campaign.
There is another example I want to give of this campaign which
is being honoured. That is the bombing of army barracks on May
21 at Kosare in western Kosovo, very close to the Albanian
border. These army barracks contained KLA fighters. Seven of
them were killed and twenty-five were injured. The KLA had
captured these army barracks several weeks before NATO attacked
them.
We might say that maybe NATO did not know that the Yugoslav army
was not there and that it had been captured by the KLA, but in
fact the KLA had a very active presence in that area. A number
of journalists reported before that facility was bombed that the
KLA had captured it. Reporters and television crews had visited
the very barracks that were bombed by NATO under KLA escort. They
were escorted by the KLA to those barracks. NATO said it did not
know.
What an incompetent campaign, and we are honouring those who are
responsible not only for this incompetence but for the death
through negligence and through deliberate attacks on hundreds of
innocent civilians. This is wrong.
I am calling today, as I have called previously, on the
government and on the Minister of National Defence to recognize
this outrage and to revoke this honour to U.S. General Wesley
Clark. Instead, we should be conducting a full inquiry into the
NATO campaign including the role that the Canadian armed forces
played in it. I was assured by General Hénault that Canadians
were not involved in any of the incidents to which I have
referred, but Canadians have a right to know precisely what role
was played by our armed forces.
As Amnesty International has suggested it is essential that NATO
establish a body to investigate these very serious allegations
and to ensure that the victims of these violations and their
families receive compensation. The victims of those who were
murdered at the Chinese embassy have been compensated. The
family of that little 9 year old girl who was killed on the
bridge at Varvarin and many other civilians have not been
compensated to this day. There has been no investigation
whatsoever.
In the context of this debate on war crimes, on crimes against
humanity and on genocide, I want to say on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we support this bill
as an important step forward. Yes, it can be strengthened. Yes,
it can be improved. I hope we will have that opportunity. I am
pleased that Canada is one of the countries that has led this
long campaign to establish the international criminal court.
I want to pay tribute not only to the leadership that was shown
by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch but the many NGOs as well that have
worked long and hard to make this a reality.
I hope we will work collectively as a community of nations for a
planet on which there are no more war crimes, no more crimes
against humanity and no more genocide. I hope there will be a
rapid reaction force created to head off these things and that
collectively we can work for a planet in which there is respect
for the human rights of all our citizens; in which there is
justice, dignity for all citizens; and in which the crimes of
war, genocide and crimes against humanity will never happen
again. I hope those who are responsible for those that have
occurred will be brought to justice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas is a veteran member
of the House and in talking to him from time to time I have high
respect for him.
1230
He is an experienced member, but today he surprised me. He made
two comments which were not only inappropriate but they
misrepresented my position in my speech. Perhaps it was an
oversight on his part.
First, in my speech I said that the Canadian Alliance, myself
included, would strongly want those monsters who have blood on
their hands, those who have committed crimes against humanity,
war crimes and genocide, brought to justice. They should be held
accountable. I said it very clearly. Does that make me
intolerant? I do not think so.
The hon. member gave the impression that I and my party are
intolerant. I would like the hon. member to look into it again
and tell me what part of my speech today or on April 6 when I
gave a 40 minute speech on this issue showed me to be intolerant.
Judging from his experience and his wisdom, I guess he
misunderstood that. I would ask him to make it clear.
The second thing he mentioned was that the Canadian Alliance
party does not believe in this legislation. That again is wrong.
We strongly support the intent of the bill but we do not want a
half finished job. We want it done properly so that those
criminals, those monsters who have blood on their hands, are
brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes. We do
not want the government to rush the legislation through the
House. The international community is still negotiating and
finalizing the procedures and definitions of the terms mentioned
in the bill.
I think that the hon. member is confused or did not understand.
I would ask him to stand again and make it clear. If by any
chance he made a mistake, let him retract his comments.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear.
I heard the hon. member when he stood in his place. I have
travelled with the hon. member. I have worked on the foreign
affairs committee with the hon. member.
I know that the hon. member chose his words carefully. He can
rise in his place and correct me if I misunderstood but I believe
the hon. member said that a Canadian Alliance government would
scrap Bill C-19, that it would repeal Bill C-19. That is exactly
what the hon. member stood in his place and said. That is an
astonishing statement. He is the official critic for the
Canadian Alliance, for the Reform Party.
I see the former critic in the House today. Maybe he has a
different position. I hope there will be enough time for the
former critic to rise in his place and say, “No, Mr. Speaker,
with great respect I disagree with the member for Surrey Central.
I would not repeal Bill C-19”. But that is what the member
said. The member said that a Canadian Alliance government would
throw out Bill C-19, that it would scrap Bill C-19, that it would
repeal Bill C-19. He did not say, “We would want to amend Bill
C-19. We would want to strengthen Bill C-19. It is a good
foundation”. No, in fact he said, “We would repeal Bill
C-19”.
I appeal to the member for Red Deer. Perhaps he wants to revise
the position of the Canadian Alliance. I see him consulting with
the critic now. I appeal to the member for Red Deer to rise in
his place and, with great respect to the member for Surrey
Central, make it clear that the member is not going to repeal
Bill C-19. Have a change of heart. Show some respect for the
many NGOs who have spoken with one voice on this issue, those who
have worked so long and so hard, the World Federalists of Canada,
the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and so many
others who are appalled at the possibility that those members
would actually repeal, scrap and wipe out this bill.
Those members say they are committed to bringing war criminals
to justice. How can they say that when according to their own
spokesperson they would get rid of this bill?
1235
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, certainly it is my privilege to stand and address the
member. I am rather shocked that he would choose to bring in
partisan politics to something as serious as this when we are
talking about war criminals. He seems to think that he holds all
the cards when it comes to compassion and understanding people.
I was in Kosovo and Macedonia last year as well. A grandfather
told me they had killed his oldest grandson, then his youngest
one, and then they had killed the middle one. He asked,
“Mister, how can you ever forgive those people? How can you
tell me to not hate anymore?”
That touched me and I will remember that forever, just as much
as the member has been touched and is compassionate toward those
kind of crimes against humanity. For him to stand and condemn a
party or condemn fellow MPs on something like this, I find that
rather untenable in this House, particularly from someone with
the kind of experience he has. I am sure he has compassion but
we also have compassion for those people.
The question is, how do we get at these kinds of people? There
are good guys and bad guys. The problem is that all the good
guys agree to sign everything and form all kinds of agreements
and all kinds of get-togethers where they can talk about what we
should do and talk and talk. The real problem is how to deliver.
How do we get the bad guys to sign on? How do we get after
them?
How will the member get the bad guys? We can list so many. We
can go to Sudan and Iraq. We can go to all kinds of places. How
does he get those bad guys to sign on to what we good guys know
should happen and want to happen?
As far as what the other member said, he has tried to put
forward amendments. He has tried to make the bill better. The
government is set on ramming the bill through in a hurry. Well,
it just will not work. That is why we are opposed to it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with
the member on the foreign affairs committee. Would he just affirm
very clearly for the people who are watching this debate, who are
concerned about this issue, the statement that was made by the
official critic for his party, that a Canadian Alliance
government would repeal Bill C-19? Is that the official position
of his party, yes or no?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the time for questions
and comments has expired. Of course, as the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas knows, the questions are on his speech, not on
that of the hon. member for Red Deer who may yet speak.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would seek the consent of the House to enable the hon.
member to answer the question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions or comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
might have been interesting to hear another version from the
Reform Party. Since this party's inception, it has changed its
position on a number of things as it evolved in this House.
Like most of the parties here, we wanted unanimous support to be
given Bill C-19. Unfortunately, the Reform Party has decided
otherwise. Before I move on to my speech, I would like to
express my condemnation of the socio-juridic-politico stupidity of
the Reform's argument on Bill C-19.
Like my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, I too hope that people
will once again realize the true stripes of the Reform Party and
will act accordingly when they vote in the election of this fall
or next spring.
With modern communications, it has become impossible for the
rest of the planet not to know what atrocities are going on in a
country during wartime.
The international community has had a moral obligation to join
forces and to refuse to tolerate such reprehensible acts as the
Nazi concentration camps, and genocide in Rwanda, the former
Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. It has become clear that
universal standards are required for the protection of the most
vulnerable populations.
Although there is much still to be done in order to ensure world
peace and security for all peoples, adoption of the Rome Statute
in July 1998, which created the International Criminal Court,
represents a giant step toward the establishment of an effective
international justice system to combat the worst atrocities
known to man and to punish the perpetrators.
1240
It is all a matter of political will, as we can see very clearly
in this case. For the first time, the international community
has decided to act, not in keeping with the interests of one or
another of its members, the security council in particular, but
in the interests of human rights, by refusing to turn a blind
eye to the most serious crimes recognized by international law,
namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
As we has said on a number of occasions, the Progressive
Conservative Party supports and strongly approves of Bill C-19.
Incidentally, I would like once again—who knows, perhaps for the
last time—to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, who all worked together on this initiative,
without getting into partisan politics, with the exception
perhaps of the Reform Party.
As we mentioned on several occasions, Bill C-19 seeks to
implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute which, as
I said earlier, was adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United
Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC.
With this bill, Canada displays leadership and clearly shows to
the international community that it will not be a haven for war
criminals.
The International Criminal Court will be the first international
authority empowered to investigate the most serious of crimes
under international law. These include genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes.
It was unacceptable that war criminals could quietly live out
their lives as if nothing had happened, even though they had
taken part in indescribable atrocities.
Just this past weekend, the United Nations said that women are
often the first victims of conflicts. Sanam Anderlini, from the
British group International Alert, said that “women's bodies
have become the new battlefield”. Indeed, as we saw in Bosnia,
Sierra Leone and Rwanda, 80% of the refugees and displaced
people during wars are women and children. Many of these women
were raped and abducted.
They went through forced pregnancies. They were treated like
sexual or domestic slaves the world over.
These crimes are not recent. However, they have gone unpunished
because they took place in the context of war and because of the
failure to act of the international community, which preferred to
turn a blind eye.
I am glad that these crimes will no longer be tolerated, that
they will be considered crimes against humanity, and that,
through Bill C-19, Canada is taking the first steps towards
making this a reality.
One point I wish to come back to is the defence that someone was
acting under a superior's orders. We have heard from people who
seemed hesitant about these provisions.
Let us remember the defence in the Finta decision, in which
Finta's lawyer quite rightly argued that, under the provisions of
the criminal code of the time, members of military or police
forces could use following a superior's orders as a defence.
In times of war, most crimes are committed either because a
superior has issued an order, or has looked the other way. Is
the deed any less reprehensible? Is the crime any less terrible?
No.
Now, this kind of defence will no longer be possible, except of
course in accordance with international law. These provisions
were necessary and show politicians' determination to act.
Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity.
In this connection, a number of people also expressed some
misgivings. Nevertheless, I congratulate the minister and the
committee on their work. In most cases, the actions in question
took place during the second world war, or during conflicts
prior to the signature of the Rome Statute.
1245
We must be realistic, however. Since most of the facts date back
more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to
find those who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against
humanity, particularly under the Nazi regime.
As well, problems have arisen in the past when Department of
Justice officials tried to find witnesses in order to justify
extradition of a suspect. Without retroactivity, the bill would
not have made much sense.
The International Criminal Court complements our existing
courts; it does not replace them. The presumption of innocence
still applies. It is, however, important to take into
consideration the customary rules of international law. It is
normal, since it is not internal law but international criminal
law we are addressing today. There is an essential distinction
we must understand.
Because of the complexity of its objective, Bill C-19 prohibits
anyone from possessing any property or any proceeds of property
knowing it was obtained as the result of the perpetration of the
proposed new crimes.
This is a good provision, because Canada and the Progressive
Conservative Party both support the principle that no one must
profit from any type of crime, war crimes in particular.
Obviously, if the government wants war criminals to be found
guilty, certain other pieces of legislation also need amending.
The changes proposed for the Citizenship Act and the Extradition
Act, for example, will facilitate prosecution.
Clause 33 of Bill C-19 is aimed at amending the Citizenship Act
so that a person under investigation by the Minister of Justice,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service for an offence under any of the crimes set
out in Bill C-19 may not be granted citizenship or administered
the oath of citizenship.
As to Bill C-19, Canada will now be obliged to hand over
individuals sought by the international criminal court for
genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Under section
48 of the Extradition Act, a person who is the subject of a
request for surrender by the court may not claim immunity from
arrest or surrender.
I could say more on the need for this legislation, but I will
conclude by saying that the victims of war have been through
terrible trials. With Bill C-19, Canada is taking a stand by
saying that no war criminal is welcome on its soil. This
position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive
Conservative Party. We will not tolerate Canada's being a haven
for war criminals.
Bill C-19 is important. All the members of the committee did an
exceptional job and I would like to congratulate them. I hope
that the Canadian Alliance members will think twice about this.
Right now, over 12 countries—and France too, today—are passing
legislation enabling the Rome statute to be implemented. It
will take the support of 60 countries.
I heard the Canadian Alliance critic saying that we had to wait.
If everyone waits, nothing will get done. Already the
international community has waited too long to act. Nothing is
perfect, but the fact of acting immediately with Bill C-19 could
at least perhaps prevent or certainly send a signal that the
international community is ready and will be even more so in the
future to deal with these most heinous crimes.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, who is a
distinguished jurist in his own right, the hon. member for Mount
Royal.
In speaking in the third reading debate to the crimes against
humanity and war crimes act, I will take note of a fact, which I
think is rather exceptional, that the debates in the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were
exhaustive and at a very high level of technical competence.
It reminded me of what the late president of old World Court,
Manley Hudson, called an academy of jurists. In that sense,
although it is still possible to offer projects of amendments, I
hope that some of the parties will accept what I am doing, simply
make points of clarification in the debate which courts can take
note of as part of the travaux préparatoires in their future
interpretations.
1250
My first point is that the bill is enacting into Canadian law
the provisions of an international treaty. As a matter of law,
of Canadian constitutional law, it suffices for Canada to be
bound by an international convention that we sign and that we
ratify by executive act. In fact we gave this opinion to the
foreign minister when I was parliamentary secretary a little
earlier on the land mines treaty, because we wanted to send the
symbolic message of the treaty coming to legal conclusion within
a year of opening for signature. We could ratify without the
enacting legislation and be legally bound. The practice since
the privy council decision in the labour convention case in 1937
has been to recognize that since a legislative power to implement
may be split sometimes between provinces and the federal
government, it makes good sense to await provincial action. I
mention that, nevertheless, because that is the position in law.
In implementing the treaty the Canadian government creates new
jurisdictional bases and also new substantive bases of criminal
liability or delinquencies within Canadian law. I would like
to add this point because it does relate to some of the
amendments I think suggested by the Bloc and by the New
Democratic Party. It does not per se displace customary
international law. I would suggest that except to the extent
that customary international law may be in direct conflict with
Canadian constitutional law or legislation enacted thereunder, it is
in force and is a supplement to the treaty. There may be
jurisdictional and other difficulties in implementing, but it is
there.
I would simply refer to your notice, the judgment
of the World Court in Nicaragua v United States,
rendered by 15 votes to 1, in which the court refused to accept
that the adoption of the United Nations charter had pre-empted
all of international law, that it was all under the charter and
nothing else. It said that was not so. Customary international
law still prevails and the court based its judgment in Nicaragua
v United States on customary international law.
A third point arises after the Rome treaty becomes law. It
comes into force in international law when it is ratified by the
60 states stipulated as necessary to enact it. I raise the
question: Does it bind non-signatory, non-ratifying states? I
would here suggest the five permanent members of the security
council. I am delighted to learn that the French government has
decided to ratify this treaty. That is a breach in the
opposition of the five permanent members of the security council
that we had in Rome.
Monsieur Richard, the French minister of defence who was here
several months ago, discussed this very earnestly with some of us
and I became convinced that France would come through and I hope
it will be an example to other permanent members: Russia, Great
Britain, China and the United States, not least. There was the
then
heretical opinion by the brilliant Polish judge, Manfred Lachs,
the most interesting judge in the post-war world court, in the
North Sea Continental Shelf case, a dissenting opinion, but he did
say that treaties by the universality of their reach and perhaps
also the number of countries adhering to them could become
binding on non-signatory, non-ratifying states because they are
part of general international law. That was an heretical opinion
30 years ago when that decision was given. It is no longer
heretical. It has become a more or less general part of law
opinio iuris. Not everybody accepts it, but I cite it simply as an
indication to the other remaining hold-outs who are permanent
members of the security council. In the Latin phrase quod licet
Jovie, licet bovi; what is permitted to Jove on high should be
permitted to the humble oxen below.
1255
It does not make sense for countries to push the jurisdiction
of the ad hoc tribunal for Yugoslavia if they are not themselves
prepared to say “We will be bound by the Rome treaty”.
An issue has arisen here as to the applicability of ordinary
Canadian criminal law in ordinary Canadian courts. It is the
General Pinochet factor. It is the most interesting, exciting
and unexpected development in international law in the last year
or two. The House of Lords in its judicial committee, normally
known as a very conservative tribunal, took two big steps forward
in asserting jurisdiction over General Pinochet. The home
secretary made the political decision and took one and a half
steps backward, but it is still there.
Under Canadian law any Canadian judge, in theory, subject of
course always to the possibility of appeal, could find
jurisdiction over a citizen of a foreign state, including even
friendly foreign states and allies, if he or she so wished and
felt there was an adequate base in Canadian law. The General
Pinochet factor remains a wild card in international law, but it
is interesting how much it has involved ordinary citizens,
ordinary people and non-governmental associations in the
international lawmaking process.
I am simply saying that the Rome treaty is a comprehensive and
well thought out approach to universalizing jurisdiction over the
most severe sort of crimes, crimes against humanity. It follows
in the principle that was established in the first aerial piracy
conventions and the first moves to control terrorism, of the hue
and cry. That there is no safe place.
I do not expect the General Pinochet factor to be paramount in
Canadian practice or even perhaps to occur, but it might be worth
reminding people who have crimes on their conscience that if they
want to take a holiday abroad or consult for medical treatment
abroad, it is not really “Do not go to Great Britain”, but
perhaps also “Do not go to Canada”.
I will note a last and general point because it emerged during
the debate in the standing committee on foreign affairs and was
the subject of thoughtful evidence by members of our permanent
foreign ministry staff. It is a matter of law, and I note it and
will read it into the record. The testimony led before the
standing committee was quite directly that Canadian military
personnel did not participate in those aerial missions which have
been the focus of much public attention and debate in connection
with Kosovo. But, and these are the affirmative points, Canada
accepted the jurisdiction of the UN international tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia over Canadian forces throughout the
conflict. Also, in regard to every Canadian mission flown, a
Canadian forces legal officer examined the target assigned with a
view to ensuring its lawfulness under Canadian law and also
international law.
That is a good example of respect for international law and a
recognition that in policy decisions it is good to have the
international law adviser at one's side. We know that during
the Cuban missile crisis President Kennedy had his legal adviser,
the very great, recently deceased, Professor Abe Chayes of the
Harvard Law School, at his side. The action taken, among many
options, was to choose that action which was compatible with
international law, and it was effective. It is a good principle
to note: keep the legal adviser at hand. We can do what is
politically the right thing, but we can also do it compatibly
with international law.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some very good comments,
which I have listened to carefully.
I have a question for the hon. member. Since the definition and
procedures and evidence rules are not very clear in the bill, nor
are they spelled out, why does the government want to rush?
Why did it not want to wait until the right procedures, rules of
evidence and the definitions were place? We understand that
there needs to be 60 members to ratify. So far only 8 or 10
members have signed to ratify. We still have some time. In the
absence of the clarity, the definitions and the procedures, the
government should not have rushed this through.
1300
Second, this is a very important bill. We normally point out
difficulties in the international community when we have to
distinguish the bad guy from good guys. All the good guys will
sign the international treaty but the bad guys will not. How
would the hon. member propose we hold the bad guys accountable
and ensure they sign the treaty?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the point I have been
making is that with the progressive development of international
law under the United Nations charter, it is a step in
international law, initially sponsored by Judge Lachs and that
very interesting dissenting opinion in 1968, that non-signatories
to an international treaty can be legally bound by the treaty
either, to use an analogy, because the treaty becomes, by virtue
of the number of states signing it, part of customary
international law, or because the sheer number indicates it is
part of the general principles of law recognized by nations under
article 38(1)(d) of the World Court statute.
What we are saying here is, beware. The mere fact that a
country does not sign, does not mean that it can escape
responsibility. I do expect that with the progressive
development of international law, further steps may be taken to
extend jurisdiction through the Security Council or elsewhere
over non-signatory states where the gravity of the offence
suggests it. However, at the moment we are working with friendly
persuasion.
When we spoke several months ago to the French minister, Mr.
Richard, a most interesting and thoughtful gentleman, we made the
case for France signing and ratifying the treaty, and it has done
it. We are hoping we can persuade other countries, the other
four members of the Security Council, to feel the same. It makes
good sense.
We asked United States senators in Washington several weeks ago
why they did not sign, because they are the strong force behind
the war crimes tribunal on Yugoslavia, but it really does not
make much sense for them to say they are taking themselves out of
jurisdiction.
Canada is very proud of its forces and has full confidence in
them. We say that we will accept their subjection to the war
crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, That was an act of
faith, but it has not gone wrong. I am satisfied that the
Canadian forces acted in full conformity with international law
in their part in the Kosovo action.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the answer
to my first question. Why was there such a rush to ram this bill
through parliament, particularly when it is quite likely that the
House will be recessing before the weekend? Why could we not
have waited until September or October when the international
negotiations, the definitions, the procedures and the rules of
evidence will be laid down and the rules of the game will be
clear. Why did the government not wait until the rules of the
game were clear and then draft a perfectly excellent bill that
all parties could support?
Everyone is supporting the intent of the bill. Even the
Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill but we do not
want to leave the bill half cooked. We want to make sure it is
well done. I would like to know why there was such a hurry.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member
has fought a long time to get full respect for committees and the
plenary powers they have in the elaboration and drafting of
bills. I would simply repeat that on this particular section the
amount of time given to this particular bill in the standing
committee was extraordinary.
It was an example to all other committees. It involved 10, 12,
14 and 16 hours of point by point elaboration. May I say that in
my capacity as president for the next two years of the Institut
de droit international, it was a superb performance and a great
credit to the quality of our committees. We have four
international lawyers in parliament and I am told that is 400%
greater than the British parliament, the United States congress
or others. I signal the contribution of others in the committee.
The committee did a remarkable job. I do not think there is any
rush. Some may even have said that we spent too much time.
1305
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra for suggesting that he would split his time with me, but I
wish to speak in my own right and take the full 20 minutes.
I rise to speak to Bill C-19, the crimes against humanity and
war crimes act, at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder,
of witness and warning, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the
codification by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 of
the Nuremberg principles which are symbol and substance, source
and inspiration of the revolution in international human rights
law in general and international humanitarian law in particular.
For the Nuremberg principles codified for the first time, the
Grundnorm principle that individuals, including heads of state,
are criminally responsible for the commission of war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Nor can individuals plead acts of state
or superior orders as exculpatory grounds for their criminality.
For these Nuremberg crimes were deemed to be crimes against
humankind itself. Those who commit them are hostis humanis
generis, the enemies of humankind, while the rights violated
would include every right protected in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Magna Carta of humankind.
It is not surprising then, given the continuing and pervasive
state of international atrocity and criminality since judgment at
Nuremberg, and the impunity accompanying it, that the idea and
inspiration for establishing an international criminal court has
remained on the international agenda with greater or less
visibility since judgment at Nuremberg.
However, it took the globalized horror of the killing fields of
the nineties, the horror of Bosnia, the agony of Rwanda, the
brutalized women and children of Sierra Leone and Sudan, the
emergence of the unthinkable, ethnic cleansing, and the
unspeakable, genocide, as paridigmatic forms of armed conflict in
the nineties, to give the idea of an international criminal court
the moral compellability and sense of urgency that it warrants.
The establishment of an international criminal court was an idea
whose time had come, indeed, was long overdue. What
distinguishes the international criminal court from the ad hoc
tribunals is that the ICC is the first permanent international
tribunal with a global jurisdiction to try individuals for
criminal violations of international humanitarian law.
Unlike the International Court of Justice, whose contentious
jurisdiction is restricted to states, the ICC will have juridical
authority to indict individuals from any global killing field,
and unlike the ad hoc character of the Yugoslavian and Rwandan
war crimes tribunals, the jurisdiction of the ICC will not be
chronologically or geographically limited.
Bill C-19 is designed to implement in Canada the statute for an
ICC, to provide a Canadian legislative foundation for the
prosecution of war criminals so as to ensure that Canada will not
become a haven for war criminals past or present, and to serve as
an international model for Nuremberg legacy legislation.
Accordingly, I will first describe briefly the purposive
character of the ICC and why it is of such moral and juridical
compellability and urgency at this time. Second, I will outline
the principles underlying Bill C-19. For reasons of time, I will
limit myself to identifying rather than elaborating upon the
respective purposes and principles of the ICC and Bill C-19.
I will turn now to the purposive character of the ICC, which may
be summarized as follows.
1310
Principle number one is to institutionalize and internationalize
the Nuremberg legacy. In a word, there will be no safe havens
for these hostis humanis generis, the enemies of humankind.
Principle number two is to end the culture of impunity. Despite
the Nuremberg and Tokyo principles and precedents, impunity has
been the national and international practice. The ICC will
presage a culture of accountability as an antidote to a culture
of impunity.
Principle number three is to deter international crimes and
protect international peace and security. An ICC will not only
deter prospective war criminals and génocidaires from killing
their own citizens, let alone nationals from other countries, but
it will facilitate and protect peacekeeping as well as the
protection of international peace and security.
Principle number four is to counter the failure of national
systems. In an ideal world, international crimes should be dealt
with by national authorities of the state in which they were
committed. In the real world, however, governments are often
unwilling, even unable, to call their own citizens to account, as
exemplified by the Yugoslavian and Rwandan experiences.
Principle number five is to remedy the limitations of such ad hoc
tribunals. In a word, these ad hoc tribunals, such as in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are no substitute for a permanent
international tribunal. Politically, the selective establishment
of such tribunals by the Security Council gives rise to
allegations or apprehensions of political bias. Juridically, it
is jurisprudential authority that is more situation specific than
internationally specific.
Principle number six is to provide enforcement mechanisms. In a
word, the ICC is necessary to overcome one of the main failings
of international criminal law: the lack of a permanent,
institutionalized enforcement system.
Principle number seven is to provide an alternative to military
sanctions. There is presently no permanent, non-military or
coercive juridical mechanism to hold individual perpetrators
accountable. In such circumstances, the international
community's only recourse is to impose sanctions, embargoes or to
use military force. However, these are blunt instruments that
may harm innocent civilians, as in Iraq, more than affect
perpetrators. By focusing the rule of law more precisely on
individual violators, international law would become more just
and more effective.
Principle number eight is to afford redress for victims and
their families, if not affected populations as a whole.
Principle number nine is to provide a counter to any historical
revisionism after the fact and a means for truth, healing and
reconciliation.
Principle number ten is to serve as an international justice
model, as a standard-bearer in the implementation of
international norms both domestically and internationally.
I will turn now to the basic principles underlying Bill C-19
itself.
The first principle is the individual criminal responsibility.
This legislation is organized around the foundational Nuremberg
principle, as set forth in the judgment of the Nuremberg tribunal
itself, and I quote, that “crimes against international law are
committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing
the individuals who commit such crimes can international law be
enforced”.
The second principle is the domestication of ICC crimes. Bill
C-19 will create offences based on the Rome statute of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes that would apply to such
international criminal conduct if committed in Canada, while
similar offences would be created with respect to international
criminal conduct committed outside Canada.
The third principle is the principle of command and superior
responsibility. The bill includes offences of breach of
responsibility by military commanders and other superiors. In a
word, failure of a military commander or superior to exercise
control over persons under their authority which results in the
subordinates committing genocide, a crime against humanity or war
crimes, could result in the criminal responsibility of the
military commanders or superiors if they failed to take measures
to repress the crime or to submit the matter to the competent
authorities for investigation.
Principle number four is that of state responsibility for
international crimes. States are under an obligation to
prosecute, or to extradite for purposes of prosecution, any
individuals present in their territory who are accused of
international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes.
1315
Principle number five is that of universal jurisdiction. As
the perpetrators of such international crimes are indeed defined
as the enemies of humankind, Canada now has the legislative basis
to prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes from whatever
source, if they are found in Canada.
Principle number six is that of complementarity, a principle of
particular importance. In a word the ICC is designed to
complement, not replace, national courts. It will therefore
exercise jurisdiction where national courts are unwilling or
unable to bring perpetrators to justice.
Principle number seven is that of offences against the ICC. Bill
C-19 includes offences to protect the integrity of legal
processes under the international criminal court and to protect
judges and officials of the ICC as well as witnesses. In
particular, it includes offences of obstructing justice,
obstructing officials, bribery of judges and officials, perjury,
fabricating or giving contradictory evidence, and intimidation of
officials or witnesses.
I come now to principle number eight, the principle of
protection against gender violence. The ICC statute includes
explicit provisions for crimes of sexual and gender violence,
identifying as crimes against humanity and war crimes, conduct
that is directed specifically against women, such as “rape,
sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy,
enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable violence”.
Principle number nine is that of the protection of children in
armed conflict. The Rome statute also includes as a war crime
the conscripting or enlisting of children under the age of 15
into national armed forces or using them to actively participate
in hostilities in international armed conflict. This is a
principle central to Canada's human security agenda.
Principle number 10 is the aiding and abetting principle.
Persons who aid and abet, counsel, or otherwise assist in the
commission of an offence are considered to be parties to that
offence. The bill has also been amended to close any loopholes with
respect to the inclusion of attempts, conspiracies and being an
accessory after the fact.
Principle number 11 is with respect to the forced transfer of
civilian populations into an occupied territory. The prohibition
against forced transfer of a civilian population into an occupied
territory by an occupying power will adhere to the intent and
scope of the offence as set forth in the Geneva Conventions Act
of 1949, as per the footnote to the ICC, and to protect against the
politicization of this offence.
With respect to principle number 12, Bill C-19, unlike as
some have said, does cover non-state actors. The bill provides
criminal liability for “persons” which, pursuant to section 2
of the criminal code, includes legal entities such as
corporations.
Principle number 13 is that of reparations. Victims will be
entitled to reparations including restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation.
Principle number 14 is a particularly important one, the
principle of non-immunity, the Pinochet principle and beyond. In
a word a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by
the ICC, pursuant to clauses 48 and 70 of the bill, will not be
able to claim immunity under common law or statute from arrest or
extradition under the Extradition Act.
As well, a person who is the subject of a domestic prosecution,
including a head of state or senior official, will not be able to
claim immunity from prosecution under common law or statute, as
set forth in clause 3 of the bill. The principle of non-immunity
in section 27 of the ICC statute coupled with article 98 in that
statute, may arguably be said to have been incorporated by
reference in the domestication in Bill C-19 of the ICC statute
itself.
Principle number 15 is that of due process. The ICC statute
incorporates the highest international standards of the right to
fair trial and due process, while Canadian law is further
buttressed by due process guarantees as set forth in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and related jurisprudence.
1320
Principle number 16 is that of the superior orders defence. The
scope of the superior orders defence has been clarified in the
bill. Consistent with the Rome statute, persons accused of
genocide, crimes against humanity, or other manifestly unlawful
acts would not—I repeat, would not—be able to raise this
defence. Further, and to address any adverse fallout from the
Finta decision, a person would not be able to base a defence on
hate propaganda against an identifiable group as grounds for
defence against international crimes.
The last principle is principle number 17, that of state
co-operation. State parties such as Canada are obliged to
co-operate fully with the ICC, a principle anchored in our own
mutual legal assistance and related legislation.
In summary, Bill C-19 is comprehensive, historic, indeed
watershed legislation by any national or international standard.
It is an expression and an example of the best witness testimony
of representative human rights NGOs who appeared before the
committee, as well as the expertise of the legal advisors and the
members of all parties on the foreign affairs committee, such as
the expertise of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The legislation, as I indicated at the outset, is being enacted
at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder on the eve of
the 50th anniversary of the codification by the United Nations
General Assembly of the Nuremberg principles in 1950. This
legislation may be said to be the contemporary embodiment of an
expanded, refined, updated set of Nuremberg principles for the
new millennium. It will place Canada at the forefront of the
international justice movement and give juridical validation to
the anguished plea of victims and survivors from the Holocaust to
the present day killing fields of “never again”.
It is a wake-up call and a warning to tyrants everywhere. There
will be no safe havens, no base or sanctuary for the enemies of
humankind. It is now incumbent upon Canada to take the lead in
securing the necessary ratifications to bring the international
criminal court treaty into effect and to ensure the dream and the
efficacy of our own domestic landmark legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. 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.
1325
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.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. At the request of the
chief government whip, the vote on the motion will be deferred
until 5:30 p.m. later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage) moved that Bill C-27, an act respecting the national
parks of Canada, be now read the third time and passed.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate at
third reading stage of Bill C-27, I would once again like to
thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage for their work on this bill, an act respecting the
national parks of Canada.
The debates on this bill were marked by a spirit of co-operation
that helped strengthen and improve it.
I would like to review the main features of Bill C-27 and
mention the amendments made by the standing committee.
The first point concerns ecological integrity. The panel on the
ecological integrity of Canada's national parks clearly
indicated that “we must firmly and unequivocally establish that
ecological integrity is the core value of Parks Canada's
mandate”.
The chair of the panel and other witnesses, including the
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Canadian Nature
Federation, reaffirmed that position before the standing
committee.
Bill C-27 was strengthened in a number of ways: by including a
definition of ecological integrity based on the panel's report;
by making ecological integrity the top priority, not only as
regards the zoning of parks and their use by visitors, but also
all the aspects of their management; by specifying that
management plans must include a long term ecological vision, a
set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and
provisions for resource protection and restoration, zoning,
visitor use, public awareness and performance evaluation; and,
finally, by requiring that, within one year following the
tabling of a new or amended management plan for a park, a
wilderness area be designated.
[English]
The second point was the establishment of new parks. With this
legislation seven new national parks and one new national park
reserve will be formally established. As well, Middle Island
will be added to the Point Pelee National Park.
The procedure for establishing new parks and park reserves has
been streamlined by providing for an order in council process. It
will take less time to formally establish new parks once park
establishment agreements have been signed.
[Translation]
The examination in parliament of proposals on new protected
spaces will be maintained, and an amendment to the act will
still be needed to withdraw lands from a park.
In view of concerns about the new process for the establishment
of parks, Bill C-27 has been amended as follows:
For every proposal on a new park or park reserve tabled in
Parliament, there will be a report detailing the consultations
held and any agreement on the establishment of the park, so that
Parliament will be able to assess the amount of support the park
or park reserve is getting.
Members of the citizens' committee of Havre-Saint-Pierre and
Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan, and of the hunting and fishing association
have appeared before the standing committee to ask that their
traditional rights be recognized in the Mingan archipelago
national park reserve. The committee has seen fit to add this
reserve to the list of parks where the traditional harvesting of
resources will be allowed.
1330
[English]
The next point is controlling commercial development in park
communities. There are seven communities contained in national
parks, all in western Canada: Banff, Lake Louise, Field, Jasper,
Waterton Lakes, Waskesiu and Wasagaming. I apologize if I am
mispronouncing any of these names and further names that will
come in my text. These communities have been the focus of
extensive commercial, residential and visitor pressures.
The Banff-Bow Valley study of 1996 made many recommendations to
protect the ecological integrity of Banff National Park and to
strengthen controls over commercial development and human use in
parks.
The new act takes steps to control commercial developments in
park communities. Community plans will be tabled in parliament.
The legislation makes provision to set the boundaries of the
communities, the boundaries of commercial zones, and to cap the
maximum square footage of commercial developments. These
elements of the community plans will be placed in the schedule of
the act and can only be changed by an act of parliament.
Concerns were raised by park community representatives during
the hearings on Bill C-27 and the standing committee has
responded. Regarding concerns with respect to termination of
leases, the bill has been amended to state that the Expropriation
Act applies.
Community plan has been defined to mean a land use plan for a
park community. This new definition serves two purposes. First,
it ensures that there will be no confusion between the use of the
term community plan in this legislation and how that term is used
in Alberta legislation. Second, it signals to park community
residents that there is no impediment to their undertaking their
own planning for social, educational, health and related needs of
the community.
The section on public consultation now makes explicit reference
to representatives of park communities and requires that the
minister consult on land use planning and development in such
park communities.
[Translation]
The next point has to do with the protection of wildlife and
other park resources. Bill C-27 contains increased penalties for
poaching. The maximum fine for poaching protected species has
been increased to $50,000. The maximum jail sentence for
poaching has been increased from six months to five years. The
offence of trafficking has been introduced to deal with the
increasing trend towards removing large quantities of animal or
other resources, such as fossils and rare plants.
Amendments to the bill further strengthen wildlife protection by
increasing fines for poaching or trafficking involving protected
species to $250,000, which is consistent with recent legislative
proposals concerning threatened species, and by increasing fines
and penalties for failure to clean up environmental damage from
$2,000 to $50,000, including a clause which doubles the fines in
the case of repeat offences.
[English]
The next point is working with first nations. The Government of
Canada, as we all know, is committed to working with first
nations as set out in the “Gathering Strength” document.
Bill C-27 reflects this commitment in a number of ways. Five
national parks are being established through agreements with
first nations. I repeat my previous apology on mispronunciation.
These are Aulavik, Wapusk, Auyuittuq, Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq.
Second, provision is made for use of parklands and the use or
removal of flora and other objects by aboriginal people for
spiritual and traditional ceremonial purposes. Provisions are
made in the bill to remove lands from Wood Buffalo and Wapusk to
accommodate treaty land entitlement.
The standing committee heard from representatives of the
Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and
the Keeseekoowenin Band. They had two primary concerns that they
wished to see dealt with in the legislation: first, respect for
aboriginal and treaty rights and, second, consultation with
aboriginal peoples.
1335
The standing committee introduced amendments to Bill C-27 in
response to these concerns. These include a non-derogation
clause with regard to aboriginal and treaty rights; strengthening
the commitment to consult with aboriginal organizations and
bodies established under land claim agreements on policy, park
establishment, management planning and regulations; including
aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim
agreements in the minister's agreement making authority; and
provision to remove lands from Riding Mountain National Park for
the purposes of settling the claim of the Keeseekoowenin Band.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the throne speech included a promise from the
government to extend our system of national parks.
In 1997, the government undertook to create a commission of
experts to look into the ecological integrity of Canada's
national parks. This commission has now tabled its report and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced an action plan. A
key feature of this plan is to place ecological integrity at the
heart of legislation and policies.
Bill C-27 respects these undertakings and will become a heritage
for future generations of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-27, an act
respecting the national parks of Canada, at third reading. Let
me begin by saying that Canadians respect and love their national
parks. That is why they return to visit them year in and year
out.
The first parks act of 1930 states that parks are hereby
dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education
and enjoyment. Such parks shall be maintained and made use of as
to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Today's definition of use has not changed as we find it in
subclause 4(1) of Bill C-27.
Canadians agree that the ecological integrity of our national
parks needs to be preserved and protected for future generations.
The Canadian Alliance agrees with the panel on ecological
integrity that ecological integrity is the first priority and
that efforts need to be made to manage, conserve and restore
ecological integrity to our parks.
We do not agree with the notion of promoting restoration as a
single objective. This approach to the concept of restoration is
too open ended. To what time lines will restoration be returned?
This is like the crimes against humanity debate when we are
talking about 20th century crimes against humanity or whether we
take it back to the age of the caveman.
We agree with the panel that people have a place in the parks.
There certainly needs to be a balance. Another important point
highlighted by the panel is that decisions made by the parks must
be based on sound science, not just opinions of special interest
groups or park officials.
Canadian Alliance agrees with the principle of limited growth.
That is not the argument. The argument is about the lack of
transparency, honesty and good will in the consultation process
which has gone on for too long. There is a lack of trust in
Parks Canada officials.
Allow me to make some positive comments about the rank and file
Parks Canada employees. As public servants we need to thank them
for their dedication to their work in our national parks. Parks
Canada has many roles to fulfil beyond national parks. It is
also responsible for historic sites. At this time let me thank
the minister for supporting the designation of William Barker,
VC, as a Canadian war hero.
Other jobs of Parks Canada are the marine conservation areas,
federal historic buildings, historic railway stations, heritage
river systems, federal archaeology and the grave sites of former
prime ministers. I thank both the minister and the parliamentary
secretary for supporting one of the Canadian Alliance's
amendments which would mandate recognition of traditional supply
water from a park when an agreement has been negotiated. I also
thank the Parks Canada Agency and Tom Lee for their help in the
acceptance of our amendment.
I would like to address some of the outstanding park issues that
the bill does not properly address. The most important issue is
about mandating consultation. Mandated consultation would
improve the democratic process and develop a level of trust that
does not currently exist today between the park tenants and the
park administration.
1340
Over the last two years I have done some extensive workshops
with park residents to try to find out for myself what the issues
were throughout the western parks. I have provided members of
the heritage committee and the clerk the results of these
workshops.
Consistently I have found that there tended to be a lack of
trust between park officials and park users. Even when public
consultation occurs public input was ignored. Time and time
again it was pointed out that decisions made by park officials
did not address the local needs.
It was repeatedly stated that Parks Canada should get out of the
business of municipal governance and that it should be looking
after parks, not town sites, where there is no expertise. Even
publicly elected advisory committees are frustrated with Parks
Canada on how it ignores advice.
Even when the consultation process was exercised it was not
transparent, honest or accountable. Many park users found the
consultation process difficult to understand. Another criticism
was the lack of accountability in the way parks spent the money
collected from the tenants through leases.
The issue of leases must be resolved so that it will be
equitable to both parties through negotiation, not top down
without any input. How could Parks Canada justify lease
increases up to 10 times their current value without giving the
property owner due process? It is in essence taxation without
representation. If due process is not respected, what is the
difference between Bill C-70 and Bill C-27?
What is needed is a comprehensive approach inviting both
commercial and recreational tenant representation from all the
parks to sit down at the table with park officials and resolve
this contentious issue.
My findings were echoed by many of the witnesses coming before
the heritage committee. Canadian Alliance made many amendments
to address the issues of access and accountability which were
defeated. Two amendments put forth by the Canadian Alliance were
based on the principles of health and safety.
The first one is to mandate keeping open air strips located in
all national parks for the purpose of public safety. COPA
representing the general aviation sector in Canada has asked for
this change for too many years. I believe that saving one life
is worth putting this into the bill.
The second point is to mandate that all park wardens have all
the resources to do their jobs without jeopardizing their health
and safety. Whose lives will be jeopardized if this change is
not made by Parks Canada? This is also long overdue.
Another direction which Canadian Alliance wanted to take was the
recognition of local government bodies throughout this act. We
believe that this would have been an inclusive approach to begin
the recognition of municipal governments in Canada, a view
supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Let me close by saying that Bill C-27 had the potential to make
the system more accountable. It would not have required a major
overhaul. With a few more amendments the bill would ensure that
the democratic process would be respected by all parties. The
Canadian Alliance will not be supporting the bill as presented at
third reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are at
third reading of Bill C-27, on national parks.
It must be understood that the first objective of the bill is to
ensure maintenance and restoration of the integrity of federal
parks. Of course, everybody understands that these very
important objectives cannot be reached only with one statute.
However, the maintenance and restoration of the ecological
integrity of parks depend much more on the attitude of the Parks
Canada Agency, its management and staff.
However, Bill C-27 is a first element and a legislative framework
that will allow the necessary culture to emerge and to develop
fully within the Parks Canada Agency.
1345
In fact, that was one of the major recommendations of the
commission, which recently reviewed those issues recently and
which emphasized the need to make this change of culture and to
prioritize the maintenance and restoration of the ecological
integrity of parks. This bill could achieve that.
The bill states that, in the performance of his duties, the
minister must consult the people and the authorities in the
areas concerned.
This is an indispensable element that is essential if the agency
is to carry out its mandate. Indeed, in all the parks, there are
aboriginal communities which, in certain cases, cannot be
neglected in the everyday planning of the agency in the exercise
of its mandate.
The bill provides, in my opinion, sufficient and efficient
consultation of the communities and organizations concerned.
Furthermore, if this bill seems entirely acceptable on the
whole, it does contain a clause that does not concern federal
parks, but concerns historic sites. We do not know why this
short clause, on historic sites, is in the bill, which is
otherwise well structured. In fact, when we read this clause, we
realize that it is quite badly written.
I suggested to the House, at report stage, that this clause be
removed from the bill. But the House did not see fit to accept
my suggestion.
This clause presents a serious problem for municipalities and
provinces where there are potential historic sites. Indeed, this
clause provides that the agency may acquire such historic
properties and declare them historic sites without having to
consult in any way the provincial or municipal governments
concerned.
This aspect is out of tune with the rest of the bill, which
clearly affirms that there must be consultations between the
department, agency officials and, finally, the minister and the
people or organizations concerned.
In this clause, there is no mention of any obligation on the
part of the minister to take counsel together or to consult with
the provinces or the local governments.
I find this strange and even frightening. That is why, on the
one hand, I suggest that the provincial legislatures ensure that
any real estate transaction that would result in the transfer of
an historical site to the federal government be submitted, for
approval, to the provincial minister concerned.
On the other hand, I humbly and respectfully suggest that the
government review this clause and that it reword it more
rigorously and, above all, in a manner that would be more
respectful of the provinces and municipalities, regarding the
preservation and the enhancement of the historical sites affected
by this clause of the bill.
1350
In conclusion, let me say that Bill C-27 will really allow us to
focus on the preservation and the restoration of the ecological
integrity of federal parks. In that perspective, the Bloc
Quebecois endorses the goals of this bill and will obviously
support it at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-27.
I have a national park in my riding. It is one of the most
beautiful spots in the world, Waterton Lakes National Park. I
spent some time up there talking to the people in the park. I
have been able to meet with the superintendents, present and
past, to discuss issues. I recently attended a Waterton Lakes
leaseholders meeting to hear what some of their concerns are and
certainly some of the comments made by the member for
Dauphin—Swan River were reflected in the comments I heard.
I would like to compliment the member for Dauphin—Swan River
for sticking with this bill. He has worked hard on it. He
brought forward some very good amendments and actually had one
accepted by the government, which in this day and age is
sometimes a strange happening. I congratulate him. It is an
issue that goes back to before his life as the mayor of Dauphin.
I also want to thank him for his tour of the western national
parks. He went to Waterton and met with people and held a really
good grassroots consultation process to enable him to develop the
position he has taken and the position he has helped our party to
take. That is exactly what needs to be done.
One of the problems we see with the bill is that a mandated
consultation process needs to be in place. People who live in
these parks have a right to consult directly with Parks Canada.
They are a little nervous about the way it is structured right
now, to be quite frank. They feel that the minister and the
governor in council have far too many powers. There is a little
mistrust by the people who live and work in the parks of the
government and Parks Canada. That grassroots consultation
process would be very important for the bill to be received
properly and to work properly.
People have worked with me and kept me informed of what is
happening at Waterton Lakes National Park. In particular, Jason
Bruns was one of the first people who talked to me after I was
elected. He is an outdoorsman, he is a fisherman, he enjoys the
park and any time he sees an issue that he thinks I need to be
aware of he certainly brings it to my attention. I appreciate
that. A few weeks ago, on the long weekend in May, when I was in
Waterton for the leaseholders meeting, I met with him and he
toured me around to show me some of the things that he would like
to see changed, and we talked about some of the issues that he
has. He is an avid lover of the park. He enjoys the outdoors
and he feels that certainly protecting the ecological integrity
of our parks is important. However, the people who are best able
to do that are the people who are close to our parks. It is
important that the government and the minister consult with the
people who use and live in these parks. They have the best idea
of how to preserve them and keep them for future generations.
One of the amendments that was brought forward was to deal with
wardens, how they carry out their jobs and the fact that they
should be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves and to
do their jobs properly. That was defeated. That is unfortunate
because we feel that would give them a certain degree of security
in the process they go through to carry out their duties.
But to get back to the leaseholders, there is a process in place
now whereby the leases in the parks, particularly in Waterton,
which I am most familiar with, are reviewed only once every 10
years.
At the present time the leaseholders are facing a huge increase
in lease amounts.
1355
We feel that the ability to consult with the government on a
more regular basis and with the department would have helped
alleviate some of this. It is important that the process be in
place to give people a chance to bring their ideas forward to be
acted on by the government.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River alluded to some of the unique
situations that exist in the parks. They are not all the same. I
have had letters from people in Jasper asking why they cannot be
treated the same as the people in Waterton and why they cannot be
treated the same as the people in Banff. Each one is different.
Banff has its own town council that runs the affairs there.
It is important that we realize that there is this difference
and that the minister takes the time to consult and not to paint
everybody with the same brush under the same rules, because every
place is unique and different.
The Trans-Canada Highway runs through Banff National Park. That
creates a whole issue of separate concerns to do with wildlife.
The amount of money collected at the Banff gate helps to run the
entire national park system.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the people who use
the parks, the people who live in the parks, the people who have
businesses in the parks and certainly the visitors who come from
all over the world to enjoy our national parks all need a voice
in the implementation of legislation and the laws that govern
them. We hope that the government recognizes that fact, that it
will honour those views and that it will implement them in the
future.
The Speaker: When the hon. member finishes his discourse
is up to him, but he has 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Before we go to that, in order to give him a chance to get his
thoughts together and to give other members a chance to get their
questions together, I will go to Statements by Members and I will
come back to this 10 minute question and comment period after
question period, unless the member wants to go into debate.
However, we will sort that out.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE GILLES LANDRY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was with great sadness that many of us learned of the recent
passing of Mr. Gilles Landry, the Minister of Political and
Public Affairs at our High Commission in London.
Only 48 years of age, Gilles had spent 25 years in the Canadian
diplomatic service. He was an active promoter of both the
Commonwealth and the Francophonie and had previously represented
this country in Abidjan, Ivory Coast and Paris. Gilles was one
of the key people behind the reopening of Canada House.
I had the pleasure of working with Gilles last year and this
year in connection with Sierra Leone. I greatly admired the
intelligence, the hard work and the obvious dedication that he
brought to his work representing this country abroad.
Our foreign service attracts some of the best and the brightest
this country has to offer. Gilles was among the best of the
best.
Our deepest condolences go out to the family, the friends and
the colleagues of Mr. Gilles Landry.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals claim they are the epitome of democracy and
of the consultative process. In reality, autocracy rules
supreme, at least in the heritage department and specifically in
Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act.
No one in Jasper was consulted while drafting Bill C-27, and
this bill will have a serious impact on Jasper and its residents.
Jasper Commerce and Tourism was not consulted, nor was the Jasper
townsite committee.
Roy Everest and Richard Ireland presented briefs to the
committee, but the bill was already in its final form and their
recommendations fell on deaf ears.
The 5,000 residents of Jasper will never be able to make
decisions regarding fire halls, fire trucks or even stop signs.
The minister here in Ottawa will keep a tight-fisted grip on
these and other local issues.
Jasper is the only community in the entire country singled out
in this fashion. Who was consulted? Why, the Sierra Legal
Defence Club. It was not only consulted, but hired by the cops
at heritage. Shame on the dictatorial practices of this Liberal
government.
* * *
CANADA WORLD YOUTH EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to congratulate the town of Durham on its participation in
the Canada World Youth Exchange Program with Thailand.
1400
This is a seven month program in which young people from each
community spend some time learning the culture and the language
before going back to their respective communities.
Durham is a great little town in Ontario that will show great
hospitality to the students from Thailand. I know that the
experiences shared by the families, the people who participate,
and the students will enrich their lives and make our world a
better place.
* * *
SYRIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people of Syria are in mourning following the sudden
death of President Hafez al-Assad. The funeral of the late
president of Syria was held today at his birthplace, the village
of Quardaha in northern Syria. Dignitaries from around the
world, including our Minister of Foreign Affairs, are paying
their respects to the late leader.
As the first Syrian born Canadian member of parliament, I ask my
colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the people of
Syria and the al-Assad family. I hope that a peaceful transition
of power will contribute to the ongoing peace process in the
Middle East.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians treasure their coastline and sea which are rich in
natural beauty and resources. Each year thousands of oil spills
are reported along the 40,000 kilometres of Atlantic coastline
and many more go unreported. In concert with the navy, the
Canadian forces air crews based in Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and
Comox, British Columbia, help to protect these treasures.
On May 30 the men and women at 14 Wing Greenwood received an
Environment Canada award in recognition of the vigilant
surveillance of Canada's Atlantic coastline and sea approaches
and their remarkable success in tracking, identifying and
photographing polluting ships.
I rise today to recognize the valuable contribution of the 14
Wing Greenwood air crew, as well as 19 Wing Comox, because we and
our children can continue to enjoy the benefits of our natural
marine wonders that remain the envy of the world.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that they have
reformed the grain handling and transportation system. They are
oh, so wrong.
Witness after witness at the agriculture committee hearings and
transportation hearings stated that the only way to fix the
broken system was to introduce true commercial accountability.
The Liberals have ignored this advice.
Almost every witness at committee stated that the deal
negotiated in secret between the Canadian Wheat Board and its
minister would not increase commercial accountability and would
increase the control of the Canadian Wheat Board over grain
transportation.
This is exactly opposite to the recommendations made by the
government's own experts. With this so-called reform package,
the Liberals have guaranteed that the grain handling and
transportation system will fail again as it did during the
1993-94 and 1996-97 crop years. Once again farmers will be
forced to pay for Liberal inadequacies.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday we learned some good news relating to Bombardier.
This local company has just landed a $2 billion contract with GE
Capital Aviation Services, or GECAS, for up to 150 regional jets.
The agreement with Bombardier comprises a firm $1.96 billion
order for 50 planes. This is the first significant order from an
aircraft-leasing firm. Included in the contract are 15 50-seater
Regional Jets, 25 70-seaters, and 10 new 90-seaters which are
still being developed.
Deliveries are scheduled to start in the year 2002 and to run
until late 2006. Counting the 100 aircraft on option, the value
of the contract with GECAS will total $5.87 billion.
Our congratulations to the management and workers of this
company, which is a jewel in the economy of Quebec and of Canada,
and our best wishes for the fulfilment of this major contract.
* * *
REGIONAL PRIDE WEEK
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw hon. members' attention to the fact that this is
regional pride week in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is an
opportunity for all residents of the region to show their
attachment to their history and their culture. The regional flag
and anthem will hold pride of place in the celebrations.
This will be the last time Paul Lemieux will chair the event. As
honorary chairman of regional pride week, he has devoted eight
years to its success. I am sure that his departure will leave a
big empty space in the organization of the event.
On behalf of all the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I wish
Mr. Lemieux all the best in his future endeavours. I will take
advantage of this opportunity to also pass my best wishes for an
excellent regional pride week to all the people of
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
1405
JOB CREATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
Statistics Canada announced an unemployment rate of 6.8% for
April, the lowest level since April 1976.
In the past 12 months, the number of full time jobs has
increased significantly—by 3.1%.
These performances are encouraging. They clearly indicate that
the climate remains favourable for investors.
Canada is a country of choice to create jobs and develop
projects for all regions. This picture also means that the
Liberal government's economic and financial policies are
producing solid results. Nearly two million new jobs have been
created under the Liberal government since it took office in
1993.
This is a particularly fine job creation performance.
* * *
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, which enables
judges to impose a life sentence for the serious crime of
impaired driving causing death, completed report stage debate
this morning and will be voted on this evening, clearing the
final hurdle for passage at third reading.
Impaired driving is an issue I have been working on for the last
four and a half years. I thank my colleagues in the Canadian
Alliance for the tremendous support in my efforts. I also thank
all of my colleagues in the House of Commons who helped to bring
this legislation to fruition.
The Canadian Alliance has placed Bill C-18 high on its priority
list for passage before the summer recess. The government leader
has given assurance that the bill will be passed before the
summer recess. The Canadian Alliance, the Canadian public and
government members, I assume, all urge the government to ensure
that this important bill is passed before the House recesses.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-LOUIS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the
honour given one of our members recently for his commitment to
environmental issues.
On May 25, our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and
chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, was
admitted to the Cercle des Phénix de l'environnement et du
développement durable.
This tribute to our colleague, an eminent architect of
sustainable development, by the entire environmental community of
Quebec crowns many years of commitment to the environment.
Everyone in Quebec will remember that our colleague served as
minister of the environment for Quebec from 1985 to 1988 and
everyone knows that he is the author of Quebec's first
environmental policy focused resolutely on conservation.
In closing, I recall that the basic message of our colleague,
the recipient of the Phénix environment award, is as follows:
“Sustainable development must be the cornerstone of Canada's
economic growth”.
Long life to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the verdict is in and Albertans do not trust Liberals to
fight against private for profit hospitals. Yesterday Brian
Mason won an Edmonton byelection with almost 60% of the votes, a
convincing victory for the Alberta NDP and a resounding vote of
confidence for the only party that fights against for profit
health care.
The Liberals barely squeaked ahead of the Klein candidate. If
it was not clear to Liberals before it should be clear now.
Canadians want the spirit of the Canada Health Act protected.
In question period yesterday the health minister said that he
would never allow a private for profit health care system. If he
will never allow it, why is bill 11 law? What has he done to
stop for profit hospitals? He is going down in history as the
minister who allowed them.
Albertans know it. They are tired of the minister's syrupy
statements and empty words. They want a real Ralph Klein fighter
so they voted NDP. Congratulations to Brian Mason and his
winning team.
* * *
JASON ARNOTT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I rise to pay tribute a great Canadian, Jason Arnott. Jason, who
needs no introduction to hockey fans across the country, happens
to be a local boy from Wasaga Beach where he began his hockey
career in the minor hockey system. He then went on to play for
the Stayner Siskins as well as teams from Lindsay and Oshawa
where he was a member of the 1990 Memorial Cup champions.
Following this he played for the Edmonton Oilers until 1997 when
he joined the New Jersey Devils. Then on June 10, Jason scored
the winning goal during the second period of overtime against the
Dallas Stars in the Stanley Cup finals.
Throughout his incredible career Jason has never lost sight of
his roots. He continues to be a huge supporter of local
charities in Wasaga Beach including minor hockey.
I know I speak on behalf of his parents, Bill and Eileen, the
town of Wasaga Beach, the Parliament of Canada and all Canadians
when I extend congratulation and thanks to Jason Arnott. Today
Canada recognizes him as one of its finest hockey sons. By the
way, Lord Stanley's Cup will soon visit Wasaga Beach. I say
congratulations to Jason.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
NOTE FESTIVAL
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a
unique musical event, the Note Festival, will be held in my
riding. Music students aged 2 to 97, from all regions of Quebec,
may take part in this friendly competition.
For the ninth year, on June 17, over 300 participants will
entertain 3,000 spectators who will let themselves be carried by
the sound of music.
The purpose of Note Festival is to discover talents and to
provide an opportunity for artists to meet and, more
importantly, to improve, since each participant is evaluated.
It is a great musical party organized with dedication and
competence by an army of volunteers, with the financial support
of socioeconomic and sociocultural partners from the Granby
region.
This great event is the brainchild of Aline Couture Paré, who
has an unconditional love for music and who has been in charge
of the festival since the beginning. That musical event helps
her transmit this love that is carried by each note during this
wonderful festival.
I wish the best of success to the ninth edition of Note
Festival.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-20 has yet to be adopted, but it continues to draw serious
criticism.
Yesterday, Claude Ryan strongly criticized the bill when he
said:
Because it reduces the National Assembly to the rank of an
inferior parliament, because it reflects a deep distrust of the
Quebec democracy, because it suggests that Quebec sovereignists
are seditious people who must be kept under surveillance, this
bill is humiliating for the parliamentarians who sit in Quebec
City and for the people whom they represent.
Even if Bill C-20 is passed by the current Liberal senators and
those whom the Prime Minister will have to appoint to ensure
that it is indeed passed, that will not give it the legitimacy
it lacked when passed by this House.
This gag law will never deprive Quebecers of their right to
choose their destiny, because Quebec is free, and the Quebec
nation is sovereign.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Nurses Association begins this weekend in
Vancouver its biennial convention with the federal Minister of
Health as keynote speaker. Its theme “Nursing in the 21st
Century: Challenge and Change” is timely not only for the
nursing profession but also for Canada's health care system.
Canadians know that when they come face to face with their
health needs, whether in the ER or ICU, the acute or convalescent
ward, the outpatient clinic, community centre or at home, they
come with the reality of availability of access. Nurses play a
critical role as health care providers. We cannot allow as a
nation that their leading role be compromised. Caring and
competence are non-negotiable attributes. Therefore governments
have a duty to provide the needed resources.
Even as the Government of Canada shares a partnership in
commitment to see our health care system attuned to the realities
of the new century, I am confident that the Canadian Nurses
Association will share with all Canadians the wisdom of its
collective experience. Let us wish our nurses success during
their weekend convention.
* * *
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Executive Service Organization or CESO is a Canadian
volunteer based not for profit organization founded in 1967. Its
mission is to supply Canadian advisers and trainers to emerging
businesses and organizations in Canada and worldwide that cannot
access paid consulting services.
My constituent, Mr. Cornelis Hoogveen, from Rothesay, New
Brunswick, was a CESO volunteer. He went to Slovakia to assist
in the management of a dairy company in need of help. Cornelis
was asked to assess the dairy's operations and marketing and the
co-operation between dairy farmers and processors.
While Cornelis was on site the final stages of privatization
were taking place and his first task involved putting in place a
new company structure. He recommended reducing distribution
costs by streamlining the order department and hiring a
distribution supervisor. A wage increase system was also put in
place and an organizational chart developed.
Cornelis expects that the implementation of his recommendations
and staff training will result in a reduction in duplication and
waste as well as an increase in sales and profits. I thank Mr.
Hoogveen.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today StatsCan confirmed what
Canadians have known for years, that the government is swallowing
up more of their income in taxes than ever before. What does the
government spend it on? Boondoggles, fountains, canoe museums,
hotels, golf courses, and that is just in the Prime Minister's
riding.
What right does the finance minister have to take so much of
what Canadians earn and then squander it away?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason the government's revenues are up is that
things are going very well in Canada. There are more people who
are working. There is more economic activity. People's salaries
are up. I hate to say this to the leader of the Canadian
Alliance, but that is good news for Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is for sure that incomes had to
rise. It is the only way they could afford the taxes really.
The government is spending $15 billion on transfers to health
and $17 billion on grants and contributions. Canadian families
have been forced to finance for example the history of strippers,
a display of French prostitutes, and the porn flick Bubbles
Galore. That is not to everyone's taste.
Why is the finance minister against Canadian families keeping
more of what they earn?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two-thirds of all of our new spending is in health care,
education and basic research. The issue really is, why did the
Canadian Alliance vote against the increases in the national
child benefit? Why did the Canadian Alliance vote against
increases in preschool child nutrition? Why did the Canadian
Alliance vote against every single measure the government has
brought in to help the middle class in the country and to help
Canadian families?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, because we do not believe it for some
funny reason. Maybe it is just a drop in the sea to a shipping
magnate but to the average family, $12,000—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please address each
other by our proper titles.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, his
highness, maybe does not realize that $12,500 is a lot of money
to the average Canadian family.
If the finance minister could convince Canadians that he is
buying better health care or improving the education system,
Canadians might not mind so much, but he has not. He knows that
he has not restored the health funding even to 1993 levels and
the government is running a $5 billion surplus.
Why is the government plundering Canadian families to pay for
bungles, bubbles and boondoggles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Canadian Alliance would have us
believe that her party is interested in health care. Let me say
that we were surfing the web the other day and we found the
Canadian Alliance website. We looked under health and I will
read what it has under health, “There are no current articles
for this category or department”. The page is blank.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind members to please not
use props either in questions or answers.
1420
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister needs to
remember that it is Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian
businesses that fuel the economy. It is the hard work of
individual Canadians that provides not only family income but the
government's income. There is a limit to their generosity.
Government is confiscating more and delivering less. Worse, the
Liberals do not even blink at a billion dollar bungle.
Perhaps the finance minister could tell Canadian families why he
needs so much of their money.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last budget brought in personal income tax
reductions and unemployment insurance reductions of $54 billion
out of a total of $58 billion.
I would be prepared to defend on any podium in the country our
tax proposals against the flat tax of the Reform Party, which is
a tax designed to do only one thing and that is to flatten the
middle class.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is
certainly an equal opportunity tax man. It does not matter
whether people are rich or poor as long as he gets his money.
Robin Hood used to take money from the rich to give to the poor.
The finance minister takes money from the rich and the poor to
give to the human resources minister.
Why should Canadian families give the government so much of
their money so the finance minister can give it to the human
resources minister for boondoggles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on July 1 of this year, within a couple of weeks, the
middle income tax rate will drop from 26% to 24%. The full
benefits of indexation will come into play. Let us look at what
that party would offer. According to Catherine Ford of the
Calgary Herald:
I first encountered the snake oil selling tactics promoting a flat
tax years ago in the U.S. It was flawed, a tired, discredited
and inherently unfair tax scheme that even the powerful right
wing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, about
ten days ago, the Prime Minister jumped up in the House to
reject a parental insurance program proposed by Quebec.
Clearly, he wants all the visibility for this project.
We have now learned of the existence of a legal opinion dated
March 2 advising that he should negotiate with Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether or not he was aware of
the existence of this legal opinion when he rose in the House to
reject negotiations with Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three years ago, we held negotiations on this topic which
produced nothing. The government decided, and it announced very
clearly in the throne speech and in the February budget, that it
would extend benefits from six months to twelve in order to help
people on parental leave.
That was very clearly established. What I wonder today is why
the Government of Quebec is speaking up after the decisions have
been made. If it thinks it can help people who need more than
we are offering, if it has the money to do that, it is welcome
to do so. That will be just fine with us.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
was a legal opinion; that was the question. There are also
other legal opinions.
Will the Prime Minister respect his own legislation, including
section 69? Will he negotiate with Quebec, or is the law no
longer of interest in this place? What the Prime Minister is
telling us is that he is the law.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there were negotiations that produced nothing. They withdrew.
From that point on, the government, which had complied with the
legislation, was forced to assume its responsibilities. In the
interests of good social policy, we decided that it was very
important to extend the period during which parental leave
benefits are paid. Everyone was pleased with this measure at
the time of the throne speech and the budget speech.
Only as the program is about to begin does Quebec suddenly wake
up.
1425
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning
the national assembly unanimously passed a motion supporting the
parental insurance proposal by the Government of Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, if he persists in
remaining as stubborn as he has since the beginning of this
affair, he will once again be acting contrary to the unanimous
will of the Quebec national assembly as well as a broad
consensus of Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
established our position on this matter very clearly, a year ago
already.
If the benefit we are paying is insufficient, as Quebec claims,
if 55% of earnings is not enough, it is fine with us if they
want to bring it up to 75%. We shall praise them for it, if
they have the money to do so.
What we want is to treat everyone equally, and the money we will
be using is already in place for it. If they want to use their
own resources to raise the benefits, that is fine.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Prime Minister again: Is he capable of grasping that the motion
passed unanimously by the national assembly is not in support of
improved employment insurance benefits, but of a parental
insurance program focussing on the future and aimed at all of
the young families of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the provincial government wants to have that program, it is
free to do so.
We have a responsibility under the Employment Insurance Act.
For years now, we have been providing those covered by
employment insurance with maternity benefits. Now, we are
improving those benefits.
If there are other social programs the Government of Quebec
wishes to improve, all the better for them. We have our
responsibility under the Employment Insurance Act and we are
continuing to improve what we have been doing since—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recent
income statistics show a growing gap, a disturbing gap, between
Canadians with high incomes and those with lower and middle
incomes. StatsCan documents that government policies are
aggravating this problem. While European countries are
relatively successful in fighting poverty, the U.S. record is
abysmal. Why? Because economic growth alone will not defeat
poverty. Better income support and child care programs are
needed.
Why does the government insist on mimicking the American
approach?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact we have worked very hard on that. Some of the
statistics do not take into account the fact that we have
instituted in Canada a national child benefit program. We are
developing with the provinces a national children's agenda. We
plan to lengthen employment insurance benefits for parents to 12
months. We have many, many other programs that are in place at
this moment that were in the Speech from the Throne and in the
last budget. We are making a lot of progress.
At the same time Canadians now have more revenue than they had
before. There were a lot of changes in the last budget to help
the lower—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if this
government were serious about defeating poverty, it would be
willing to learn the lessons in the recent income report. If we
adopt U.S. style tax policy, then we are going to get U.S. style
social policy and the growing income gaps that come with it.
Sadly, that is the goal the government is pursuing. As UNICEF
reports, countries that make up their minds to tackle poverty
succeed, but in Canada, the odds are that a child of a lone
parent is poor.
How can the government be so complacent about its record on
poverty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been one of the items that we have devoted a lot
of time to. Statistics Canada yesterday reported that now our
policies are beginning to pay off and said that fewer Canadian
families are living in poverty today than there were some years
ago. We are making progress but the job is not over. We have to
keep working at it.
* * *
1430
BANKS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister proposes in his financial services reform bill
to grant himself unfettered power to say yes or no to bank
mergers. If merger proponents pass all the hurdles of his public
impact review process, will he say yes to the mergers?
The Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I see the
minister is on his feet. If he wishes to respond he may do so.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member misunderstands the nature of
the reforms. The fact is that ultimately the Government of
Canada has the right to make the decision and in fact must make a
decision either yea or nay, and obviously that voice is expressed
through that of the Minister of Finance.
The fact is that in this particular process we have introduced a
number of steps, including the mandatory public hearings by the
House of Commons finance committee and the advice from the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Competition
Bureau.
I can assure the hon. member that any decisions would be very
well taken after a full examination in the public interest.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have waited seven years for this government to
introduce its financial services sector reform package which will
not see royal assent until at least a year and may in fact be
derailed by a general election.
With the changes in the global financial services sector
occurring at web speed, why is this government moving at a
snail's pace?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is certainly not moving at a snail's
pace. We intend to push as aggressively as we possibly can,
obviously subject to the prerogatives of parliament, to make sure
that this legislation is passed as quickly as possible.
However, we do want to have the public debate on the
legislation. That is why fact we commissioned the MacKay report
about 18 months to 2 years ago. We wanted to examine every
possible avenue open to make sure that on the one hand our banks
are able to grow as much as possible and, on the other hand, that
our consumers are protected as much as possible.
* * *
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it looks like the finance
minister has been getting some lessons from the human resources
minister.
It turns out that the human resources minister is not the only
one with a dodgy set of books. An internal finance department
audit wonders whether the finance department's contracting
practices could “be defensible if disclosed in the public eye”.
I would like to ask the finance minister if he can tell the
House why his department's contracting practices are not publicly
defensible?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is of course that the hon. member opposite
perhaps read the newspaper report. What he should have done was
to have read the report of the internal audit.
If I can just quote, it states:
Our review of CI&S; controllable expenses indicated they were
generally processed in compliance with applicable policies and
procedures.
We also observed a desire on the part of CI&S; staff to do things
right.
All professional service contracts adequately demonstrates
CI&S;'s organizational needs.
In other words, there were obviously defects in what the hon.
member was pointing to but overwhelmingly the report was positive
for CI&S.;
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they wonder “if the
contracting practices would be defensible if disclosed in the
public eye”. There is a problem there.
We are perhaps talking about some suspect contracting services
in the Department of Finance. This minister is the keeper of the
cash, the taker of our taxes. If there is suspect in his
department, how can any Canadian trust anything the government
says or does?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question just simply
does not bear any kind of scrutiny.
Let me give one more quote from the report, following up on what
the member said. It states:
In all professional service contracts reviewed, the fact that the
contractors had excellent qualifications for the tasks defined
was adequately demonstrated.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
government, through its Minister of Finance, is demanding
legislative guarantees from the federal government regarding the
conditions that must exist before authorizing a takeover of
Quebec banks by a buyer.
However, in the 871 page document tabled by the federal Minister
of Finance, there is no indication that such guarantees exist.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the only guarantee
that exists in his bill is the discretionary power he is
assuming, and nothing else?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the case of the acquisition of a bank, such as the National
Bank, the criteria will be exactly the same—and this is provided
in the legislation—as those for major bank mergers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no
guarantee in the act to protect Quebecers.
Why should we feel confident? Why should we be reassured about
the possible acquisition of Quebec banks by a potential buyer,
since the only guarantee we have is the decision of the federal
Minister of Finance or of his successors? Mr. Speaker, you will
agree that there is nothing reassuring in this situation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just said that the criteria in the case of an acquisition are
exactly the same as in the case of major bank mergers.
Now, if the hon. member thinks that we should have more
elaborate criteria for major bank mergers, his colleagues are
certainly free to make that suggestion in committee.
But I am telling the House that, in the case of an acquisition
and of the criteria, if not the process, things would be exactly
the same as in the case of a bank merger.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is HRDC's idea of a good
business venture in Strathroy, Ontario: One, buy a motorhome;
two, fill it with computer equipment; three, register the
motorhome in an individual's name; four, pay out $127,000 in
salaries with no job descriptions; and five, park it in a garage
and terminate the project.
How did this boondoggle on wheels benefit taxpayers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular project, I
can say that it is under review.
In the context of the questions and commentary of members of
that party opposite, it is clear that from their point of view
they think it is a boondoggle for Canadians to invest in
improving the literacy levels of Canadians. They think it is a
boondoggle for Canadians to invest in ensuring that Canadians
with disabilities can participate in the economy. They think it
is a boondoggle for us to support aboriginal people in getting
the training they need to participate in the economy.
After five months, that is the result of the discussions here.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we think it
is a boondoggle that taxpayers are buying people motorhomes. That
is what we think.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. chief opposition
whip may begin his question.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers deserve to
know where all their money is being spent. The original proposal
was approved for a $30,000 lease of a motorhome. The used RV was
in fact purchased for $30,000 and subsequently registered in an
individual's name. I do not think this needs to reviewed. I
think it needs to be investigated properly by the RCMP.
Has the HRDC minister decided to make a gift of this RV, or has
it been sold so taxpayers can recover at least part of their
investment?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in this particular case a
forensic audit is under way.
I want to make clear that hon. members opposite focus on
isolated cases and bring to the attention of the Canadian people
individual grants and contributions, while at the same time
making it absolutely clear that from their point of view there is
nothing that the Government of Canada can do to help those in
need. That is the real message here, and I think it has become
very clear to Canadians that this is the approach of that party.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the Minister of Finance tell us where his bill mentions the
conditions governing the ownership of up to 65% of National Bank
shares by a single shareholder, the conditions on the
maintenance of available services, the maintenance of
professional positions or those requiring a particular expertise
in Quebec, the benefits for the economy of Quebec and its
technological development and the benefits for Quebec's
financial sector?
Where in the bill did he provide for these assessment criteria?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the member would care to look at clause 396, he will find there
a list, which, following another determination, will tell him
what is included in the public interest. As I have said to Mr.
Landry, the public interest involves really all the issues he
raised in his letter.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us who will decide whether it is in the public
interest and in the interest of Quebecers? Who will decide
which conditions will be met? What evaluation criteria and what
sort of analysis will be used? Will he not be the one
ultimately deciding? Is he not looking more and more like a
minister in a banana republic?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Jacques Parizeau's puppet has to know that the Canadian
government will decide.
* * *
[English]
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister.
In 1995 the justice minister tabled a document titled
“Financial Framework for Bill C-68” that projected a deficit of
$2 million over five years for implementation of the gun
registration scheme.
It is now five years later and the deficit is $320 million. That
is 150 times larger than the deficit first projected.
What is responsible for this huge waste of money, the previous
minister's ridiculous estimate or the current minister's
mismanagement of the scheme?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should think that most
Canadians are now at a point where they believe it is time for
the Canadian Alliance to realize that this is an issue about
public safety. That is why the vast majority of Canadians
support gun control and that is why we are able to reassure
Canadians that this program is delivering safer communities and
safer streets.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish somebody would take the
batteries out of the Liberal pink bunny that keeps spending,
spending, spending.
One would think that a deficit 150 times larger than expected
would cause the Liberals concern. Now we find out that
everything is a mess at the gun registry headquarters and $129
million for this year is not enough.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We all deserve to be able to
hear the question. I ask members once again to please reserve
their comments.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, we do not even know
what the latest advertizing and outreach blitz will cost, and
only 5% of guns have been registered. If we reached this huge
deficit with only a fraction of the guns being registered, how
many more hundreds of millions will have to be spent, or is the
justice minister trying to divert attention away from the HRDC
minister with her own billion dollar boondoggle?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We have heard the question
and I believe we owe it to ourselves to hear the answer.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we
do not spend a lot of time worrying about conspiracy theories
that may float around in the minds of the Canadian Alliance
members.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the safety of
Canadians. That is why this government is committed to ensuring
that we have a gun control program that works for all Canadians.
Hon. members might be interested to know that, for example, 750
licence applications have been refused and 970 licences have been
revoked from individuals who were deemed not eligible to have
them. That is about public safety.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Port of Montreal's board of directors is meeting this
evening to decide whether or not to sell the Bickerdike pier to
the Technodôme group for a project worth $1.4 billion which has
the support of the City of Montreal, the Government of Quebec and
many leaders of Quebec's business community.
Since the only position not yet known to date is that of the
Prime Minister, will he tell us where his government stands on
this major project for Montreal involving 14,000 jobs? Not 14,
but 14,000.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision on the future of the Port of Montreal is in
the hands of the authorities directing affairs at the Port of
Montreal. There will be a meeting this evening and we await
their decision.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every summer thousands of students find jobs, but others have a
difficult time getting a summer job.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth inform the
House what initiatives she is taking to promote summer employment
for students?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has a number of
measures in place.
Overall this year we will spend $120 million in our attempts to
hire students. Last year we hoped to achieve the hiring of
60,000 students. We exceeded that number by 10,000 last summer.
We are hoping that employers who have not taken advantage of this
program will do so and hire a student.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as of June 4 the Canadian Firearms
Centre had issued only 183,353 personal licences and had a
backlog of about 144,000 applications in process or awaiting
attention.
At that rate, even using the justice department's lowball
estimate of three million gun owners in Canada, it would take
about 25 years to complete the licensing process.
I ask the justice minister, what is going to happen on the
deadline date of December 31 of this year?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response let me simply
suggest to the hon. member and others across the way that perhaps
they should stop being pawns of the gun lobby and get concerned
about the safety of the nation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should some day
answer a question.
On June 4 only 382,498 firearms had been registered under the
new system and about 103,000 were in process. Depending upon how
many firearms are actually in circulation, completion of that
process will take somewhere between 18 and 50 years.
How many thousands of employees does the minister estimate will
be required to supplement the 1,600 who are already employed in
this idiotic fiasco?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would it not be refreshing if
the official opposition actually got behind Canadians and
supported gun control and public safety?
Would it not be useful if this party, as opposed to attempting
to undermine Canadians' confidence in the gun licensing and
registry program, actually worked with Canadians, their families
and their communities to support this program?
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today's financial services bill concentrates more and more power
in the hands of the Minister of Finance: the power to make
regulations, the power to decide on ownership, and the power to
decide about mergers.
All of this comes at the expense of parliamentary democracy,
making this place less and less relevant to the Canadian people.
1450
Can the minister explain why hoarding all that extra power in
his hands, in effect making himself a banking czar in this
country, is in the public interest?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the case.
First of all, the Minister of Finance is accountable to
parliament.
Second, the bulk of the areas in which his discretion lies has
to do with the holding companies that are permitted investments
in that area as opposed to other places.
In terms of parliament, the hon. member will know that under the
previous legislation the Minister of Finance had total
discretion. Under the new legislation parliamentary hearings
will be mandatory.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, under the new legislation the Minister of Finance still
has the final power, as he knows.
I want to ask him about rural communities. Banks are important
to people and small businesses in rural communities. Yet this
legislation only requires six months' notice before they pull
out. In six months they are gone.
Why does the minister not bring in legislation that would make
it a requirement that the banks not be allowed to close a branch
in a rural community and that as long as that branch is making a
profit in a community it should stay in the community?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the one hand we have brought in legislation that will
make it eminently possible for a number of new banks, including
credit unions, to provide smaller communities with a great deal
more access to banking.
We have also brought in guaranteed access to bank accounts. We
have now provided a guaranteed low cost account for Canadians.
In terms of closure, as the hon. member said, we are already
finding that mandatory delays on closure so that the communities
and the banks can come together are bearing great fruit.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, things
must not only be right, they must appear to be right. For
obvious reasons I take any discussion about the frigate program
very seriously, as it is dear to my heart.
When contracts are being bid on for the frigates and DND
officials are leaking sensitive documents to certain companies,
that is not right.
With this unacceptable practice, will the Minister of National
Defence tell the House why he will not have an independent RCMP
investigation into these leaks?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have confidence that the provost
marshal, General Samson, will get to the bottom of this matter.
We will soon see from the results of the investigation what will
be done in this case. We take this matter most seriously.
I do note that most of the contracts were investigated and most
of the work was done during the time that the hon. member's party
was in government.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, all I
can say to the minister on that one is, like his shipbuilding
policy today, that statement simply does not float.
Throughout the situation of leaks the Minister of National
Defence has praised the frigates built in the Saint John shipyard
and the Quebec shipyard, and rightfully so, he should praise
them. However, the Department of National Defence and the
companies involved in the frigate program have seen their
reputations tarnished as a result of charges not being laid.
Why will the minister not do an independent RCMP investigation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter is fully under investigation.
As I indicated a few moments ago, we want to get to the bottom of
the matter.
Regarding the allegation about the two companies getting
information, neither one of them got any contracts whatsoever.
This matter is still being fully examined and will be reported
on fully. Meanwhile, the investigation is still very much
afloat, even though the Tories certainly sunk in their time in
dealing with it.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Woman.
We have heard reports that at the recent Beijing +5 United
Nations conference on gender equality, Canada's agenda was narrow
in scope and addressed only the needs of women in our country.
1455
What did we accomplish not only for women in Canada, but for
women around the world, specifically those in developing
countries, the women and girls in those countries who are in
extreme need in many cases?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada took to the Beijing +5
United Nations conference an extensive list of issues that we
felt would not only benefit Canada, but specifically women of the
developing world; issues like how the diversity of ethnicity and
race and poverty cause trafficking in women and children, cause
forced marriages for girls of eight years old and cause the
buying and selling of women and children in the world. We
brought issues to the table like armed conflict and land mines,
concerns about the fact that HIV and AIDS are decimating women
and villages around the world. Those are the issues Canada
brought to the conference.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
we seem to have a contradiction. The Minister of Health says he
will spend more money on health care. The Prime Minister says
that enough money has been spent on health care. Canadians on
waiting lists deserve to know. Who should they believe, the
Minister of Health who wants to spend more money, or the Prime
Minister who says they have spent enough?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know better than to listen to the Canadian Alliance
when it comes to health care, the party that would walk away from
the Canada Health Act and give us American style, two tier
medicine.
The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that we want to reach
common ground with the provinces and have a common vision for the
future of health care. We will be there with more money in
transfers for health care. In addition to the 25% increase in
cash transfers over the last two years, we are prepared to invest
more to improve the Canadian health care system to provide
quality services to all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1997, a crown prosecutor called on the sister-in-law of a
vice-president of CINAR to validate the evidence gathered against
this firm by the RCMP.
Will the Minister of Justice stop hiding behind the RCMP
investigation, admit that this situation is ridiculous, and
order a new internal investigation into this matter so that we
may learn who took such an incredible decision and, more to the
point, why?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before,
information came to the attention of the crown prosecutor on June
6, 2000. That information was turned over to the RCMP
immediately.
Let me reassure the hon. member that in fact I am in the process
of investigating when the crown prosecutor came into possession
of this information and other facts surrounding this event. Let
me reassure the hon. member that anything, any information that
came into the crown prosecutor's possession, was turned over to
the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's declining support for post-secondary education is
creating havoc for students and institutions alike. Not only are
students hurting from unprecedented high debt loads, but the
government's new research chairs will actually widen the gap
between have and have not universities, with three universities
taking up close to one-third of the program.
Will the minister acknowledge that accessibility is being
seriously undermined? Will he explain why the research chairs
favour a few and neglect the majority?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the research chairs represent the biggest
single investment in excellence in Canadian universities in
generations. There are 2,000 chairs across Canada. There is not
a university in this country that is not astonished at the number
of chairs they have compared to what they had two years ago.
Secondly, the member mentioned declining support for
post-secondary education. What does she think about? We have
the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We are making the Networks
of Centres of Excellence a permanent program. There are the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian research
chairs program. This government and this Prime Minister have
been the best at—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, according to
the UNICEF report that came out today, 47 million children in
developed countries are living in poverty. Canada occupies the
No. 17 position in a list of 23 industrialized nations.
The reason for Canada's low standing is that one child in five
lives in poverty. Even though this government has passed
various budget measures, the problem of poverty still persists.
Will the Prime Minister make up his mind to take real measures
to eliminate our children's poverty now?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the UNICEF report. Very
clearly it suggests to all governments in Canada that we have to
do better by our youngest citizens.
I hope the House will recognize that the report was based on
1994 data. We hope that the work we have undertaken with the
provinces, particularly in the area of the national child
benefit, will provide better results in subsequent reports.
Clearly we want to continue to work with other jurisdictions in
support of Canadian children. That is why last week I spent time
with my counterpart focusing specifically on the issue of
Canada's children and early childhood development.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: A number of visitors are with us today.
Members may receive them after I introduce each person or each
group of persons. First I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Borys Tarasiuk,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of two of our commissioners from the
Territories: Glenna Hansen, Commissioner of the Northwest
Territories, and Peter Irniq, Commissioner of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of two members of the New Brunswick
Legislature: my brother Speaker, the Hon. Bev Harrison, Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and his colleague,
the Hon. Kim Jardine, Minister of the Environment and Local
Government of New Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an
act respecting the national parks of Canada, be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate ended
the member for Lethbridge had some time left but he has indicated
he will not use the rest of his time.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
a pleasure for me to rise before the House to participate in
third and final reading of Bill C-27, an act respecting the
national parks of Canada. We are talking about the national
parks of Canada, which means that they belong to all Canadians
and are for the benefit of all Canadians.
One of the real concerns I had with this government bill was
that I believed the rights of some Canadians were being
overlooked while the interests of others were being put forward
in a very positive manner. I was concerned that the commercial
interests within our parks communities were being ignored as the
government focused greater attention on preserving the ecological
integrity of our existing national parks. This increased focus
on environmental issues relegated the concerns of our local
entrepreneurs to the back burner.
I believe we could protect ecological integrity without having
to sacrifice existing commercial interests. I believe the
interests of both can coexist given the willingness of each side
to work together for the benefit of our national parks and those
who depend upon them for enjoyment.
It was for this reason I introduced an amendment to subclause
10(1) that specifically called for the inclusion of commercial
interest among the groups that the minister should enter into
agreements with for the purpose of carrying out the act. Although
the government did not specifically adhere to the wording of my
amendment it nevertheless amended the section to make it all
inclusive, and it now includes commercial interests.
Another major concern brought forward by a number of witnesses
who appeared before the committee was that the federal government
could have terminated leases or failed to renew leases without
having to justify its reasoning to the affected individuals. In
effect, there was no recourse, no mechanism available for appeal
by these individuals whose properties were effectively being
confiscated by the federal government.
Our party insisted that the bill include a clause which would
demand that any property to be reclaimed by the government be
done only if there were just cause. These individuals are
entitled to some kind of compensation in the event their leases
are not renewed. Therefore I am pleased that the government
recognized the seriousness of this issue by reinstating the
provisions contained within the Expropriation Act.
1510
[Translation]
I want to congratulate my colleagues who sit with me on the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I especially want to
acknowledge the efforts of my colleague, the member for
Portneuf, whose amendments will give the committee more time to
study the extension or the creation of future parks. I also
want to mention the efforts of his colleague from Manicouagan
who made sure the opinions of the Mingan Archipelago residents
would be taken into account.
[English]
I congratulate the member for Churchill River for introducing
his amendment to delete subclause 7.3 which would have limited
debate on a motion to concur in amendments to our national parks
system to only three hours. That would have been a bad precedent
to be set, the ability to legislate closure or the time allocated
to debate a piece of legislation. I am very happy that change
took place.
Throughout our deliberations one of the concerns I had was
trying to ensure that residents living within our national parks
were provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns about
the future direction of their local communities. This concern
was shared by all opposition members who through a number of
proposed amendments tried to draw the government's attention to
their need to have a voice in any future decision making.
For example, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River introduced
amendments at report stage that would have called for the
inclusion of a “local government body” during any negotiations
on the future of our parks communities. Similar amendments were
also introduced at committee by me and the member from Churchill.
Unfortunately the federal government refused the inclusion of any
wording that referred to a local government body for fear, I
would think, of creating another Banff.
As I mentioned during report stage, and I will repeat it again
at third reading, I regret that the member for Dauphin—Swan
River opted not to actively participate in the debate of these
amendments during clause by clause deliberations at committee.
Instead he opted to introduce his own amendments during report
stage. His knowledge of parks communities, particularly having
lived and operated near a national park for many years, would
have provided all of us at committee very helpful insights into
the unique problems facing individuals who reside within or just
adjacent to our national parks.
I commend the member for Dauphin—Swan River for introducing an
amendment accepted by the government that secures access to a
traditional source of fresh water emanating from our national
parks which flows into adjacent communities. This amendment was
particularly important to the residents of Dauphin who have
depended upon water from the Riding Mountain National Park since
the early 1900s.
[Translation]
The priority of this government is undoubtedly to protect our
national parks. We are all aware of the problems existing in
our national parks. Many studies have been commissioned by the
federal government and, each time, the consensus was that our
parks are in jeopardy.
The federal government could no longer ignore the results of
these studies. Something had to be done before the integrity of
our national parks was imperilled for ever.
Just like most Canadians, I want to protect our national parks
for future generations. As parliamentarians, we must take the
appropriate measures to protect our parks, for our children and
for our children's children.
[English]
The Progressive Conservative Party has a long history of wanting
to protect and preserve representative areas of our unique and
wonderful ecosystem. As I have mentioned before, Canada's first
Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, created our first national
park when in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26
square kilometres around the hot mineral springs near what is now
the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.
Sir John A. Macdonald began a legacy that successive governments
have continued to build upon. He recognized the intrinsic beauty
of Canada's natural environment. It is this beauty that we are
trying to protect in Bill C-27. Is it perfect? Far from it.
1515
Will this piece of legislation respond to the need to protect
the ecological integrity of our national parks? I personally
believe it will go a long way to help preserve for generations to
come the natural beauty we are so fortunate to have here in
Canada.
The bill does not address all the concerns that were expressed
before the committee. Residents in our national park
communities, particularly in Jasper, are still concerned that
their voices are not being heard by the Liberal government. The
success of Bill C-27 will depend largely upon the goodwill of the
federal government and particularly the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Having said that, I can understand why the residents of Jasper
are concerned. The government has failed to demonstrate any
goodwill in its past dealings with the residents of Jasper. It is
imperative that the government approach future negotiations with
our park communities in a co-operative manner and not with the
confrontational approach that has poisoned relations between
Parks Canada officials and the local residents for years.
As I have said, the bill is not perfect. However I believe it
goes a long way in helping the government maintain existing parks
while also speeding up the process of creating new national
parks. I suggest that we support Bill C-27.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-27, the Canada national
parks act.
This is the final stage in the House of Commons legislative
process where members of parliament can speak on the bill before
it leaves this House to go to the other place. This may be the
last time that the House of Commons reviews the national parks
act for many years. I believe that for parliamentarians our
national parks should be above politics. They are a trust for
this and future generations of Canadians.
As stated by the parliamentary secretary, a high degree of
co-operation existed during the legislative review by the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to state
our appreciation for the outstanding levels of co-operation
during the committee hearings and the support of Parks Canada
personnel throughout the legislative process. I also wish to
acknowledge the chair of the standing committee.
It was very important to overcome several shortcomings in the
legislation. A good example of where Bill C-27 was strengthened
by the committee working together right from the very start was
on the definition of ecological integrity. Many members were
surprised to find that there was no definition for the mandate of
Parks Canada on ecological integrity.
Most opposition parties put forward a definition found in the
ecological integrity panel report and the government put forward
its own definition of ecological integrity. It was a definition
that could have been construed or interpreted as simplified or
weak. The committee members from both sides of the House, with
the assistance of Parks Canada and experts, were able to hammer
out a suitable compromise on a proper and adequate definition.
The final agreed upon definition reads as follows:
“Ecological integrity” means, with respect to a park, a
condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural
region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and
the composition and abundance of native species and biological
communities, rates of change and supporting processes.
This is quite a definition. There is a reason why I raised the
example of co-operation that transcends political boundaries. The
respect for Canada's wilderness treasures has led to a stronger
bill than the version that was first tabled in the House. The
ecological panel spent several years identifying and describing
the risks that parks face. “Parks are not islands” was the
panel's rallying cry.
There were other areas in the bill where improvements were made
and others where improvements were not made at all. My
colleagues have raised the necessity for improving community
consultations, which I will address in a moment.
For now I will speak on proposed clause 8(3) which was defeated
and which I hope the other place will discuss.
The report stage Motion No. 3 proposed by the NDP would have
addressed the concerns put forward by the Canadian Nature
Federation and some committee members. Those concerns were that
many of the threats to Canada's national parks are from
developments and land use decisions external to the national park
boundaries.
1520
Indeed as the ecological panel stated, parks are not islands.
There is a growing appreciation and need for Parks Canada to
work with adjacent landowners and decision makers to try and
ensure the complementary management of national parks and
adjacent lands.
Parks Canada must be able to provide its information and
knowledge of greater park ecosystems to any authority or body,
environmental assessment panels, et cetera, to ensure that the
decisions account for their possible impact on these nationally
significant landscapes.
Parliament is ultimately responsible for the national parks act,
for ensuring that the national parks are passed on unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations. It is our duty as
parliamentarians to do our best to protect this country and our
citizens.
Twice now, in 1988 and today, parliament has directed the
minister and Parks Canada to make the restoration and maintenance
of ecological integrity of Canada's national parks the first
priority in all management decisions. If these goals that
parliament has set out are to be met, then the men and women who
manage our national parks must be confident in the fact that
parliament fully expects them to participate in the decision
making processes that are reasonably expected to affect the
ecological integrity of national parks.
The NDP motion would have assisted in this noble effort which is
of great importance to all Canadians. The amendment sought to
provide park managers with the assurance that while they may have
no jurisdiction over land use decisions outside the parks, we do
expect them to provide the best information and advice to those
land use processes reviewing developments outside those parks.
Only by participating in such forums can we expect Parks Canada
and other landowners to work co-operatively to achieve the
conservation of the parks landscape both inside and outside the
boundaries in such a way that native species survive and human
aspirations and benefits from the natural places are realized.
The improvements to the bill are substantial and no bill is
perfect. However, we are disappointed that the government voted
against the amendment.
Another amendment we would like to see in the future is the Bill
C-27 definition of ecological integrity included in the Parks
Canada Agency Act. This would provide absolute clarity in the
agency's mandate. When parliament debated the agency act in the
first session of the 36th Parliament, there was no definition of
ecological integrity, although the term can be found in this bill
now. Let us clarify it in both acts.
Of particular note for future discussion was a proposed
amendment for clarifying “no net negative environmental impact”
as part of the governor in council regulations and powers in
relation to development. This was a written witness submission
that followed the somewhat hurried committee hearings, a point to
provide assurance to developers and communities that this
expression would apply evenly and fairly, to ensure the heritage
minister's commitment to no net negative environmental impact was
not misunderstood by any cabinet minister in the future,
especially if it is related to a new park for example in Atlantic
Canada or in the northern regions.
I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary and Parks
Canada staff for a particular improvement made to Bill C-27
during the committee stage. Witnesses and my colleague the
member for Yukon raised specific concerns on the traditional and
sacred gathering of objects and materials in national parks. The
committee made a specific change for clarification in clause 25
to avoid a misunderstanding of the definition of trafficking in
the bill, for example, to avoid traditional bartering of
medicinal herbs as being defined as a crime.
The committee also struck down an attempt to limit the debate on
the parks amendments to three hours. The NDP and most members of
parliament are against time allocation and limitations on free
speech and debate. Committee members agreed and the limitation
on debate, a dangerous precedent for other legislation in this
House, was defeated in committee.
My colleagues, this point brings me to a constant concern for
this bill. As elected officials it is our duty to represent our
constituents, our ridings and the majority views that these
special places in Canada hold.
1525
As stated by my colleagues, the recognition of parks communities
was an important issue throughout the debate and hearings for the
national parks act which led to this bill.
Prince Albert National Park is located in the Churchill River
constituency. The community of Waskesiu in turn is located in
the park, one of seven identified parks communities in Canada.
Representatives are elected by the communities to participate in
the Parks Canada process.
We acknowledge that the government in clause 12 of the bill
drew attention to and recognizes the representatives of parks
communities. This is an important step forward but the efforts
should not have been limited there. At no time in the future
should the important contributions that the residents, Canadian
citizens, play in Canada parks development, maintenance and
future direction be ignored.
In Waskesiu an elected community representative committee
consists of people like Shelley Funk, Peter Strassen and Hervé
Langlois working with Parks Canada constantly. There is a great
working relationship with Parks Canada, especially with
Superintendent Bill Fisher. Our office appreciates his hands-on
and progressive approach, and his honesty and sincerity which are
a reflection on Parks Canada's history and professional standards
that Canadians have grown to expect and treasure.
The degree of respect held by committee members, Shelley, Peter
and Hervé in Waskesiu, should be considered no differently.
Tom Lee, the CEO of Parks Canada, stated on May 30:
First of all I would like to state before the committee because
Waskesiu does have concerns and they have written me that this is
a terrific organization to work with, they're supportive of the
park, they're valued. We want to see that relationship
maintained and we think they're important, we know they're
important.
The NDP acknowledges that an effort was made by the reference in
clause 12 but still maintains that the government could have gone
further in recognizing parks communities. We do not state that
more municipal power authorities were necessary, but more fair
and just acknowledgement was required. Removing Jasper and
leaving Banff in the bill was a political issue at best.
Community buy-in and participation in the new direction of
saving our parks and not just limiting operations to a
cost recovery Disneyland theme park approach is an absolute
necessity. Parks communities such as Waskesiu have come a long
way in recent years, overcoming distrust and shock at the degree
of cutbacks inflicted during the government's slash and dash
deficit years in the mid-1990s.
We have come a long way since my friend Cec Allen played on the
shores of Kingsmere as a child, and watched as a decision from
Ottawa removed the summer shacks that local residents enjoyed
just because Ottawa's perception was that they were not pretty or
aesthetic.
Jasper representatives described an emergency response vehicle
ordered via the cookie-cutter approach in Ottawa that did not
fit into the fire hall. That put people's lives at risk and Parks
Canada and the community to shame. Communities are there daily
and should be respected and heard. Then these blunders would not
appear. There would be a smooth transition of community decisions
and recommendations and parks delivery of the recommendations
if they meet the appropriate standards.
Community participation could have been better defined. This
was the government's political decision, and we were disappointed
that it did not materialize.
Perhaps the most important point about the bill that Canadians
would like to know is, where do we fit in now? Will access be
closed to humans? Will recreation be stopped? I would like to
state for the record, no. All this is about accessibility. Our
population and international visitors will continue to enjoy our
parks, perhaps in different ways, at different times and in
different locations as parks grow in the country to offset
seasonal peaks and breeding times.
Mr. Gérin, the panel chairperson, said that stopping visitor
use was not the point at all. Better visitor use is needed. More
education and interpretation is needed. A better respect for our
natural treasures and the fragile nature of our parks must be taught
and distributed.
The increase in aboriginal participation is welcome across the
country and throughout the parks system. It is a welcome
initiative for aboriginal communities to see parks take an open
stance in delivering and preserving the natural heritage.
Although the government defeated our reference to traditional
aboriginal ecological knowledge, the reference is found in other
pieces of legislation in Canada. It could be brought in later.
This is an important contribution that the original peoples and
elders make to understanding our nature and national parks and is
a key component for the future of our national parks.
1530
I thank the heritage minister for the foresight and vision
demonstrated by her support for the aboriginal secretariat for
Parks Canada. Speaking of vision, I recognize that one reason
for the new and improved parks act was to expedite the completion
of Canada's national park system based on an eco-region approach.
Of 39 eco-regions 14 remain unprotected. This is a repeated red
book promise. The improved legislative capacity of Bill C-27
will help this process.
I thank the governor general for her specific mention of
completing Canada's parks system in the throne speech. I know
she shares the concern of the heritage minister and the Prime
Minister that this legacy for our children and future generations
be completed as soon as possible in this new century.
The NDP shared its surprise when the finance minister neglected
to provide any money to fulfil this promise. It was an awakening
when in the budget speech Parks Canada was totally missed. With
the passing of this act perhaps the finance minister can provide
a Christmas present for all Canadians this year by putting the
100 million dollars plus identified as necessary for this noble
goal that the NGOs, parks communities and Canadians have called
on, especially Parks Canada personnel who need these resources.
At the same time as there is sufficient funding to maintain let
alone restore our national parks, our national wilderness
treasures deserve respect, not neglect. That is another debate
for another day, a day when there are the values Canadians can
hold true.
We value our national parks. The national parks are hereby
dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education
and enjoyment, subject to the act and regulations. The parks
shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them
unimpaired for the future enjoyment of generations to come.
With those noble words that are a part of Bill C-27, we lend our
support to the bill. We hope that Canadians will enjoy the
national parks this summer and for future generations.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1996, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did me the honour of
asking me to act as liaison with the working group that was
appointed to study ecological issues relating to Bow Valley,
mainly around Banff National Park.
The working group, on completing its work, stated for the first
time that the principle of ecological integrity needed to be
applied in our national parks, especially those located in the
Rockies, which were its main concern. Based on this principle,
the working group called upon the minister to stop all
commercial development, particularly in the city of Banff, which
was continuing to expand commercially.
I must congratulate the minister for the courage it took and for
the integrity she showed. All her actions since then, first of
all in implementing the recommendations of the working group,
have required a lot of abnegation and courage. It was a
controversial decision to implement the recommendations of the
Bow Valley working group, but it was an even more controversial
decision to establish, two years later, in 1998, a national
panel to look into the future of our parks, namely the panel on
the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks.
That panel, which sat all through last year, was made up of 11
distinguished Canadians. I want to say a special thanks to the
chairman, Jacques Gérin, and to other distinguished Canadians
such as Stephanie Cairns, Louis Bélanger and Henry Lickers, who
represented various segments of society, particularly in
relation to their convictions with regard to the future of our
parks.
They came to some really striking conclusions. I want to quote
here what their report said on the loss of habitats inside our
parks.
1535
[English]
In Canada over 90% of Carolinian forests have been converted to
farmland or towns. On the prairies 99% of the native tall grass
communities and 75% of mixed grass communities have disappeared.
In Atlantic Canada 65% of the coastal marshes have been drained
or filled. Across northern Canada only 35% of the boreal forest
remains undisturbed. Largely as a result of this habitat loss
many Canadian species are currently threatened.
[Translation]
As we know, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada detected 339 endangered species.
[English]
The amazing part of this report was that it developed a huge
consensus in Canada. After broad consultations involving all
sectors the report received great support from Canadians who
value our parks beyond every other value in Canada, except
perhaps certain things like the flag, the CBC and national
identity. The parks represent all that is valuable to us in the
sense of our well-being and our sense of values in Canada.
It included a panel on ecological integrity supported by
industry, which again is a breakthrough. I will quote from an
industry association submission to the panel which indicates that
parks must become centres of learning and study of ecological
processes to provide answers for those who wish to manage in the
best ecological way possible. Parks must create research groups
in partnership with universities and industry to build the body
of knowledge necessary.
In 1997 the state of parks report of Canada indicated that out
of 38 national parks then in existence only one showed no
ecological impact or stress. Therefore 37 of the 38 parks showed
some degree, mild to serious, of ecological impact or stress.
[Translation]
The ultimate recommendation of the panel on the ecological
integrity of Canada's national parks to the Canadian government
was that ecological integrity should become the management
priority of our national parks. This led to Bill C-27, which we
are debating today at third reading.
The legislation integrated the very principle of the ecological
integrity for all aspects of the management of our national
parks.
As my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the
New Democratic Party said earlier, the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage came to a true consensus on Bill C-27.
I take this opportunity to particularly thank the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the member for
Ottawa—Vanier, who does a beautiful job listening to people and
who has made himself available to all committee members in order
to improve the act.
I would also like to particularly thank my colleagues in the
opposition, the member for Dauphin—Swan River, as well as those
for Portneuf, West Nova and Churchill River. All have shown a
positive, constructive attitude. All the members of the committee
have worked together, in a non partisan spirit, to improve this
act.
As my colleague for Churchill River said so eloquently, we
believe that parks are above petty politics or partisan politics.
1540
I think that we have demonstrated, in Committee as in the course
of this debate, that this intrinsic value, for us Canadians, goes
well beyond mere political boundaries.
Bill C-27 has established some marker points. From now on, it
will be much easier to create new parks. Seven new parks will be
created and the process will be much more open. There will be a
much closer interaction with aboriginal peoples, with the first
nations. There will also be—and this is very necessary—more
fines for poaching and the trafficking of animals and wildlife
species.
I would be remiss if I did not end by quoting the conclusion of
the panel.
[English]
The commission used words of thanksgiving from the Haudenosaunee
Nation which say so much that I would like to leave them with the
House:
Today we have gathered and we see that the cycles of life
continue. We have been given the duty to live in balance and
harmony with each other and all living things. So now, we bring
our minds together as one as we give greetings and thanks to each
other as People.
We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us
all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk upon
her. It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she
has from the beginnings of time. To our Mother, we send
greetings and thanks.
[Translation]
I think that this is the spirit of the act.
[English]
We thank our mother, the earth, for all that is good,
represented so beautifully by our national parks. I forgot to
mention that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Oak Ridges.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-27 proposes a number of important measures related to seven
communities located within national parks. In order to
understand these provisions we should examine the history of the
communities and the prospects for their future.
All seven communities have their origins in the last part of the
19th century and the early part of the 20th century. In the
Rocky Mountain parks of Banff, Jasper and Yoho, the development
of communities is tightly linked to the development of our
national railway and road transportation corridors. The town of
Banff was a railway construction and service centre some years
before the national park was established.
Both the towns of Banff and Jasper even today continue to serve
railway needs along with the national park needs. A small
community which is an operational centre for the Canadian Pacific
Railway as well as the administrative centre for the park, Field
is essentially a residential community for railway and park
employees. Lake Louise and Banff National Park were developed as
a tourist centre by the CPR prior to being incorporated into the
park.
Further south, the community of Waterton Park in Waterton Lakes
National Park was developed with the primary purpose of serving
park visitors. It operates seasonally and has a year round
population of fewer than 100 residents. The same is true of
Waskesiu in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, and
Wasagaming in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba.
I note these facts to underscore the context within which the
communities were established. It was at a time in Canada's
history when we looked upon our nation as having unlimited
wilderness. Extraction of natural resources was not perceived as
being in conflict with that belief. Consequently forestry and
mining were allowed within some national parks and communities
which were established to serve those interests.
For example, Anthracite and Bankhead were coal mining towns
established in Banff National Park. Oil City, in Waterton Lakes
National Park, served the first of our oil drilling operations.
Although these extracting activities in the communities of
Anthracite, Bankhead and Oil City have long vanished, they remind
us of an era when such activities were deemed appropriate within
national parks.
1545
Today, however, we know that our wilderness is limited and we
understand the need to preserve representative areas within our
national park system. We no longer allow the commercial
exploitation of natural resources within national parks.
Moreover, we understand that any development within a national
park should be carefully limited so as to avoid impairment to its
ecological integrity. We understand, too, that high quality
environmental conditions are the foundations for the tourist
industry and the very reason millions of people visit our parks
annually. Therefore, no new communities will be located within
national park boundaries. The existing communities will be
managed in ways that support park values.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has put great effort and
thought into the drafting the community provisions in the bill
before. She has been diligent in analyzing the key studies which
identified problems and solutions within the national park
system, which we discussed at committee.
The Banff-Bow Valley study of 1996, and the work of the ecological
integrity panel, which reported to her this March, contained wide
ranging recommendations which served as the basis for her
ecological integrity action plan.
The previous version of this bill, Bill C-70, died on the order
paper last year. One of its provisions related to the
introduction of municipal taxation within park communities. These
provisions would not have applied to Banff since it already has a
municipal taxation regime as a municipality incorporated under
Alberta legislation.
The proposal to introduce municipal taxation in the other
communities led to concerns which could best be summarized in the
phrase “taxation without representation”. The taxation
provisions have been removed and Parks Canada will continue to
subsidize the administration of these communities.
At the same time, I want to reassure members of the House that
the park community residents will be actively involved in the
management of their communities. Each community is unique and
the management model that evolves in a particular community will
be tailored to that community.
Given that the communities are special, federal responsibilities
situated on federal crown lands within a national park, it is
important that parliament retain an overview of their role and
development. To that effect, Bill C-27 proposes that community
plans be tabled in each House as soon as possible after
proclamation of the new Canada National Parks Act. The plans
with respect to the provisions in this act will be consistent
with the park management plan; an accord with guidelines for
appropriate activities; and, provide a strategy for growth
management.
Growth management will be achieved by describing the boundaries
of the community and its commercial zones, along with a measure
of maximum floor area permitted within the zones. The shaping of
these plans will also be guided by principles stated in the bill,
namely, no net environmental impact, responsible environmental
stewardship and heritage conservation.
Concerns were raised by the park community representatives
during the hearings on Bill C-27 and the standing committee
responded. Regarding concerns with respect to the termination of
the leases, the bill has been amended to state that the
Expropriation Act applies. Community plan has been identified to
mean a land use plan for the park community. This new definition
serves two purposes. First, it ensures that there will be no
confusion between the use of the term “community plan” and this
legislation and how the term is used in the Alberta legislation.
Second, it signals to park community residents that there is no
impediment to them undertaking their own planning for social,
educational, health and related needs of their community.
1550
The section on public consultation now makes explicit reference
to the representatives of park communities and requires that the
minister consult with them on land use planning and development
in park communities.
Implementing the provisions of Bill C-27 will ensure a proper
evolution of the communities from the past century into the new
millennium. They have gone from logging and mining to the prime
purpose of maintaining the ecological integrity of national parks
for the benefit, education and enjoyment of present and future
generations.
The communities have an important role in this and in serving
visitors. They will remain. They will be supported. We look
forward to them becoming models for environmental stewardship.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have a short opportunity to
speak to this bill, particularly with Banff National Park being
in my riding, an area which I have enjoyed for many years because
of its beauty, expanse, the people who reside there and who have
pioneered that whole area and the number of individuals with whom
I have met and talked with regard to what takes place there.
I have had the pleasure of living in that mountain range for
over 60 years. I know quite a bit about mountains and wildlife.
I certainly can appreciate any effort to try to maintain the
natural beauty and the natural state of any area that is so
appealing to the people of this great land. We must really
continue to stress the fact that this land does belong to the
people of Canada.
When I looked at the original bill, and then found out about
Bill C-27, I have to admit that I was in total shock. I never
believed for a moment that the Liberal Party would back down from
a tax grab, but it did. That shock was a little too stressful.
However, I certainly am glad to see that someone rattled the
party's chain and brought it to its senses at least once in the
time I have been here. It will no longer be required to take
extra money from residents when it has no business doing that,
because it is taxation without representation. I applaud them
for that.
The thing that always bothers me about decision making in a park
is the consultation factor. Consultation, to the Liberal
government, has bothered me for a number of years. I have seen
consultation on agriculture in my riding. The Liberals come in
droves to get consultation but they do not seem to understand
what the people are saying in my riding when it comes to
agricultural issues, for example, their beliefs on how marketing
of their product should take place. So much for consultation.
They hear it but they do not do anything.
I sat in on the consultations that were supposed to take place
throughout Banff National Park regarding a number of issues. The
strange thing about it was that some people did not even know
about the consultations. They did not even know they were going
to have an opportunity to speak, because in a lot of instances it
is only a select few who get invited to the table when we have a
consultation period.
If I am fortunate enough to get wind of it, I like to crash in
on these consultation parties and listen to what is being said.
It is not an open consultation process and it never has been. I
do not know why they continue to say things like “What a broad
consultation we have had. What a wonderful thing we are doing”.
I can name dozens and dozens of people who have lived in Banff
National Park all their lives and who may have worked for the
railroads or in the original mines. Believe me, these people
have some knowledge about what should happen and what should not
happen. Their consultation process just does not seem to occur.
1555
I have good one-on-one visits. I try to hold meetings and get
input. I had our critic out in Banff one night and we had a fair
turnout. We wanted some input from people so we could bring
their message to this Liberal government and to the heritage
minister. I understand we have a heritage minister who was
absolutely shocked that we had mountains in Banff, for goodness
sakes. It is really strange to hear these things but that is
what I hear. “Oh my, look at all the big mountains”. She did
not know we had those.
There is no way I can be convinced that public consultations
will be held when it is not clear who will call for these things.
The section states “The minister will have these discussions as
appropriate”. It will be the minister deciding if it is
appropriate to have consultations, a minister who lives in the
industrial area of Hamilton.
Perhaps some people in Banff might need to have consultations.
Maybe they should make the decisions. Or, as Ralph Klein stated,
“the lack of consultation that takes place with regard to
stakeholders and park users indicates that Ottawa is dictating
changes to park policy without input from even the provinces”.
Like it or not, that is the feeling out there. It does not
matter whether the members jeer what I say or that they want to
make a big noise about it.
I spend a lot of time in that park because it is in my riding. I
talk to individuals. I know decisions are made carte blanche
without any input whatsoever from them. They are getting a
little tired of that kind of activity. There is also no
consultation with anybody who is affiliated with the province.
Lake Louise is another beautiful little community in Banff
National Park. I will tell a story to the House of what happened
there, just to show the disgraceful way this government operates.
When I was in the Samson Mall, a great stopping off place for
people who pass through the park, a fellow told me he was glad to
see me at Lake Louise and indicated that he would like to meet
with me.
Three people wanted to meet with me behind a building and all
three of them were park wardens. Why did they want to go behind
the building to meet with me? As employees of Parks Canada,
answerable to the Liberal government, they did not want to be
seen talking to an official opposition member because it could
mean they would be ostracised or punished for having done so
without permission from park officials. We had to have a secret
meeting.
The meeting lasted about 30 minutes and these individuals
described to me the various reasons why they felt they needed to
have sidearms. However, the experts on that side of the House do
not think they need them. Have they ever consulted with park
wardens who have lived there all their lives, who have confronted
poachers and situations that are a little dangerous regarding
wild animals, which those members also know nothing about?
Do not give me this crap about consultations. I had more
consultation in 30 minutes out of sight because these guys, who
are employees of this Liberal government, did not want to be seen
talking about it. After all, it could mean their jobs. What a
pathetic situation.
However, that is not surprising. When we go into communities
and do our work as critics for prisons, guess who does not want
their names being used if they talk to us? They are called
prison guards and prison correctional officers. Why do they not
want their names used? It is because they are considered to be
employees of this government.
Consultation? No, I am afraid not. The government does not
really know the meaning of the term.
Consultation to them is to go out and put on a show. They put on
a good front, pretend to know what they are talking about, come
back to Ottawa, make all the decisions, and then do whatever they
like.
1600
When good amendments that make sense are presented by various
members of different parties the government will not consider
them. After all, they were put forward by members of the
opposition who want to make it all political.
The preservation and the future of parks should never be a
political issue. The value of the land of this great country is
far more than economics. There is nothing more valuable than the
natural beauty of the greatest country in the world.
This group of people does not want to shove politics aside and
deal with the issues in a truly open and consultative way, with
true willingness to accept good, solid ideas to make a bill
better. When they take that approach then Ralph Klein is right.
It is the dictatorial attitude of government members, ignoring
input from people, not allowing input from the provinces or
anyone else that causes the real grief in our parks. The sooner
we get rid of that attitude the better will be the chance for the
future of our parks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments, in the flight of passionate debate the
hon. member for Wild Rose used a word which has been deemed
unparliamentary. I am sure that it was used in error, in the
flight of debate. It was the term “crap”. I wonder if the
member for Wild Rose would retract that word. I know that it was
not meant in any disrespectful way, but let us not leave it on
the record.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will replace that
word with fertilizer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was not exactly
sure if he was referring to a political party's name that never
made it or just where we were. Anyway, we are over it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the word the member misused and then withdrew was
typical of his oratory. His speech was full of exaggeration and
venom. He talked about the minister not even knowing there was a
mountain in Banff or that the Rockies existed.
I thought it was a pathetic display, considering that members in
the opposition had just finished saying how much consensus and
openness there was in the committee for reviewing amendments.
Each one of them praised the spirit of co-operation that went
beyond partisan politics, which he reintroduced. It is almost a
slap in the face to his own colleague who leads the party in the
committee, who was far more co-operative and viewed the whole
exercise very differently.
The panel on ecological integrity sat after the Bow Valley
study. I was involved in the Bow Valley study so I know how many
people and groups were consulted. The panel sat for one year and
listened to I do not know how many groups from all sectors. I
quoted an industry association, but I could have quote many
others that took part in the process.
The mayor of Banff himself came to our committee. He certainly
did not speak like the member. I suppose he must know something
about his town and his park. He spoke in very constructive terms
about the legislation.
If the member felt so strongly about it to scream and shout and
accuse everybody of wrongdoing, why he did not bother even once
to turn up at our committee to propose amendments, to fight for
his position and to tell us all he told us here? We never saw
him. The committee sat and heard a lot of people. He could have
taken the place of the member for Dauphin—Swan River, but he did
not.
The word he misused was probably very typical of what he said.
1605
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there
was a question, so I guess there is no answer to that kind of
rhetoric either.
I would have loved to have gone to committee. However, I would
never want to replace my critic in that role because he is doing
an outstanding job. I would have loved to have had the
opportunity to have been there, but we get these silly little
heart attacks once in a while which do not give us the chance to
be here when we would like to be.
We talk to a lot of people in our ridings who live in these
areas. We do not wait for those people to come here to the
mountain. We find that there are a lot more areas of
consultation that could been dealt with. It is just not their
way. That is my point. It is not their way. That is what Ralph
Klein said. It is not their way when they do not even bother to
consult with the provinces. It is a dictatorial method by which
they operate in Ottawa which is unacceptable. Even Ralph Klein
said it.
I do not care what kind of screaming the hon. member thinks I
do, but I know one thing: we want consultation with the people
of Banff and the people in communities like Lake Louise and
others who are not represented by a government body. The Banff
town council and the Banff mayor do an excellent job of looking
after the town of Banff.
It is too bad there are not other government bodies in some of
the communities within these parks where people are able to
address their concerns. This government will not allow even a
definition of a government body of any sort. I would be more
than pleased to hear what the definition of a government body
would be for Lake Louise. Is it the voluntary advisory
committee, the voluntary housing committee, or the staffers
committee? Who speaks on behalf of the people who have resided
there forever?
The Liberals will not give us a definition of the government
body for these towns. The town of Banff is the only exception,
and I applaud the people of that town for their efforts. They do
their best to make sure they do what needs to be done, in spite
of the government. They can do a better job themselves without
any help from the government.
It is too bad the government does not listen a little more to
some of the good advice that comes from those areas. It is too
bad it does not make it more available to the people who have
lived there for years and years.
We would think that people as old and wise as the gentleman who
asked the question would know how important it is to go to the
elderly people who have lived in these communities for years.
They have a lot more wisdom than we give them credit for.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the
record.
In one of the comments the member for Wild Rose made he said
that there were no amendments accepted to the bill from any of
the opposition parties. The exact opposite is true. There were
amendments made to the bill by every single opposition party.
Those amendments were made as a result of listening to all who
wished to be heard at the committee, including rank and file
employees of the parks agency and everyone else who wanted to be
heard, from Banff and Jasper, from the aboriginal communities,
from Mingan and from all the environmental groups.
Every single opposition party in the House put amendments
forward and every single party had some of its amendments
accepted by the committee, including the Canadian Alliance
members at report stage, because they would not put them forward
at the committee stage, with all due respect to my colleague from
Dauphin—Swan River.
I want to correct the record on what the member for Wild Rose
said. It is the opposite which is true.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
amendment that was approved which the member for Dauphin—Swan
River put forward.
What I am saying, and what I have said from the start when
questioned about why I was not at committee, is that it has been
my experience in the seven years I have been here that usually
that is the case. This might have been the one time when it was
not quite that usual. They may have put forward amendments and
had one or two accepted. But most of them come in the front door
and, because of the dictatorial attitude that exists on that side
of the House, they usually go out the back door. That is the
truth.
1610
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I agree to some extent with my hon. colleague. I do not
have a park in my riding, but Prince Albert National Park, the
home of Grey Owl, is located north of my riding. I think it is
subject to creeping bureaucratization. It needs to be cut back
and spending priorities need to be looked at again.
Last summer I probably had more phone calls, more petitions,
more letters and more newspaper articles written on the lake that
Grey Owl's cabin is on than on any other issue in my riding.
Groups of people came to see me. I had to tour the park. They
have finally managed to wrestle it to the ground, but it has been
quite a task. The local people have to have their eyes open all
the time. They have to be aware of what is going on.
Vigilance is always very important when dealing with
bureaucracies. Legislation is important, but it is how people
use legislation to accomplish their ends. Parks are not an end
in themselves and people are not an unnecessary and unwelcome
intrusion on the national parks, and I think that is important to
say.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point
out another thing that occurs in my riding. Banff is close to
the major city of Calgary and a lot of visitors go there. A
number of seniors have shown up on my doorstep or at my office in
Airdrie, just outside Calgary, who have reached the gates of
Banff and have turned back because suddenly there was a fee
increase that was totally unaffordable. All this was done
without consultation or news to anybody. People said that they
had gone to the gate and suddenly the rules had changed.
We have talked to the park superintendents and other people who
work in the bureaucracy. They understand that they should
correct it, and they do. I applaud most of the people who work
there. They try to be very accommodating to me as the member of
parliament and to the people who use the park. However, most of
the time they are directed. From where do they get these
directions to suddenly raise the fees? I am the member of
parliament. People would think that I might be one of the first
to know they were going to do this. Then maybe I would be able
to defend their actions.
All of a sudden a trail will be closed in Banff. Nobody knows
why, what is going on or what needs to be corrected to make it
better. There are many things that happen out of the blue. The
people who suffer the most are the ones who pioneered those
parks, the seniors and other people in the territory who love to
go for a weekend, have dinner and enjoy. Now they cannot afford
it because the fees are too high. None of that is ever
considered by the government. It just reacts. It does not seem
to care whether it has a good reason or not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion for third reading of Bill C-27. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote stands
deferred until 5.30 p.m. today.
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be now read a second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part today to the debate on Bill C-33, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
1615
A motion was introduced by the Progressive Conservative member
for Fundy—Royal, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford,
asking that the second reading of this bill now before the House
be hoisted for six month, which would be an excellent idea.
On the eve of a possible general election in Canada, I did not
have a speech on species at risk on my agenda. I believe that
this government is going too far. I cannot but denounce this bill
and, at the same time, the government that introduced it.
It is amazing to see that the Liberal government which, I must
point out, obtained the support of only 38% of the population of
Quebec and Canada in the 1997 general election, is behaving as if
political thinking were the same in Quebec and in Canada. Yet, in
the House, for the first time in the history of parliament, we
find ourselves with four opposition parties. There is in the
democratic choices made by the people of Quebec and of Canada a
message that the Liberal government does not want to understand.
What is more, this government's arrogance is leading it to hide
things and act as if everything were fine. It keeps on
introducing bills that do not reflect in the least the political
realities in Quebec and Canada, which we represent collectively
in the House, with five parties and not one only.
What has this government, which is on the verge of going to the
voters for a third mandate, done since 1993? In spite of what it
keeps repeating, it has kept none of its basic commitments from
the 1993 and 1997 campaigns. The GST is still with us. We are
turning increasingly to free trade. The employment insurance
reform has been worse than the one announced by the Tories. Every
social program has felt the impact of this government's budget
cuts, health programs in particular, and this is jeopardizing the
universality of these programs.
With the surplus derived from funds diverted to other purposes
than those for which they were intended, the government now wants
to hire spies who will go and lay down the law in the provinces
on health.
Cultural budgets have also been reduced and the new president of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, is almost at the
point of becoming the first CEO of a public federal organization
to be out on the street if he continues to cut like he has.
I could go on with the list of promises that were not kept but
I would not want to immediately start an election campaign and
put the Liberal government on trial. The government will not get
off lightly because the moment of truth will come and will have
major consequences for those who are showing arrogance today.
In politics, promises must be kept. In politics, the affairs of
the state must also be administered as though they were our own
affairs and public funds must not be squandered. In politics, the
affairs of the state must be administered with great attempts to
reach consensus, and not with a confrontational approach, with
quarrels and squabbles, as the federal Liberal Party has
constantly done since taking office, particularly its leader,
who is the specialist of the no, as though he did not have the
chance to come out of his first identity crisis, which, in the
normal development of a human being, happens traditionally around
the age of two.
People are not fooled. They have had enough of this politicking
that has been enriching the same people since Confederation.
Whether they are liberal or conservative, this does not change
anything in the scandals that have marked Canadian politics for
so many years, at the expense of the little people who must be
content with continuing to pay taxes.
People are starting to get the message.
The government does as it pleases, grabs employment insurance
funds, gets in bed with the oil companies, enriches the wealthy
minority and distributes poverty to most of the people of
Quebec and Canada.
That said, let us move on to the debate on the order paper for
today, Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada.
Biodiversity, about which we are hearing more and more,
represents the result of the evolution which the earth has
undergone over billions of years.
1620
That evolutionary process has provided the planet with a broad
selection of living organisms and natural environments. These
make up the ecosystems we know today, and all of them have a
role to play within the food chain, as well as playing a part in
the biological equilibrium of this planet.
In recent years, however, the scientists have been reminding us
that we are seeing more and more species become extinct, as well
as increasing numbers of others being threatened with extinction
or becoming highly vulnerable.
The decrease or degradation of
this biological diversity affects us all and can eventually have
unexpected consequences on the environment in which we live. In
Canada, as in a number of other countries in the world, attempts
have been made in recent years to slow down this phenomenon.
To that end, ever since the 1970s, we have seen some
international conventions being signed for the specific purpose
of limiting trading in certain plant and animal species in order
to keep them from extinction.
In 1992, there was the Rio Earth Summit and an important part of
the international community, including Canada, signed the
Convention on Biodiversity. Signatory countries pledged to
develop and implement the legislation and regulations needed to
protect endangered species and populations.
When Canada made that commitment, the government was lead by
Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party. That was enough
for the Liberals to promise, in their red book, a long term
protection for the species of our planet.
Following that commitment, in 1995, the then environment
minister, the member for Hamilton, tabled a first bill which gave
rise to an incredible number of protestations and critics,
especially on the part of environmental groups.
In 1996, the federal government proposed to provincial and
territorial environment ministers a Canada-wide agreement
entitled, “Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk”. In
October of the same year, the ministers responsible for wildlife
approved the principle of that accord.
At that time, the Quebec government was represented at the table
by David Cliche, the environment minister. He signed the accord
in good faith. However, he immediately issued an independent
press release where he stated very clearly that he could not
remain indifferent to the fact that this accord was probably
opening the door to overlapping and that it would be necessary to
observe closely what ensued.
Just a few weeks later the federal government, through its
environment minister, Sergio Marchi, introduced Bill C-65, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, a bill which too was harshly
criticized by the provinces mainly because of the broad powers it
gave the federal government with respect to the protection of
endangered species.
Many denounced the minister for his about face as his
legislation was flying in the face of comments he had made a few
weeks earlier saying he wanted to harmonize federal policies with
the provinces instead of imposing standards and overlapping with
provincial jurisdiction.
Early elections called by the Prime Minister and member for
Saint-Maurice caused bill C-65 to die on the order paper. Now the
government is telling us that Bill C-33 is a new improved version
of Bill C-65. If the Prime Minister keeps us here in the House
long enough and does not again call an early election, we must
send this bill back and not pass it under its present form.
We must find a way to respect each other's jurisdiction while
finding a real solution to the problem of migratory species, that
unfortunately know no border. It is obvious that if we are
serious about finding a real solution to the problem of
endangered species, a concerted effort is needed both nationally
and internationally.
Since this is an area of shared jurisdiction, greater
consultation and closer co-operation among various levels of
government are needed as it is imperative to improve the
protection of endangered species both in Canada and Quebec.
Again, this will not happen though confrontation but rather
through a consensual approach.
1625
Does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the
protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that
are part of them? What good is it? What is in it?
There is sufficient cause for worry that the bill is suspicious.
While lines 25 to 30 of the preamble state that responsibility
for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the
various orders of government in this country and that it is
important for them to work co-operatively to pursue the
establishment of complementary legislation and programs to
protect species, the bill's wording does not reflect this. It
does not reflect reality, which is that protection of habitats is
essentially a provincial responsibility.
Everything in fact suggests that the minister holds the power to
impose his vision of protection on the provinces. In other words,
his legislation will take de facto precedence over existing
provincial legislation, even if the habitats fall solely under
provincial jurisdiction.
By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to
impose its own way of protecting species. It is not at all clear
that force and fines would always be a province's preferred
approach.
Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the
Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division
of powers as stated in the constitution and as interpreted over
the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial
and territorial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces and the
territories from any real and direct input into the process.
Existing legislation is totally ignored.
It is true that the protection of species can only be effective
if habitats are also protected, but it is the responsibility of
the provinces and the territories to manage these issues in
co-operation with the various stakeholders.
Even though the minister supports, theoretically, the shared
responsibility between the federal government and the provinces
with regard to the protection of species, in reality, first, he
disregards the division of powers and the provinces'
responsibility with regard to the management of habitats and the
protection of species; second, he ignores existing legislation;
and, third, he assumes very broad powers with regard to the
protection of species. By acting this way, the federal government
is going against true environmental harmonization between the
various levels of government.
Now, what about the position of environmental groups? How did
they receive this government bill?
Those who should be the minister's allies in any attempt to
improve the protection of wildlife species find this bill
totally useless and even dangerous, and they oppose it. Indeed,
there has been much protest and criticism since the minister
introduced his bill.
Most stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations
representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide
greater protection for species or specify the appropriate
approach to protecting species living on a site under
development.
Also, it must be noted that, in its present form, Bill C-33 is a
bit scary for the representatives of certain industries. As for
the representative of the Mining Association of Canada, he said
that the fines and legal proceedings were excessive in cases
where a species was not deliberately killed.
However, the main problem that seems to be raised by all
environmental groups is the fact that the decisions on the
designation of species will be taken by the minister and his
cabinet, and not by scientists.
This has led some activists, such as the president of the
Canadian Campaign for Endangered Species, to state that Bill
C-33 was a dismal failure and that it will not ensure the
protection of Canadian species.
Others, like one of the lawyers of the Sierra Club, made more
qualified statements, but still denounced the weakness of the
legislation and described as disgraceful the fact that such a
discretionary power with respect to the designation of species
be granted to politicians.
1630
The sponsor of the bill is being criticized for resorting to a
piecemeal approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a set of
gentle measures promoting negotiation, but supported by
compelling legal measures if an agreement cannot be reached.
For his part, Paul Bégin said that the proposed legislation was
just another example of useless duplication for Quebec. Indeed,
the Quebec minister indicated that the bill introduced by the
federal government sought not only to create a safety net for
endangered species and their habitat on federal lands, but also
on the whole Quebec territory.
While it may be appropriate for the federal government to
legislate to protect migrating species, this government has no
constitutional authority regarding the management of habitats on
provincial and territorial lands. The Quebec government cannot
accept that the federal government would infringe upon areas of
provincial jurisdiction and dictate to Quebec how to protect its
ecosystems when Quebec already has its own legislation
protecting endangered species and their habitats.
In fact, the Quebec government believes an act such as Bill C-33
would be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under
provincial jurisdiction and applied to a province or territory
only if this province or territory had explicitly asked that it
did.
Considering the increasing rate of species extinction, the
situation is serious and it is true that we must take effective
measures. But Bill C-33 is not the answer to the questions I
asked at the beginning of my speech.
The principle of providing greater protection to endangered
species is in itself one the Bloc Quebecois readily supports.
However, the Bloc does not believe that Bill C-33 will improve
the protection of species at risk. In fact, the Bloc opposes the
bill because it constitutes a direct intrusion into many areas of
Quebec's jurisdiction. It even overlaps the act Quebec passed in
1989, which is having good results.
The bill could very well increase the paper burden and it will
not allow for an efficient use of already scarce resources. The
Quebec government has already legislated in areas covered by Bill
C-33 and while recognizing that it is urgent to improve the
legislation, the Bloc does not believe that Bill C-33 will give
the expected results.
The Bloc also recognizes that responsibility for the environment
is shared between the federal government and the provinces. It is
becoming very clear now that the federal government is ignoring
this fact and is working against true harmonization of
environmental issues by the various levels of government. Instead
of assuming its major responsibilities in an appropriate way, the
federal government is insisting on trampling on other
governments' jurisdictions.
I said at the outset that I fully support the motion of my
colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party. Whether or
not a general election is called, I sincerely hope that this bill
will be postponed indefinitely.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Rimouski—Mitis, for her very relevant comments.
She has dotted the is for the government, which persists in
utterly invading areas under provincial jurisdiction. All the
negative elements that the member for Rimouski—Métis has noted
against this government suggest that this government believes it
knows everything.
I would like my colleague to give us other examples that prove,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as she says, that this bill should be
postponed indefinitely.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from Jonquière. What I find striking in this
bill, is that there is overwhelming agreement against it. This is
quite something.
First, the member for Hamilton East introduced a bill that was a
complete failure. Nobody wanted anything to do with it. But they
did not learn their lesson. Her colleague, Sergio Marchi, also
introduced a bill. He had time to retire before it was passed.
1635
An elections was held and now we are presented with a third
bill, by another minister who has no more understanding than the
other two, which tends to prove beyond a doubt, that in Canada,
ministers are nothing but puppets. Those who really count are the
deputy ministers. They stay, while ministers move on.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to
congratulate my hon. colleague from Jonquière, who is the Bloc
Quebecois environment critic. She has done a lot of work and put
a lot of heart into her defence of the interests of her fellow
citizens, of everybody in Quebec, and by the same token, in
Canada.
I would also like to indicate that I support the amendment by
the Progressive Conservative Party. It is clear to us that this
bill should be reconsidered, or at least hoisted for six months.
The title of Bill C-33 is an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada. Biological diversity in
itself is the result of evolution, which has been going on on our
planet for more than 4.5 billion years.
In the last few years, scientists have indicated that more and
more species are becoming extinct and that more and more of them
are becoming endangered or highly vulnerable.
In 1992, during the Rio summit, a large part of the
international community, including Canada, signed the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Canada agreed to draft or maintain the
legislative and regulatory provisions required to protect
endangered species and populations. Needless to say, on this side
of the House, we know what the current government's signature is
worth. It always claims to be acting in good faith, but in fact,
that is not always what happens once it has signed a document.
In 1995, the Liberal environment minister of the day introduced
a first bill, which was heavily criticized, especially by
environmental groups. We all know what happened to that bill.
In 1996, the federal government, through its environment
minister of the day, Sergio Marchi, who has since retired, as
mentioned by my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis, introduced Bill
C-65, which was essentially the precursor of Bill C-33. Once
again, the bill was heavily criticized. The Liberals called an
election and, fortunately for them, Bill C-65 died on the order
paper.
They still do not seem to have learned their lesson. They have
brought this issue forward again by introducing a bill, which
they say contains improvements. It is worth noting that the
federal government can play a role in protecting wildlife species
under certain statutes such as those dealing with fisheries or
with our national parks. However, no federal legislation exists
for this specific purpose.
If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal
instrument dealing specifically with the protection of wildlife
species at risk.
1640
Since pollution and migratory species ignore boundaries, a
concerted effort is obviously required at the international
level. Logically, the same goes on a smaller scale within Canada.
Canadian federalism calls for co-operation between the provinces
on this issue, since this is an area of shared jurisdiction in
our country.
Improved protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada is
necessary. The number of known species living in Canada is
estimated at 70,000, and apparently many of those exist only in
Canada. To date, the committee on the status of endangered
wildlife in Canada has designated 340 wildlife species as being
at risk.
Of these, 12 are now extinct, 15 are extirpated species or no
longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 are
threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which means that there are
concerns about these species. Of the 97 species whose status was
reassessed in the last few years, 26 are now closer to becoming
extinct.
Needless to say that without proper federal or provincial
legislation, without enforcement measures and adequate
resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant, and their
impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species
facing extinction, the situation is critical. An efficient
response is therefore needed.
But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will this bill really ensure better protection
of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of
them? We do not think so.
I wish to convey to the members of the House the position of
environmental groups and industry. Most environmental groups are
opposed to the bill put forward by the Minister for the
Environment. Those who should be his allies in any attempt to
improve the protection of wild species find the bill useless and
dangerous.
As a matter of fact, the minister has been facing a lot of
protest and criticism since he introduced his bill. Most
stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations
representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide
greater protection for species or specify the course of action
they should adopt concerning the protection of the species
living where they run their operations.
It is not only the Bloc Quebecois and the bad separatists who
are saying this; environmental groups and industry
representatives are saying the same thing.
If anyone knows what they are doing, working year after year to
protect those species, if there are any scientists who are
experts in their field, it is the people in these
environmentalist groups. And they have voiced strong opposition
to and severe criticism of the bill.
We believe, among other things, that this bill intrudes on
provincial jurisdiction, in particular the jurisdiction of
Quebec, which already has its own legislation. Quebec is one of
the few Canadian provinces that has legislated to protect
wildlife and species at risk. Why not co-operate then?
This government is stubborn, set in its own ways, and this is
especially true of the Prime Minister, who should have a maple
leaf stuck to his forehead to satisfy his desire for visibility.
As I am running out of time, I simply wish to read a few lines
from a news release issued by the Quebec minister of environment
on April 11, 2000. It says:
Quebec has always acted in a responsible and adequate way to
protect its most fragile wild animals and plants, and it intends
to continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this area.
We will never accept an umbrella legislation for all action in
this area. It is out of the question for Quebec to accept
federal intrusion on its jurisdiction. This bill must exclude
all species, sites or habitats under Quebec's jurisdiction and
must only be implemented at the request of the provinces or
territories.
1645
Quebec has always taken good care of its species at risk and it
will not need to use this legislation.
Why does the government insist on intruding on provincial
jurisdictions? It does this in all areas, as for parental leave,
right now. Why insist on overlapping and intruding on existing
legislation that works?
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all my colleagues, I want first to congratulate our
colleague from Drummond for her rather enlightening
presentation. I think that our colleague from Beauce also agrees
with the warning that the hon. member for Drummond gave—
Mr. Claude Drouin: Not at all.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague says he does not agree.
I want not only to congratulate our colleague but also pay
tribute to our environment critic, for she has worked very
diligently and seriously in committee. She worked very hard to
defend Quebec's interests. In fact, that is the difference
between government members and Bloc members.
We can rise and on each issue and dedicate ourselves exclusively
to the interests of Quebec, because we do not have to work out
compromises for Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I want to ask my hon. colleague, who is obviously a seasoned
parliamentarian since she has been here since 1993, like me for
that matter, if she could tell us why a bill like this one is
harmful to Quebec and give us many examples of the federal
government's absolutely despicable reflex of interfering in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Before yielding to my hon. colleague, I could refer to health.
In this area, the government wants visibility. It has no
principles. It has no respect for provincial prerogatives
because it wants to do what it calls nation building.
There is in this House a former minister of the environment in
the Bourassa government. Under a rather austere exterior, he is a
rather nice man. I believe he broke away from his party during
the language crisis.
I would like to make a wish before giving the floor back to my
colleague. Could we count on the support of all the Quebecers in
this House, regardless of their political convictions? It is not
a matter of nationalists versus federalists. I am convinced that
when it comes to the environment, our debate can rise above
partisanship and we can decide on general directions for the
future, which will be in the best interest of Quebec.
Therefore I am asking my colleague, based on her seven years as
a parliamentarian, if she could show how this government has
steadfastly refused to stay within its own jurisdiction and has
shamelessly infringed on Quebec's jurisdiction?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his very relevant remarks. I also want
to congratulate him. He highlighted the good job the Bloc members
have been doing in the House since 1993. He is one of those who
has been doing an excellent job defending the interests of the
people of Quebec.
1650
My colleague asked me to give a few examples of infringement and
overlap. We have seen quite a few since 1993. This government is
always trying, with every new bill, to encroach on and stick its
foot in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been its
leitmotiv across Canada. This is what it was seeking with the
social union. When they signed the social union agreement, the
provinces sold out their birthright. They are now realizing it
with the health care issue.
Health care is one example. If there is an area of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, it is health care. We can see what the
government is doing these days.
Education, with the millennium fund, is another example. We have
been a prime target in Quebec. It took a number of interventions
and a great deal of efforts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois to
denounce this state of affairs. And what about parental leave.
Now we have this environment bill on endangered species.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt,
but the hon. member's time is up.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest, Health; the hon. member for Québec, Parental Leave.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
both interesting and important for me to be able to speak this
afternoon on second reading of Bill C-33, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I wish to begin by saying that I oppose this bill in its present
form and that, moreover, I support the amendment by the
Conservative member for Fundy—Royal for a six month hoist, if
not a permanent one.
Obviously, this will be very repetitious because we often keep
coming back to the same points when we are addressing the same
bill. One learns early on in politics, however, that the best
way to get a point of view across properly is to say the same
thing often, even the simplest of things.
I would like to start with an overview of the situation. At the
present time, there are 70,000 known species in Canada and a good
number of them apparently are found solely in Canada. So, we
have 70,000 species and of that number 340 that are endangered.
Obviously there are degrees to this. Some are already gone, some
are vanishing, some are more endangered than others. Some can be
saved with human intervention.
I imagine that the purpose of Bill C-33 was to allow human
intervention, although this bill does not include the necessary
resources to satisfy that need.
Would there be some additional protection that might be
applicable? Is this bill really going to contribute to improving
the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that
constitute them? Let us have a look at the salient points of the
bill.
The preamble is interesting, because it appropriately refers to
the importance of protecting Canada's natural heritage and also
reminds us of Canada's international commitments, for instance,
under the convention on biodiversity, at the Rio summit, in
1992. The government had already examined the issue and was
prepared to take some action.
This preamble also says that responsibility for the conservation
of wildlife is shared among the various levels of government and
that co-operation between them is essential.
In clauses 1 to 6, the purposes of the bill are further
specified, as well as the definitions—definitions are always
quite important in a bill—that determine what land is involved.
The previous bill, Bill C-65, dealt only with federal land.
1655
In other words, the land was limited to what was part of the
federal land, while the present bill goes further and deals with
Canada's land in general, whether federal or provincial.
I would also like to remind the House of some other clauses in
the bill. For example, in clauses 8 to 13, it says the heritage
minister, the fisheries and oceans minister and any competent
minister must be consulted before the establishment of
committees or the signing of agreements with other levels of
government. There is already a lot of people around the table,
but the bill does affect several sectors of government
operations.
At clauses 14 to 31, the bill provides for the committee on the
status of endangered wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, which will
have an official status and, from all appearances, will operate
independently.
In other clauses, for example clauses 37 to 73, the bill talks
of action plans, of recovery of endangered and threatened
species and management plans for species of special concern.
These interventions will be carried out in co-operation with the
provinces, territories and the management boards, supervised, I
imagine by COSEWIC.
I am passing quickly over all the enforcement aspects of the
bill, over the infractions and penalties to reach clauses 126,
127 and 128, which provide that the minister will prepare a
report, which he will table in the House, on the administration
of the act over the previous year.
Every five years, an assessment will be tabled as well to enable
us to see whether the action plans formulated have had effect or
done nothing.
When we look at this, we can see that the bill provides food for
thought. Some aspects of it are interesting. Some aspects
should be examined, but some of them should go further.
However, what we find embarrassing is that this legislation will
immediately take precedence over existing provincial
legislation, even when the habitats are completely under
provincial jurisdiction.
We must remember that endangered species are found solely on
provincial territory. The government has ignored this and caps
everything off with federal legislation that will take
precedence over everything.
Other things made me smile.
Clause 2 provides that the minister “may”—not must—“enter into an
agreement”. Clause 39 provides that the competent minister must,
“to the extent possible”, develop programs. A little further, in
clauses 47 and 48, we find again the expression “to the extent
possible”.
I do not know which jurist put the words “to the extent
possible” in the bill, but that expression leads me to believe
that there will be black holes, or grey areas, in that
legislation.
The bill does not respect the division of powers, as established
under the constitution and interpreted over the years. It
squarely interferes with the jurisdictions of the provinces and
it excludes the latter from any real and direct input in the
process. Existing laws are thus ignored.
We support the protection of endangered species, of species at
risk. We support it so much that we have already done something
about it in Quebec.
What bothers us is the fact that this government is proposing a
bill that does not go as far as what we already have. To go
backwards has never done any good to anyone.
Indeed, even though the minister supports in theory the notion
of shared responsibility between the federal government and the
provinces concerning the protection of species, he ignores the
division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities regarding
habitat management and the protection of species. He ignores
existing laws and gives himself very broad powers with regard to
the protection of species.
In so doing, the federal government goes against true
environmental harmonization between the various levels of
government. This bill is too weak and it interferes with our
jurisdictions.
It must be reviewed. I do not know when, but the later the
better, because an incredible amount of work needs to be done.
1700
Many associations, such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association and the mining associations, which cover large
areas, huge forests, as well as wetlands, know the pressure that
such a bill can bring if guidelines are not clearly established.
In the bill before us, they are not.
We all know that after the act come regulations, but we also
understand the concerns of these large companies, because they
occupy huge areas in all provinces of Canada, including Quebec.
I have mentioned some of the weaknesses of this bill.
I wanted to avoid mentioning all the environmentalists who have
doubts in this regard.
In Quebec, we have often acted reasonably. In the case of
migratory birds—and this is a good example, because migratory
birds come under federal jurisdiction—Quebec, in co-operation with
private organizations and the federal government has, for
decades now, done an exemplary job of managing these wetlands
and migratory birds.
We are therefore able to co-operate, but we really want to call
the shots in an area we are already handling fairly well.
Nothing is perfect, I admit, but, as I say, we are handling it
“fairly well”.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the member for Jonquière and
congratulate her on the great job she has done for the
environment.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was the
Bloc Quebecois environment critic for several years in the last
parliament. My colleague has now taken over. I was among those
who fought Bill C-65 and I will briefly tell you why.
At the time, Bill C-65 was introduced with haste because the Rio
summit was to be held a few months later. Canada wanted to look
good at that summit, and the government was rushing to introduce
environmental bills so it would look good on the international
scene, which is not a bad idea as such, but which can be very
harmful to the environment.
The government cannot introduce a bill just like that. The first
thing to consider when dealing with environmental issues is that
the environment department should not be used for partisan
purposes.
The environment should be excluded from any form of
partisanship, yet partisanship could be felt at the environment
committee. This is not how it should be, however.
This issue is used for partisan purposes when it really should
not. The environment should be a matter of concern to all
parties and to all Canadians, and everybody should be willing to
do their share.
Quebec has proved it. We have legislation to protect species at
risk. We are willing to work with the federal government, but it
should not stick its nose in our business and tell us what to do
with our species at risk. We are already looking after things.
We want to do it in harmony, but that is not what we are seeing
in this bill. This is the same bill which has been brought back
one more time. The problems are the same, and this bill will
never solve the issue of species at risk.
I advise my colleagues to examine this bill very carefully. This
is just the second reading stage. Major amendments must be made
to this bill to meet the needs that exist both at the federal
and provincial levels, and even at the international level. We
cannot simply say that this kind of bill will solve the whole
problem with regard to the environment. It is not true.
1705
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my
colleague's comments, since she has referred to the legislation
Quebec has enacted, that is the act respecting threatened or
vulnerable species, the fisheries act and the act respecting the
conservation and development of wildlife.
I also agree with my colleague that not all environmental issues
are transborder issues. They are issues that are constrained by
the limits we impose through other laws and policies. We need a
great deal of harmonization and co-operation to get things done.
We should be wise enough to examine what is being done, and what
is being done well. Quebec is not the only place where things
are done well. Other provinces too have worked very hard to
protect wetland habitats.
What is being done right should be our starting point, and then
we should develop our bill, instead of taking the top down
approach.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to point out to my colleague from Laurentides that
the Rio summit took place in 1992 and Bill C-65 came along at
least five years later, but that is just an aside.
I agree that there must be no politics where the environment is
concerned. In fact, the hon. member for Jonquière will
acknowledge that, when the Environment Act was revised recently,
members of all parties voted together, I do not know how many
times.
What I wanted to point out was that we on this side of the House
find that in this bill the federal government is not making
use of its own jurisdiction. That is what I criticized
yesterday. In fact, quite the opposite. Instead of infringing
on provincial jurisdictions, we are not doing enough in our own
area for migratory birds, for habitats and for transborder
species.
I would also like to ask the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, for
whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem, whether she was
aware that I am the one who introduced the Quebec legislation on
endangered species, so I am very very familiar with it. Under
the Quebec legislation, when a species was listed as endangered,
the habitat was automatically protected. What was done recently
was that, at the request of Hydro-Québec, in a case on which I
can provide my hon. colleague the details later, cabinet
recently passed an order in council separating the list of
habitats, making—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am truly sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, but the hon. member
for Louis-Hébert has the floor.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
comment. We always learn something new with this hon. member.
I am grateful to him for introducing this legislation, which I
hope will be applied in the best possible way in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the amendment to
Bill C-33. The amendment was put forth by our colleague the
member for Fundy—Royal. I want to state at the outset that I
support the member's amendment.
I previously spoke on the main bill so I do not intend to go
into the detail I did at that time. I will summarize what I had
to say a number of weeks ago about Bill C-33, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I indicated that although the Minister of the Environment says
the bill will do the job, it is weak in the protection of species
at risk and their habitats. I may have previously mentioned that
the bill makes it discretionary to protect species at risk even
on government lands. Government lands account for a small
percentage of the total land mass in Canada. The bill is weak in
that sense. It also does not protect migratory birds and birds
do not know borders so we have to do better than that.
The bill invites political consideration and lobbying as I and
other members have said. The minister has chosen to allow a
group of scientists under COSEWIC to continue to list species at
risk, but at the end of the day, the determination of what will
be considered as species at risk will be made by the federal
cabinet.
There has been widespread criticism of that because it does
invite lobbying.
1710
A company which maybe is endangering a whale through mining or
some other activity could now go to the cabinet and try to
prevent that species from being listed. I just use that as an
example, but it is clear in that sense that the bill allows far
too much ministerial discretion.
The bill also fails to include compensation provisions for
workers and communities affected economically by action plans to
rescue species at risk. I am thinking of people working in the
forest. If it is decided that a patch of forest has to be saved,
then of course we would support a patch of forest being saved,
but what about the people who work in that patch of forest?
I want to very briefly indicate the NDP policy on this. I did
not do that the last time I spoke on the bill. Our policy is
clear on what such a law should do. This one really does not
come close.
The policy was carefully thought out and debated at our last New
Democratic Party federal convention. We passed a resolution at
our 19th biennial convention which said that the New Democratic
Party supports comprehensive federal endangered species
legislation developed in co-operation with other governments
which includes the benefits of traditional aboriginal knowledge
as well and ensures, first, identification and listing of species
at risk by an independent committee of scientists, wherein
scientific evidence is the primary consideration and not
political interpretation of this evidence. As I have said, the
bill gives the minister far too much discretion.
Second, the NDP convention called for comprehensive nationwide
natural habitat protection, including protection for species that
range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international
borders. I have already referred to that.
Third, the NDP convention called for legislation which would
include stakeholders in the development of species recovery
plans, provision of adequate support to those whose livelihood is
disrupted by a species recovery plan, and provision for just
transition to workers and communities by any recovery plan.
That is a very thorough, well thought out resolution about
species at risk legislation. I know the government does not
always come to the NDP for advice, but had it done so, we would
have a better piece of legislation before us than what we have
now.
When I first spoke to the legislation, it was very shortly after
the bill was introduced. I was going by my own party's response,
again based on our resolution in convention and the homework we
had done. It has now been some time since the legislation was
introduced and perhaps it is worthwhile to spend a minute or two
looking at what people are saying about it. Let us call this a
focus group for the minister for lack of a better term.
The Hamilton Spectator of Tuesday, May 2 stated:
In its current form, the proposed Canadian Species at Risk Act
will serve as little more than a token document, of little
benefit to those species truly at risk in our country.
On the day following the tabling of the legislation in the
House, Stewart Elgie of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund had this to
say:
We are very disappointed. This bill will do little to ensure
that endangered species and their habitat are protected—it
leaves everything up to political discretion.
Kevin Scott, director of the Vancouver based Defenders of
Wildlife, said:
The legislation, as we have reviewed it, is in my opinion an
international embarrassment.
An international embarrassment, that is how it is being
described.
Sarah Dover of the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign said:
I do not think this environment minister...has been given the
political capital in the cabinet room to affect serious change.
People are quite critical of this legislation. That includes
some former supreme court justices.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
have to interrupt the hon. member since it is 5.15 p.m.
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be read a second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made on
Monday, June 12, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill
C-37.
Call in the members.
1750
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 215
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Penson
| Plamondon
| Schmidt
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
|
Wayne – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 237 under Private
Members' Business. The question is on the amendment.
1800
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 69
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 184
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1805
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Blaikie
| Caccia
| Davies
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Herron
| Hoeppner
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Penson
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Solomon
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 29
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Johnston
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 226
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
TREATIES ACT
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House
of Commons when treaties are concluded, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading
stage of Bill C-214 under Private Members' Business.
1825
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 110
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| 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
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be
read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred record division on the motion at third reading stage
of Bill C-5.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting against the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I will vote no to this
motion.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to add my name to the list as voting with
the government on this motion.
1830
(The House divided on motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 184
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 78
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-24, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act,
1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada pension plan, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court
of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-24.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion, and I draw
to the table's attention that the hon. member for
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant had to leave the Chamber, be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting nay on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be
voting no to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members will be voting no to this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting nay
on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
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
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 112
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and other
matters), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division at the report stage of Bill C-18.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the
House that the hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford has had to
leave. I think you will find unanimous consent to have members
who voted on the preceding motion recorded as having voted on
the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting
nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of this excellent motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting against
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
Progressive Conservative Party are voting no to this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I will be voting no on this motion.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was called out of the House. I have now returned and want to
have my vote applied with the government party.
1835
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Marceau
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
– 41
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Ottawa—Vanier had to leave the Chamber. Otherwise
I believe you would find consent to apply in reverse the results
of the vote just taken to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 219
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Marceau
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
– 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-19.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members are in agreement
with this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting in favour of this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea to this
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 224
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Penson
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 36
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada, be
read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-27.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Please take note that the member for Ottawa—Vanier is back in
the Chamber. I believe you would find consent to apply the
results of the vote just taken to the motion now before the
House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 225
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Penson
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 36
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
1840
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-297, an act
to amend the Young Offenders Act, as deemed reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-297, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be
concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Chuck Cadman moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I request consent to split my time with
the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, Bill C-297, an act to
amend the Young Offenders Act, has been around this place for a
number of years now. It was first introduced as Bill C-260 in
October 1997. In fact it was my first effort as a private
member.
In May last year the government attempted to kill this private
member's bill through a hoist motion. Fortunately the government
subsequently reconsidered to withdraw its motion. The bill was
allowed to proceed to a vote where all members of the House could
exercise their voting rights. On May 25, 1999 it passed second
reading by a vote of 164 to 75. My friends in the Bloc, most of
the NDP and some Liberals voted against the bill but the vast
majority of the House voted in favour of it. As is the process,
the bill was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
With the prorogation of parliament it was reintroduced as Bill
C-297 in November last year. According to the rules of the House
it was then placed in the same position as previously and
referred back to the justice committee.
On March 27 the bill was deemed to have been reported back to
the House without amendment. We are now at the third and final
stage of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, while I appreciate that you know the particulars
of Bill C-297, I will briefly state them for the folks who may be
watching the debate through the benefit of television tonight.
There are some very serious misconceptions in the public, in the
media and among some of my colleagues in this place about just
what this bill proposes.
1845
The bill itself is relatively simple. It merely changes a
sanction section of the Young Offenders Act from a simple summary
conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence. What
this means is that the crown attorney has the option, and I
repeat the word option, of proceeding by summary conviction or by
indictable offence. Indictable offences, of course, are reserved
for the most serious of circumstances. The maximum sentence in
this case is two years. In other words, offenders will receive
provincial and not federal time at the top end; that is, the
maximum.
What is the offence that is covered by this sanction, we may
ask. It has to do with section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act
that covers the offence of wilfully failing to comply with a
court undertaking to supervise a young person. As we all know,
some young people come into conflict with our laws. Occasionally
some of these young persons are considered to be a danger to the
safety and security of the rest of our society and are held in
custody until their case may be resolved.
Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act permits a responsible
adult to sign an agreement with the court to supervise the young
person. The young person is then permitted to leave custody
under the supervision of that adult. The young person and the
adult sign a form of contract with the court, agreeing that
certain conditions will be followed for the protection and
security of other citizens. These conditions might include
refraining from alcohol use, geographic restrictions, not
associating with specified individuals, curfews and any other
condition the court deems appropriate. If the adult wilfully
fails, and I stress the word wilfully, to properly supervise, as
promised to the court, section 7.2 holds that adult accountable.
As I stated previously, the only real criticism of this bill
comes from a misunderstanding or an unwillingness of some
individuals to accept that this legislation has nothing
whatsoever to do with parental responsibility to their children.
We are not holding parents responsible for delinquent children
through this bill. The parent of the child who throws a rock
through a window or gets into a schoolyard fight is not affected
by this bill. We are holding responsible only those adults who
deliberately and voluntarily enter into a form of contract with
the court to carry out certain defined duties of supervision.
These adults are to be held accountable for their wilful failure
to obey that contract.
Those adults who make reasonable attempts to supervise or
control their charges will not be subject to prosecution and
conviction. Those adults who find they cannot control the young
person can always advise the authorities and withdraw from their
agreement to supervise. As I have said many times before, all
the person who makes an undertaking has to do is to make a phone
call to the authorities and advise of the difficulty in
controlling that particular youth.
All this bill is attempting to do is to impress upon those who
sign an undertaking and impress upon the young person the
seriousness of the situation and to hold accountable those who
wilfully fail to carry out their end of the bargain with the
courts. We are only attempting to protect our citizens from
additional crime and victimization by the young person who has
been released into our community prior to the resolution of the
initial charge or charges.
As has been stated many times by myself and others, including
the Minister of Justice, this legislation has been incorporated
within Bill C-3, which is essentially a re-writing of the Young
Offenders Act. Some may well ask why I am pursuing Bill C-297
when the minister and cabinet through Bill C-3 have accepted the
same initiative. The answer, of course, is quite simple: We can
never be assured that Bill C-3 will become law.
Simply put, as of now, the Young Offenders Act is the law of the
land. Bill C-297 amends the Young Offenders Act. Each and every
day we do not have this change to our law results in another day
in which the failing of the Young Offenders Act in respect of the
criminal breach of an undertaking order is permitted to continue.
The minister recognized the problems of these undertakings when
she incorporated my Bill C-297 almost word for word in her youth
criminal justice legislation known as Bill C-3. All we are doing
with Bill C-297 is bringing into law a portion of Bill C-3 to
address the Young Offenders Act, the current law of Canada. Given
the history of Bill C-3, we do not know when it will become law.
Indeed, we do not even know if it will become law. If and when it
does, we do not know if it will remain in its present format.
In fact, yesterday, when I asked the minister if we would have
new legislation before an election call, she declined to give a
direct answer.
1850
However, we do know that Bill C-297 is acceptable to the
Minister of Justice because she used it when she prepared Bill
C-3. We do know that the majority of this place voted at second
reading to pass the legislation and send it to the justice
committee. We do know that the bill was returned to this place
without amendment.
It is good law. It is one of the primary reasons I sought
election to parliament. I think many members know that I have a
very personal reason for proposing the legislation. If it
succeeds in addressing justice in even one instance during the
anticipated limited existence of the Young Offenders Act, then we
as parliamentarians will have fulfilled some of our
responsibilities as legislators.
I appreciate that some may question the placing of this
legislation on our agenda when the government plans to address
the issue with its own legislation. However, that legislation is
severely stalled. It may be shelved or radically changed. It
may never see the light of day. We simply do not know what will
happen to it.
Bill C-297 is on the parliamentary calendar. It is a private
member's initiative. I understand it has the support of a
significant portion of members. It is my understanding that
most, if not all, of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will
be supporting the bill. It is my hope that many, if not all,
members of the government will support the legislation as it does
exactly as proposed by the Minister of Justice in Bill C-3.
The minister has incorporated my initiative into her
legislation, and I thank her for her support. Members of the New
Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party have
spoken in support of the bill. I urge everyone to carefully
consider its aim, its content and its consequences for victims of
crime and for the support and respect of our justice system. I
urge all members to support the bill.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to
contribute to the debate and add my support to Bill C-297
introduced by my colleague, the member for Surrey North.
The legislation now before us is testament to the determination
and dedication of the member for Surrey North in his campaign to
bring some semblance of rationale to the Young Offenders Act and
to put some emphasis and focus on an area that cries out for
attention.
As most members of the House now know, the member for Surrey
North and his family have been visited upon by youth crime. In
1992 the member's son, Jesse, was killed by a young offender.
This young offender was in the community on what is called, under
the Young Offenders Act, a section 7.1 undertaking. We are here
today to address this section by way of the member's initiative
to ensure such a tragedy, like the kind that befell the member
for Surrey North and his family, can from this point on be
averted.
As the member for Surrey North has said, the bill is simple and
minor. However, the consequences of the bill are profound,
addressing an issue that begs for attention and justice. In
short, Bill C-297 calls for parents and guardians of young
offenders to account when they fail to discharge their
responsibility to supervise. One would not think that we would
have to tell parents and guardians of their responsibilities in
such instances, but alas, some parents and guardians are less
responsible than the young offender in their charge. It is sad
but true. The son of the member for Surrey North was a victim of
this irresponsible and reprehensible parenting.
Bill C-297 changes section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act from a
simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid
offence. If passed, Bill C-297 would make offenders of section
7.1 of the Young Offenders Act subject to either imprisonment of
up to two years or the normal summary conviction penalties.
This amendment, by way of this private member's bill, should not
cause the government much concern. In fact this initiative forms
part of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-3. Sometimes
it takes a Canadian Alliance initiative to make things right,
even if the government cannot admit it.
Allow me to outline the genesis of Bill C-297 and what it
attempts to accomplish. Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act
permits a youth court judge to allow an accused person, who would
otherwise be held in custody, to be placed in the care of a
responsible person who must undertake in writing to be
responsible for the attendance of the young person in court as
required, and to ensure compliance with such other conditions as
the youth court judge may specify. At the same time, the accused
youth must also undertake in writing to comply with the
aforementioned arrangements and to comply with any other
arrangements as specified by the youth court judge. It seems
fairly straightforward and easy to understand. It simply allows
a parent or guardian to supervise the young person until charges
are decided by the court. It is a form of custody outside of
formal detention and can be considered bail.
One would think that any responsible parent or guardian would
enter this contract with the courts in good conscience and abide
by the terms and conditions. One would think that no matter what
the penalty would be for breaking the contract, the parent would
be mature enough to comply.
Sadly, as was the case involving my colleague for Surrey North,
some parents wilfully fail to provide proper and sufficient
supervision. It is this negligence on the part of the parent or
guardian that Bill C-297 seeks to address. It is a shame that
some parents are less responsible than the young person who is
supposed to be in their custody. This bill would make it clear
for those irresponsible types that the penalties for breaking the
contract are very severe.
1855
During his opening remarks in earlier debate on Bill C-297, the
member for Surrey North painted a tragic and bleak picture, which
I will paraphrase. For example, suppose one of the terms and
conditions of the handing over of the young person to the parent
or guardian is a parent agreeing to a curfew to ensure that the
young person, while awaiting court, is not tempted to fall back
into a situation where friends can influence the person and cause
that person further criminal charges. What if the parent has
always been the problem, never raising the young person properly
to begin with, running loosey-goosey rules of curfew and never
paying much attention to the young person's lifestyle? Is it not
time for that parent to be held accountable for this
irresponsibility?
There is no doubt that most Canadians have come to realize that
parents have to take more responsibility in raising their
children and that they should not start after they offend. It
should be a deeper responsibility. Raising children is a
commitment. It means more than having them around as a
accessories. Bill C-297 reinforces that premise.
In Bill C-297, if a young person merely breaks a condition of
release, then the parent may face a summary conviction procedure
for this failure to comply with the undertaking to supervise. If
the breach of the release condition leads to the commission of a
serious offence by the young person, that same parent may be
subject to an indictable proceeding. Like all hybrid offences,
the crown has the option. In the final analysis, the judge
naturally has the final say on the appropriate punishment.
We must impose on parents the gravity of improper, irresponsible
parenting, particularly when they have entered into a contract
with the courts. We have a responsibility to society to protect
the innocent, the innocent like Jesse Cadman. If a parent
thwarts this responsibility by not complying and wilfully breaks
this trust they accepted, then penalties should be imposed.
Some will say that Bill C-297 blames the parents for crimes
committed by their children. This is not the intent of Bill
C-297, as the member for Surrey North pointed out. Young persons
are responsible for their actions. Bill C-297 simply says that
parents or guardians are guilty of an offence for failing to
comply with an undertaking they entered into with the courts. It
is a serious commitment and not to be taken lightly. If they
cannot comply or have no intention of honouring the commitment,
they should never have entered into the contract in the first
place.
Bill C-297 requires our support now. We cannot wait for Bill
C-3 which contains the essence of this private member's bill. I
ask my colleagues on the government side and opposition members,
who have already agreed, to acknowledge the urgency of this
legislation and add their support.
Finally, I congratulate the member for Surrey North for his
tenacity, in the three years we have been here since the last
election, in getting his private member's bill to this stage and
for the great work that he has done. Most constituents never see
it when their people are working in committee. There is no more
dedicated member than the member for Surrey North when working in
committees of the House of Commons. I and I know all members of
the House congratulate him for that. He has worked very hard
since he has been here. I hope and trust that we will see this
bill passed and become law so that what happened to his family
will never happen to another family in Canada again.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I must say at the outset that I understand what can
motivate the member to present such a bill. However, I will
surprise no one by saying that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, cannot
support a bill aimed at changing certain rules provided for in
the Young Offenders Act, which is working well at this time.
I am not saying that the Young Offenders Act is the answer to
all the questions and all the problems and that it cannot be
touched. That is not what I am saying.
However, with regard to the subject matter of the bill proposed
by the member from the Canadian Alliance, it works. We must not
change the whole procedure and change legislative provisions
based on a single unfortunate incident.
1900
Obviously, out of a large number of cases, there will always be
one, two or three cases where people did not meet their
commitments, which is unfortunate. It happens with young
offenders as well as with adults, and each time people do not
meet their commitments or honour their signatures, there must be
a penalty. Certain penalties are currently provided for in the
Young Offenders Act, and we must not touch that.
Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to
comment on some of the things the Canadian Alliance member said
in order to set the record straight.
The member said he could not trust the government on this,
simply because Bill C-3, the government bill that treats young
people as criminals and increasingly turns the youth justice
system into an adult system is somehow a rewrite of the Young
Offenders Act. Nothing is further from the truth. It is totally
false.
I must confess I am extremely proud to say that I am the one to
blame for Bill C-3 not being passed before the end of this
session in June. I am the one, and I am proud of it. I am
preventing its going through committee stage with my endless
speeches, and this is why the government decided to move on to
something else.
Why am I doing this? Simply because, in Quebec, we enforce the
Young Offenders Act the way it should be enforced, and it is
bearing fruit. When I am saying that, I am not just talking
through my hat. We have the statistics to prove it, the same
Canadian government statistics the minister is using to do her
sell job, except that she makes a selective use of statistics.
These statistics show that Quebec has the lowest youth crime
rate and the lowest recidivism rate in all of Canada. Why?
Because we invest where it counts, namely in the reintegration
and social rehabilitation of young offenders. We did not start
yesterday and we are not about to stop either.
If the member really wanted to improve certain things, he could
ask his provincial government to look at the Quebec model and see
to it that his province does the same thing.
If I said that we have been at it for a long time and that we
have not stopped, it is because recently the Quebec government
decided to deal with delinquency at its onset, because it is well
known that delinquency starts at a very early age, especially in
low income families. The poorer you are, the more likely you are
one day to have a brush with the law. Quebec is poised to invest
up to $20,000 per child in the zero to five age group. In total,
Quebec is willing to invest $100,000 per young person to prevent
delinquency and assist the very parents the member wants to help
with his bill.
Here again we have the statistics to prove that there is less
violence in Quebec. There is still some violence, but less so
than in other provinces. And as long as there is violence, we
will have to intervene, I am quite aware of it.
In Quebec, we have civil provisions as well providing that
parents have the right and duty of guardianship, supervision and
education of their child. I believe there is similar legislation
in other provinces also. On the civil level, then, the parent has
a certain degree of responsibility if the child causes damage.
On the criminal level, there have been some very sweeping
studies done in Quebec, one of them the Jasmin report, to which I
have referred a number of times. Justice Jasmin, the
co-ordinating judge of the youth court, carried out an exhaustive
study of this matter and reached the conclusion that—to connect
this directly with the hon. member's bill—what the member wants
to do must not be done, that is criminalize parental
non-compliance with an undertaking they have signed in relation
to a commitment to release or support their child who is
experiencing problems.
1905
All parents cannot be lumped together. The situations must be
analyzed case by case and discretion must be left for the head
of the tribunal, the judge who examines the situation and will
bring down the decision required to attain the objective of
returning the young person to society as soon as possible.
We know that Bill C-297 has a negative effect on three major
points in terms of youth rehabilitation. That is why we are
opposed to it. A potential two year jail sentence for the
parents is not going to help their child fit back into society,
when he has the example of parents who have not honoured an
undertaking and have ended up behind bars.
I think the government must support and accompany such parents
so they realize the importance of the undertaking they have
signed, but not to make them criminals by doing so because of
something their child did.
The second thing concerns the parents dealing with the
situation. As I said earlier, it is often parents who have
nothing, who are living in poverty, are needy and do not
understand the whys and wherefores of the undertaking they have
signed. I am not saying that all those who sign it do not
understand it, but I can say that, with the way the courts
proceed and given the volume of cases presented, parents sign
undertakings and often leave the court without understanding the
implications of the undertaking they have signed.
The third point concerns a situation that could arise through a
young person's abuse of his parents.
We know that at certain stages of their development, adolescents
go through periods of rebellion. Who is to say that, with a
bill such as the one the hon. member would like passed, the
young person would not use it to blackmail his parents, saying
“Listen Dad, Mum, you signed that. If I make a mistake or if I
go back to court, you will pay for it. What is more, you could
end up in prison”.
At present, the law contains a certain balance, especially as
concerns parental undertakings. The undertaking must be
honoured and nothing must be done that would alter the balance
of parent-child pressure. These things work well, as I said
earlier and should remain in force.
In conclusion, I wish to say that before trying to amend
individual sections of the Young Offenders Act because of
situations in our riding or our province, we must look at the
overall picture.
I have a question for the member to put to his provincial
legislature, to the police in his province, and to all those
with direct or indirect responsibility for enforcing the Young
Offenders Act: How are they applying the legislation and what is
their policy with respect to young offenders? Very often, he
will see that the answer is next to nothing. That is where he
needs to direct his efforts, to harp on this as often as
possible so that the provinces apply the legislation properly
and invest properly in retraining and rehabilitation, as the
Young Offenders Act now in force requires them to do.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this
important debate that deals with youth in this country.
I want to begin by commending the hon. member for Surrey North
who has been tireless in his efforts on this subject. The hon.
member has much credibility and great sincerity with respect to
this issue, as it holds great personal importance for him. I
commend him for this, for all the work he does on the justice
committee and for the contributions he makes.
1910
Bill C-260 was the forerunner to the present bill, Bill C-297,
which would amend the Young Offenders Act in its current form and
place significantly more responsibility on persons who agree to
ensure that young persons will abide by specific court
conditions. They would be sureties that the judge would look to
to give the public the confidence that in fact conditions that
are placed on a young person will be adhered to. Most often it
would involve parents, but there would certainly be guardian
situations and times when agencies would be involved in the
assumption of these responsibilities.
In the time that has passed since October 1997 the government
has had ample time to revamp the Young Offenders Act and could
very easily have incorporated much of the same spirit that is
behind Bill C-297.
In that time the youth criminal justice bill has been brought
forward in parliament and has been before the justice committee.
Sadly, it is hopelessly bogged down in that committee and will
not see the light of day in the remaining time we have in this
parliament. The majority of witnesses who appeared during the
deliberations on Bill C-3 consistently denounced the bill in its
present form. They were very much in opposition to the bill
itself and the manner in which it was drafted. For these reasons
and many others, it brings us to the current day where a new bill
is sitting on the order paper in the committee and, because of a
number of factors, the country will be deprived of very common
sense and very positive amendments that could have been made,
much like the premise of the private member's bill.
Public pressure is very much on the Liberal government to change
this legislation because there is an active feeling in the
country that the youth criminal justice system is not working. It
has in fact failed Canadians and exacerbated the situation to
such a degree that there are many young people in the country who
feel that the current legislation protects them rather than
Canadians.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there are parts of the
country where the current legislation works better than others.
One of those provinces is Quebec. The initiatives taken within
the justice system in the province of Quebec are quite
innovative. It leads the country in many regards in the
application of programs and the positive initiatives that can and
do in fact take place under the current legislation. That
province has interpreted this legislation in such a way that it
works better there than it does in many other provinces. We have
to be quick to acknowledge that. It signals that the problem is
something that can be addressed.
Sadly, one of the most overriding flaws in our current young
offenders system is the lack of funding, the lack of resources
which the current government has allotted to address the issue.
We know that the original intent of the Young Offenders Act was
that the funding would be shared 50:50. The federal government
has never approached that level of funding commitment. It has
never held up its end of the bargain. In spite of this, Quebec
has been able to be very innovative and use programs to move into
areas of restorative justice, early intervention, police
counselling and community policing.
That is what was behind the spirit of the new youth criminal
justice bill, minus the funding. In fact, what we saw was a bill
that became very convoluted and very cumbersome in terms of the
references, new interpretations and new processes that we would
be putting into place. There were things like a parole system
for young individuals that would undermine any concept of truth
in sentencing that currently exists.
We would see a new type of system that would determine whether
an offence was a violent offence or a serious violent offence;
very esoteric and subjective notions which would be a make-work
program for many lawyers. I know that there are many criminal
defence lawyers in the country and we heard from many of them at
the committee. They were wringing their hands in anticipation of
the work that was going to be created by this new youth criminal
justice act.
There is a great and dire need for the government to introduce
legislation that will be effective, and effective in a way that
will address the current problems, but will also streamline the
way the system is working and address the issues of funding, not
only for those in the policing community, but also for those in
social services upon whom much of the responsibility of the
current system falls.
1915
There have been many high profile cases in recent years. The
previous speakers would be very aware of them. Many of the cases
have tragic implications. I am speaking of cases involving
victims such as Clayton McGloan, Matti Baranovski and Jonathan
Wamback.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jonathan Wamback's parents quite
recently in Newmarket, Ontario, and again recently in February.
We heard from Mr. Wamback at the justice committee. He raised
many of the same concerns we are discussing which form the
premise of this debate.
Their teenage son Jonathan was brutally attacked by a group of
teenage thugs and is still recovering from life threatening
injuries. As a result of this incident, his father Joseph
Wamback is actively involved in a petition drive that has
currently received over 800,000 signatures. The petition calls
for mandatory adult court trials of youths charged with serious
violent offences with sentencing changes which involve strict
incarceration, mandatory treatment programs and compulsory
follow-ups, to mention a few of the initiatives.
It is the action of concerned citizens like Mr. Wamback as well
as the actions of members of the House that are needed to bring
about legislative change. Bill C-297 is a very good beginning in
dealing with but one of the many complex mosaic of issues that
arise in our youth criminal justice system.
Sadly Bill C-3 will very likely die in committee. It is too
complicated. It establishes too many hurdles. Most of all it
accomplishes persistent, experienced, repeat offenders preying
upon a system that does not address their needs and does not
address the needs of the public.
Teenage victims like Matti Baranovski and Clayton McGloan lost
their lives in violent attacks by young offenders. Their cases
and that of Jonathan Wamback are glaring examples of what is
currently wrong with our system and our ability to address
serious violent offences. If Bill C-3 were to pass it would only
aggravate and further undermine the confidence of Canadians in an
overloaded and overburdened system.
As a crown attorney I have had firsthand experience in dealing
with young individuals, the victims and their families, and the
fallout. When I was elected as a member of parliament I came to
this place on a platform that included changing in whatever way I
could the way in which the system and the Young Offenders Act
were operating.
The Progressive Conservative Party has advocated changes. One
of the changes is to give judges more power to impose mandatory
treatment on troubled youths, those in need of therapy, those in
need of an attitudinal adjustment that came about through no
fault of their own. Many young people who find themselves
involved in the criminal justice system have been victims
themselves and have come from extremely troubled homes. They
have been involved in alcohol and substance abuse and have never
had an example or a guiding hand. With early intervention and
the attention and counselling that sometimes come with it, those
individuals would have a chance.
We in the Conservative Party would also be advocating an ability
to make it easier to transfer serious violent crime cases
involving young offenders to adult court. Much of that has been
accomplished. We would also enact parental responsibility into
our system in the way in which young offenders would be held
financially responsible, as would their parents if there was in
fact culpability.
We would lower the age of accountability to include violent
criminals of all ages. Currently violent offenders below the age
of 12 face no criminal punishment under our system. I saw on
many occasions the failings of our system up close and personal.
I commend the efforts of the member for bringing the bill
forward. It is a bill that we support. It is a bill that we
very much embrace in the need and the drive to change our system.
With Bill C-3 the focus is correct. The focus is on
rehabilitative front end justice, modelled after what they are
doing in the province of Quebec. I support that. However, to
have front end preventive measures enacted it is necessary that
the resources and the focus be there to help those programs reach
fruition.
The type of initiative before us in the form of a private
member's bill is very much a step in the right direction. We
need to broaden the approach and create more accountability, and
this is what the bill seeks to do. By putting greater emphasis
on protecting the public Bill C-297—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but his time is over.
1920
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to say at the onset, as mentioned by my colleague, the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, our party's justice critic, that
even though the Bloc Quebecois is not in favour of the bill, we
have the greatest of respect for what motivated its mover.
We understand that very private event in his life, which I am
told was the reason he entered public life, led him to look at
the role of parental responsibility within the context of
delinquency, I would even say of the criminalization of young
persons.
However we have to be very consistent with the approach and the
values we have always adhered to in this regard and that are
somehow part of the Quebec model.
There is a Quebec model in philanthropy, economic development
and cultural affirmation. There is also one in the way we see
equal opportunity. This vision of equal opportunity makes us
realize that we are not all born equal, and I will get back to
this later.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm established a somewhat
mathematical link between the potential for crime in young
persons and the environment they live in. As the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I am keenly aware when I rise in this
House with the ardour, enthusiasm and determination that are my
trademark, that, unfortunately, without prevention some of my
constituents may in the future join the ranks of these youths
who may, at one time or another, turn to abuse and delinquency.
The Quebec model leads us to believe that there must be a
difference. I wholeheartedly subscribe to what the member for
Berthier—Montcalm said. There must be a difference between the
way we administer justice for young offenders and for adults.
This difference must be centered on the potential for
rehabilitation we believe in.
As a member of parliament, I have often seen young people of 14
or 15, and sometimes as young as 13, who belonged to gangs. They
were subject to what was not always a positive influence, even
though there were very often parents in the picture, parents who
did their best to be good role models for their children. This
can happen at a time when young people are vulnerable also.
Why are we vulnerable at 13, 14 or 15? We were all that age
once. For some of us, that was longer ago, but we were all 13,
14 or 15 at one time. That is a time when we rebel. There are
some for whom that rebellion goes on for quite some time, but we
were all members of gangs at one time. At that particular time
in our lives, we try to distance ourselves from parental
authority. We ask ourselves questions. It is a time of life when
physical transformations occur and we do not always understand
them. It is a time when we wonder whether we have a place in
society.
It is a time when we ask ourselves questions about the future.
If we do not find satisfactory answers, we may try various ways
to attract people's attention and look for ways to challenge
the social order. Some young people may choose delinquency.
In Quebec, we have always believed in rehabilitation.
Incidentally, I must say that the Bloc Quebecois is extremely
disappointed to see that the government decided to make the
Young Offenders Act, which will become the youth criminal
justice act, much harsher.
1925
We do not understand. Still, we are well aware that the Minister
of Justice, who is from Alberta, is moved by electoral motives.
She must be more to the right than the Liberal Party's natural
position. Why is such a thing happening in the year 2000? It is
because there are clear indications—and political intuition never
fails—that we are on the eve of an election. And on the eve of an
election campaign, the whole issue of the reform of the Young
Offenders Act is of particular importance in western Canada.
We all know that in Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to a lesser
degree in British Columbia, there is the issue of
radicalization. It involves discovering whether the Liberal
Party or the Canadian Alliance Party will go farther in
radicalizing justice and the treatment of young people.
I congratulate myself and the member for Berthier—Montcalm for
not having lost sight of the values of justice and
rehabilitation of young Quebecers.
Members will recall 1988, which was an important year in
parliamentary annals. The year 1988-89 is important because, as
the member for Québec and critic on poverty reminded us
frequently, this parliament decided to eliminate poverty.
A resolution was passed by all parties in the House. It was a
time when politics lived without the Bloc Quebecois, with the
litany of injustices against Quebec that that meant.
I want to remind members that in 1988-89 all political parties
represented in the House passed a resolution to ask this
government to reduce poverty substantially over 10 years.
There was even talk of eliminating child poverty.
To add to this fight against poverty, the Progressive
Conservative Party, whose political weight we are aware of at
the moment—and I do not want to bring back bad memories for
anyone—which was in government at the time passed the CAPC
program, the community action program for children.
Why am I mentioning this program? Some may say that the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is wandering off topic, which is not
like him. One of the objectives of this program was to develop
parenting skills. In my riding, there were several projects.
We do not always learn how to become parents. There are no
courses on becoming parents. It sometimes happens in life that
one is faced with a pregnancy and one sets out on this adventure
that most of us find exciting, but one does not always have the
parenting skills to cope with the various human development
challenges that arise.
The community action program for children was designed to
provide parents with tools for developing a meaningful
relationship with their children and keeping them from turning
to delinquency.
If Bill C-297 were passed, it would mean that we could find
ourselves in a situation where this vital parent-child
relationship could be destroyed. When I say this, I do not in
any way wish to downplay the importance of parental
responsibility. In the Quebec system, the civil law system,
there is full provision for parental responsibility. There are
even mechanisms for the loss of parental authority.
I will conclude by saying that we understand the hon. member's
entirely legitimate motivations. We hope that he will decide,
as the Bloc Quebecois has done, to invest in prevention and to
believe that one cannot have the same justice system for both
young people and adults.
It is with these considerations in mind that the Bloc Quebecois,
with its usual sense of responsibility, has unfortunately
concluded that it will be unable to support the bill before us.
1930
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it seems that some people construe this bill as an
attempt to oppress people, throw kids in jail and throw away the
key. It is actually about accountability and accepting
responsibility and consequences for one's actions and
undertakings.
I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to the
private member's bill of my hon. colleague from Surrey North,
Bill C-297. Last November I was ready to speak to Bill C-3, the
new youth criminal justice act, which incorporated the entire
substance of Bill C-297. Unfortunately, the hon. member's words
and remarks of last year have come true. He said of the
government's legislation “Quite simply, I do not anticipate that
the new youth justice legislation will be implemented for some
time yet. I have heard possibly by year's end at the earliest,
but even that may be wishful thinking”.
He also thought that this amendment was sufficiently important
to be incorporated within the present Young Offenders Act. As
there is much to complain about the current legislation, it seems
that we are left to reform by amendment rather than come up with
new legislation that will do the job. We will wait to see if
Bill C-3 can get out of committee before the next election. In
the meantime, I certainly wish this bill success because the
government's legislation seems to be bogged down.
The hon. member for Surrey North is right. This legislation is
of sufficient importance. From all accounts, it has sufficient
support from most members of the House to succeed, despite the
actions of the Bloc Quebecois in committee, which is
filibustering the whole youth criminal justice bill.
Consequently, this bill had to be brought back to the House in
its present form, rather than incorporated in the new legislation
that was meant to cover the entire range of youth justice.
I was going to say that it will be interesting to see if Bloc
members will support this private member's bill, but according to
the speeches we have just heard, obviously they are not
interested in accountability and responsibility.
Bill C-297 seeks to amend section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act
by allowing a youth court judge or a justice to allow an accused
young offender to be placed in the care of a responsible person.
This person would undertake in writing to be responsible for the
attendance of a young person in court when required and comply
with other conditions that a youth court judge or justice may
specify, such as curfews. The young person would also comply in
writing with the arrangements and other conditions specified by
the youth judge or justice. It is a form of bail. It is also a
contract, with all the inherent elements of a contract, such as
responsibility, terms, conditions and penalties for breaching the
contract.
Bill C-297 seeks to broaden the accountability of those who have
in writing agreed to provide proper supervision for the young
person involved. This amendment would broaden the consequence of
failure of compliance to the conditions of the contract from a
simple summary conviction to a dual procedure or a hybrid
offence. Failure to comply under the new amendment would be
punishable by up to two years of imprisonment. It is a fairly
serious punishment.
Currently, failure to supervise constitutes a summary offence
punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 or six months of
imprisonment, or both, which for some offenders is a very small
requirement. One could argue that serious incidents seldom happen
with such breaches under the current system. This may or may not
be so. However, no matter if there were absolutely no incidents,
such an amendment would still be necessary because the
seriousness of the issue would still exist.
This is definitely not a frivolous amendment, as the Bloc would
construe it. It is obvious, merely by the inclusion of this
amendment in the legislation of the Minister of Justice, Bill
C-3, that there is widespread support for this initiative.
1935
It is important to note what this legislation is not. It is not
the sins of the sons or daughters being visited upon the parents.
This is a common misconception of the bill. No adult will
vicariously suffer any penalty for the misdeeds of a youth. The
circle of accountability has been broadened with this amendment,
as has the circle of responsibility.
Both the adults and the courts will have agreed to take on this
responsibility. With the passage of this bill the courts would
have a choice of summary conviction or to proceed by way of
indictment. That is a choice for the courts to make.
If those responsible for the accused decide that the
responsibility would be too much for them to handle, if
circumstances change during that time, or even if the young
person violates the agreement, the adult has the means to change
the contract or has the option to inform the authorities. In
fact, I would say that the adult has the responsibility to inform
the authorities.
Taking on such a responsibility as that of parents and guardians
for youth charged with crimes would be a tall order, requiring a
serious commitment to the task. For instance, if a youth had ADD
or ADHD the parents would have to consider carefully their
capacity to supervise and to comply with the agreement. Such a
disorder has a huge effect on behaviour. Parents of youth with
ADD or ADHD would say that it is difficult to manage at the best
of times. It would be almost impossible to ask parents or
guardians to be responsible for such an unpredictable situation
and person.
The amendment would also bring to bear the gravity of the
agreement that would well address the relationship of the youth
to the parents or guardians. Rather than exacerbate the
situation between the parents and the youth, this amendment would
call upon the parents to acknowledge responsibility where perhaps
none existed before. Rather than avoiding the situation of lack
of parental supervision, which may have contributed to the
charges in the first place, a positive reaction would be the
clarity in the issue of responsibility brought to the attention
of the parents or guardians. A clear choice would be made by the
parents and a serious consequence would be the result of failure
to comply with an agreement. Again, I must reinforce that this
is not a forced choice, but a serious one nonetheless.
I was glad to read of the support from members of both the
government and the opposition for this bill. We know that we are
on the right track and that my hon. colleague is right to have
this amendment in a private member's bill, given the state of
Bill C-3 being bogged down in a Bloc engineered filibuster in the
standing committee.
In this amendment we do not see a “throw the book at them”
approach, of which we on this side are sometimes accused. We do
see the bar of accountability and responsibility raised for both
the courts and those who seek to enter such an agreement. The
punishment for failure is greater because the stakes are higher
and the cost of failure of compliance can be great. People
experience and in fact my hon. colleague from Surrey North
experienced the cost of failure to comply. No one knows the
price of the failure of the current system better than he does.
Reading the speeches of the various members of the parties in
the House I see a common refrain: Canadians want more
accountability on the part of parents for the criminal actions of
their children. We also hear from some quarters that society is
to blame and that accountability is somehow everyone's
responsible. We know that when we say everyone is responsible,
that usually means no one is responsible.
We must get to the root of crime. Peer pressure, poverty and a
myriad of other conditions contribute to the decision to break
the law, but we also know that there are many young offenders for
whom social conditions were not a factor. It is a complex issue,
but let me say that it is also a decidedly simple one. Our
personal actions are ours alone. We take on responsibility
individually and our accountability is personal.
The bill strikes a chord at all levels: the courts, the adult
population and youth. The act, by enlisting the co-operation of
parents or guardians in the courts, illustrates to the young
offender that even adults must act with some sense of
responsibility.
This seemingly tiny bill, the purpose of which is to make a
common sense amendment to the Young Offenders Act, illustrates
clearly that while people may forgive, circumstances can be very
unforgiving.
The circumstances which resulted in the death of the son of the
hon. member for Surrey North were the result of a series of wrong
decisions made by individuals. He and his wife and daughter will
never recover from the loss. He and his family have turned their
tragedy into a positive crusade to save others from similar pain.
He is to be commended for his courage in acting upon his
convictions.
1940
I call upon all hon. members of the House to put aside partisan
concerns, consider not only where the bill came from, but the
possible consequences to people and their families if we fail to
enact the bill. I call upon all members of the House to please
support this legislation.
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.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 12,
2000, the House in committee of the whole will now proceed to the
consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of
the whole.
(The House went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken
in the chair)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
(On the title)
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question on the bill. Am I allowed at this
point to question any aspect of the bill?
The Chairman: Yes, we are on the title. I think the
member can ask a question.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the question is in
regard to the title, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act
and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
My question for the minister is, who was involved in the
negotiations on the details of this bill? Individual members of
parliament were not involved.
I am asking him, in terms of transparency, how this came about.
I hope the minister is prepared at least to answer that one
question, if nothing else.
1945
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer not
only this question but indeed all questions that members may want
to pose about the content of the bill.
To answer the question the hon. member asked, it has been my
practice as a minister in the rather unusual portfolio of Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons to consult colleagues
from all political parties through the leadership of of the
parties as assigned by the party leaders for the purpose of the
administration of the House.
In other words, there is rarely a day without my consulting the
respective leaders of the parties in the House: the opposition
House leader, the House leader for the Bloc, the House leader for
the NDP and the House leader for the Conservatives. That is the
traditional way by which House leaders consult each other.
As a minister there is not a requirement to consult per se
opposition parties before drafting legislation, but given the
particular nature of this bill and given the particular role that
I have as minister of state and Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, I have consulted very widely with other
political parties through their House leaders.
Might I take this occasion to congratulate the House leaders of
other parties for their valuable contributions, each one of them
speaking very eloquently on various issues that assisted in the
drafting of the legislation. They have always been very
courteous in making themselves available and in contributing. For
that I thank them immensely. That is the way in which the
consultations were held. I am sure most members would agree that
is the fair and appropriate way to have consultations in this
regard.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on that same point, this
bill was presented to members of parliament exactly 24 hours ago.
It is unprecedented that a bill as complicated as this one would
be laid on the desks of all members of parliament 24 hours before
we proceed to clause by clause consideration.
The Canadian public watching tonight should understand that the
minister because of the complexity of the bill has three
officials with him at the table. He has three officials with him
to interpret a bill, which members of parliament cannot do in a
24 hour period. We do not have the resources in a 24 hour period
to go through the details of the bill.
The question I have for the minister would be simple. Why would
he attempt in the old fashioned sense to rush through a bill like
this one in the dying days of this session without consulting
members of parliament and without having the bill before members
of parliament so that they could examine it as closely as he has
been able to do with the aid of assistants? I point to the three
technical advisers that the minister has with him tonight. They
were not available to individual members of parliament.
I would like to quote from the editorial section of the Hill
Times. It deals with the point of individual members of
parliament, and I am talking about the member of parliament from
the Ontario region. The article suggests that everything is
conducted by the Prime Minister's Office, basically keeping
members of parliament, in fact Liberal members of parliament, out
of the circle.
We have Liberal members of parliament not knowing what the
government is doing. They are being blindsided by their own
ministers, particularly the PMO, and in this case I might suggest
the minister responsible for this bill.
1950
I want to quote from the article. The member says that there
are at least 50 potential Guy Fawkes in the Liberal caucus.
Historians would know that Guy Fawkes led a group of rebels who
wanted to blow up King James I and parliament in 1605 in what was
known as the gunpowder plot.
I guess the member is suggesting that there are a number of very
disgruntled members of parliament on that side, the government
side of the House. Obviously the government was pressured by the
official opposition. The history of the bill will reveal that it
has been brought in to appease what is now known as the Canadian
Alliance, formerly known as the Reform Party.
Many Reform members landed in this place in 1993 because they
railed against everything that we would consider the rightful
duty of members of parliament. In other words, they pretended to
be everything but parliamentarians. They exercised their lungs
to a great extent on the benefits individual members of
parliament would receive when they retired. They railed against
it because it was a very convenient thing to do.
Now we have the CA members of parliament having second thoughts
about what they did in the 1993 and 1997 elections. The interim
leader of the CA, the member who formerly represented Beaver
River, talked about pigs at the trough in terms of pensions. They
made the Canadian people believe that every member of parliament
would retire as millionaires if they were in this place for as
little as six years because of the pension plan, only to find out
that it was not the case.
The example I used last night was the member for Saint John,
formerly the interim leader of the Conservative Party. She has
spent the good part of her adult life in public life. In fact
she has spent from 1993 to the present day in the House of
Commons. If she were to retire today she would get a pension of
about $20,000 a year. She would have to live to be 117 years old
if it were to become a million dollar pension. If we simply
multiple $20,000 by 50, that would put it in the $1 million
range.
That type of absurdity, which the Reform Party preached in 1993
making all members of parliament look greedy and as if they were
pigs at the trough, got them into this place. Now they suddenly
realize that it was not as good as they thought it was. However,
they did rail against it and it did get them into this place. Now
there is a certain sense of reality.
It is like a lynching in the morning. They are now realizing
that they are not quite as popular as they were back in 1993.
There is a strong possibility that they will be defeated at the
polls when the next election comes.
Let us think about it. They do not have a leader. They are
still trying to determine if the leader will be coming from
Ontario in the name of Tom Long, or from Alberta in the name of
Stockwell Day, or the individual who formerly led the Reform
Party whose name I cannot mention in the House because of the
rules. He is the member who represents Calgary Southwest.
They are suddenly realizing that they are caught in a vacuum.
Things are not going quite as well as they thought they were for
them politically. Some of those members are saying that they
have been in this place since 1993 and if they suddenly leave
they will not have pensions.
1955
They are realizing they may not run in the next election because
it does not look quite as easy as it was back in 1993, or indeed
in 1997 when they won again out west. They are saying they need
a bit of a safety net, and understandably so. We do not argue
with that.
Most intelligent people would say that when we dedicate 6, 8,
10, 12 or 15 years of our lives to public life, at the sacrifice
of our families in many cases, we are entitled to some kind of a
package at the end of the day.
In fact, some of the wives of the CA members are now saying that
their husbands went to Ottawa and railed against the pension and
are asking where it leaves them as spouses or as widows if
something should happen to their husbands. That is the sad
reality. It is a sad reality that some of us will not be here
forever and some of us will leave a spouse back home alone. We
are saying that they are entitled to pensions. We have always
said that as members of the Conservative Party, and rightfully so
the Liberals have said the same.
When I die my wife is entitled to some kind of compensation.
This is a sad reality for CA members. They are willing to
swallow themselves whole on this issue because they realize that
they made a huge mistake back in 1993. Here is an example of the
hypocritical nature of their position.
One of our members ran against a Reform member in the last
election. I will not identify the member, but I can if
necessary. The Reform candidate was railing about the pension
the particular MP would get if he were re-elected: he was going
to get a million dollar pension if he were re-elected to the
House of Commons, which was absolutely not the truth. At that
time that member was to get a $16,000 pension, not even equalling
the $20,000 this member will get after eight years of service.
The million dollar pension turned out to be a $16,000 at the age
of 55.
The Reform candidate was railing against a golden pension of a
million dollars that turned into a meagre $16,000 pension. The
candidate for the Reform Party was yakking in that fashion,
condemning that little pension if the other candidate were
re-elected. If the Reform candidate had been eligible for a
pension as a school bus driver, it would have surpassed by 100%
the pension of the re-elected member of the House of Commons. In
other words, his pension would be $32,000 a year as a bus driver,
but he wanted to deny a pension to a member of parliament who had
come to this place week in and week out, leaving his family
behind, because it was fashionable at the time.
I want to quote from a former member of this place who did not
come back as a Reformer. His name is Stephen Harper. This is
what he had to say about the process we are now going through. It
was very accurate.
I am trying to lay out that the official opposition, the CA
formerly known as the Reform Party, has scrambled in the last
number of weeks to make this happen. That is how it usually
works. It is sort of like the Friday night special. It is
getting late in the session, late in the week, and they will just
kind of slide this thing through. Guess what? They are not going
to force it to a vote or to a debate.
2000
It will be a conspiracy of silence to put this bill through the
House of Commons without any public input, without any
transparency. There is no transparency. As I mentioned, the
bill was laid on every member's desk last night at six o'clock.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: You should have had your House leader
talk to you about that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: That is pure nonsense and he knows it.
In any event, Stephen Harper, who refused to run for the Reform
Party in the 1997 election said this about the case of the
Reformers swallowing themselves whole or flip-flopping on this
pension issue. I am quoting from the National Post, the
official Reform Party CA publication. The owner of the paper is
Conrad Black but at least he had the decency to print this.
Stephen Harper said, “It is a case of you scratch my back, I
will scratch yours and all the skin comes off the taxpayers”.
Stephen Harper is president of the National Citizens' Coalition.
He said, “It is a terrible betrayal of all the people who voted
Reform”. It is a betrayal of the people who voted Reform
because many of those members, and I can point at them now, came
in here in that bit of rage against pensions.
Some of them came here because they defied everything that
parliament stood for. For example the present leader of the CA,
formerly the leader of the Reform Party, the member for Calgary
Southwest, is the guy who took the keys. They handed him the
keys to a chauffeur driven car in 1993. He made a point of
having the press there when he eagerly passed the keys back and
said, “This is a perk, I do not want this car”.
In 1997 after having walked to the House of Commons on shoe
leather as most of us do, he decided, “That car might have been
a good idea. Why don't I keep the car? It is four years later
and people will have forgotten what we did in 1993”. It was a
publicity stunt. People will forget. He is quoted as saying
that people have 20 second memories. I guess he figured that the
20 second memory would kick in or kick out. People would not
remember, but they did. It is on tape. We watch it on the
evening news from time to time. They love to replay that one.
There was a major flip-flop on that one. That was a perk. That
is one thing most of us intelligently think when we look at a
minister's or the Prime Minister's life and how busy they are
going from here to there. I think they are entitled to a driver
to get around the city to go from meeting to meeting.
Then there was the Stornoway issue. For those people who do not
know but I think most people do, Stornoway is the official
residence of the official opposition leader. That is at public
expense as is 24 Sussex Drive. We are saying the Leader of the
Opposition is entitled to a home because that person is
sacrificing a lot to lead a party and it is a very responsible
position. It is the same for the Prime Minister. No one would
deny the Prime Minister 24 Sussex Drive and what goes with it.
In this case the Leader of the Opposition mocked it. He said,
“Stornoway is nothing more than a fancy bingo hall. I am not
going to stay there. Forget about it. It is not in the cards”.
Except when he got elected as Leader of the Official Opposition
he changed his mind. He suddenly forgot what he said. It looked
pretty attractive from his point of view after he became Leader
of the Official Opposition. So guess what? He moved into
Stornoway. How did he get there? He got there in that car
provided to him by the taxpayers of Canada, the very car he said
he would never drive in.
He moved into the hall and, insult of all insults, he did not
turn it into a bingo hall as he said he would. That could have
offset the expenses of running Stornoway if he wished. If he
took in 500 bucks a night on bingo he could turn it over to
general revenue. Is the finance minister or the minister
responsible for the treasury board here? I do not see them. I
guess that was part of the scenario, “I will turn it into a
bingo hall and hand over the 500 bucks or whatever we take in
each night and that will help offset the expenses”. But no, he
did not do that.
He is living there with his family which he is entitled to do. We
do not deny that. But the truth is he railed against it.
2005
That is the type of flip-flop which I think the Canadian people
find unsavoury. In fact supporters of the former Reform Party
find it unsavoury. That is exactly what Stephen Harper is
referring to in the National Post article. I think the
headline on the article tells it all. It reads in big print in
the National Post of June 13, 2000, “Grit pension ploy
divides alliance” and it is subtitled, “Bill prompts party to
drop hardline stance against system it had often attacked”.
Those members attacked it often and ferociously for a number of
years. I could read a number of other quotes of what they had to
say about the pension plan.
The point I am attempting to make is simply how could any party
rail against a pension plan the way those members did simply to
get a seat in the House of Commons? It was a convenient thing to
rail against. Then they came into this place and completely
changed their position. Hence, they were swallowing themselves
whole. What other party could get away with it?
This is pretty cute. We are going through the bill clause by
clause, not to lose focus on the bill itself. There is a
provision which gives them a year. Maybe the officials at the
desk can point this out when it is their turn to consult with the
minister. This is quite cute. This is part of their scenario.
They are hoping against hope that the election will be held
within the year. Then they could safely get away with what they
are doing.
Tonight in the House I noticed how clever they are. We have to
give them points for being clever. About half of them stood up to
vote for the bill and they were looking around to see if their
neighbour would stand up to vote for it. Some of them, and I will
give them credit for this, had the backbone to stand up tonight
to vote for this pension change. Many of them did not. They were
looking over their shoulders to see what might happen. Paranoia
surrounds that party to begin with.
There was certainly no free vote which is another thing they
railed and chatted about almost continuously between 1993 and
1997.
Anyway, they now will have a year. They have to decide within a
year whether they are going to buy into the pension plan. This
is their second go around.
An hon. member: The third go around.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Oh, it is the third go around. The
first time some of them opted in, they were relegated to the back
benches for defying their leader because they chose to buy into
the pension plan. That was at about the same time when their
leader was sitting in the second or third row. The leader of the
Reform Party, when he first came to the House of Commons said,
“Hey, listen. This is new. I do not want to be special. I am
going to sit in the second or third row. This is going to be
great and wonderful. It is a new sense of equality in the House
of Commons”.
That was a very popular thing to say and do until after about
three or four weeks he decided that he was getting lost in the
crowd. Yes, there are such things as television cameras. Yes,
there is something to be said for sitting in the front row. I
would just love to be sitting beside my deputy leader in the
front row but that privilege is given to our House leader. He is
the honoured gentleman to sit beside this wonderful lady day
after day and night after night in the House of Commons.
Guess what the Leader of the Opposition did on this one. He
completely changed his mind. “Hey, listen, that sounded good
but it does not work so off I go to the front row”. He did not
look too good in the front row. He had to have his hair changed.
This is true as I am standing here.
He said, “I do not like the look of my hair”. I think they did
a focus group.
2010
It is like me, Mr. Chairman. You can remember when I had a
pretty good hairdo about 12 years ago. My wife does not brag
about my hair anymore for obvious reasons. I do not have much.
That did not stop the Reform Party leader. Guess what he did?
He had a makeover, which is fine. There is nothing wrong with
doing that. A lot of people do it. He got a new hairdo and a
dye job to go with it. He did not like his voice because the
focus group said it was too high and squeaky and he had better
change it. He attempted to change his voice in his makeover. He
got rid of the glasses as well and used contact lenses because
apparently that gives a better impression on television.
The point I am making is that these are major flip-flops, some
of them personal, to which we are entitled. I guess dress is
important in this business. The way we comb our hair and the
colour of it are all important. Those are major flip-flops by
the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Let us get rid of those phoneys in
Ottawa.
Mr. Greg Thompson: He is quoted as saying, “Let us get
rid of those phoneys in Ottawa”. Exactly. He mentioned that
time and again, those phoney politicians in Ottawa. He railed
against anyone who was a “professional politician”.
We notice that he does not rail against these professional
politicians anymore. Why? Because he is a professional
politician. He is the consummate politician. He is the
politician who came to Ottawa. This was an intellectual
flip-flop but I am not sure that he will pull this one off.
Remember the slogan was that the west wants in, “We want a voice
from western Canada that will go there and set the tone for the
rest of the nation”. That is what they wanted.
The west wants in was his slogan. It got him here in 1993,
among other things which I have already mentioned. He came to
Ottawa but suddenly realized that his so-called right-wing
agenda, if one wants to call it that because I hate mixing up
left and right, would not make him Prime Minister of Canada.
Talk about this makeover; this was a complete flip-flop. We can
change our hairstyle, dye our hair, cap our teeth, put in contact
lenses or whatever we have to do, even lose weight if we have to.
The major flip-flop is he said, “I cannot get elected on this
right-wing agenda so I am going to have to put a little water in
my wine to temper down my policies. We are going to do a number
of things”. This was the leader of the Reform Party speaking at
the time.
First, he said the party would change its name.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I have been listening very attentively for quite some time to the
hon. member, my colleague from the Progressive Conservative
Party. I wonder what this has to do with the title of the bill
because that is what I thought we were supposed to be debating.
Mr. Greg Thompson: I am getting to that.
The Chairman: The member says he is coming to the title
so we will look forward to those pertinent parts of his remarks.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the
title. That is a good point and I will move in that direction.
We are getting at the major flip-flop and it has to do with the
title of the bill, and I will suggest a new title once I reach
that point. I do not dare to say it out loud at this point but
eventually we will get there.
He decided that despite everything he has done he cannot become
Prime Minister of Canada because he will have to water down his
policies. He will have to change direction a little and the
first thing he will do is change the name of the party.
It went from the Reform Party to CA. We have had a lot of jokes
in this place, some of them played out by the Prime Minister, and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has had some fun with that
title as well.
Talk about chameleons, Canadian Alliance members not only changed
their image, they changed the name of their party in the hopes of
broadening the base. They have changed their policy to broaden
the base.
2015
We have to remember that they came into this place with the idea
that the west wants in. Now they are flirting around with the
big blue machine in Ontario. Bay Street will now run the party
because they have a man by the name of Tom Long up there who has
pockets deeper than all of us combined.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. It does seem to me that we should be debating the title
of the bill. I wonder if the member is just running off at the
mouth like this because his party is down to 9% in the polls. Is
that part of it? I just wonder if he could work that into his
comments.
The Chairman: I appreciate the assistance of the House
leader of the official opposition. We are under a time limit, as
hon. members know, with respect to the committee of the whole and
there are some other members who have given notice to the Chair
that they would like to ask some questions of the minister.
Might I suggest we move on to questions? The hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest of course will have the opportunity to
make a 20 minute speech, at the very least, on third reading
later this day. Perhaps we can deal with the bill. Is that
agreeable to the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, with your tolerance and
understanding, I want to move to the question regarding the title
of the bill.
The Chairman: I think it might be wise, in fairness to
other hon. members who do want to ask some questions, that we
allow some time for that, given the time constraints on the
committee. I would urge the hon. member to exercise a little
judicious restraint, particularly when he seems to be straying a
bit far from the title in his remarks.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit
that the name of the bill should be changed to the reversal of
fortunes bill for the reform party.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, if nothing else, this has been
somewhat entertaining.
I want to answer a few of the initial questions that have been
asked. In the first part there were questions, but I think we
eventually strayed somewhat from the questions. I will leave
other members to judge as to whether or not the word somewhat is
appropriate.
One the first point, whether or not this bill was rushed, I do
not think that is the case. I submit to the House that there
were wide consultations. As a matter of fact, the consultations
were so wide that things being what they are, some of them were
even leaked to the media.
Even if one claims that he or she was not consulted, it was
reasonably easy to find out from one's House leader whether or
not consultations had taken place because it was front page news
in several media, much to my chagrin. I still have a few scars
from that particular episode not that many weeks ago. I do not
believe that anyone can claim to be surprised that this bill is
before the House.
The second thing is that there were some comments on whether or
not this was a partisan effort on the part of the government
against its own backbench, and stuff like this. I have not made
this a partisan issue at all. Even if provoked, I have not
touched this and I will not. I will gladly engage tomorrow in a
partisan argument on policy with my colleagues across the way. I
am looking forward to tomorrow's question period. If hon.
members across want to give it their best shot before we leave
here on questions that are of interest on policy issues, I will
gladly do that. However, I have not and I will not take part in
the debate on this bill in terms of a partisan accusation against
anybody, nor will I say who wanted what portion of the bill to be
enacted as opposed to another portion, which party, which group
of MPs or which individual MP wanted a particular clause as
opposed to another clause, as opposed to an amendment.
I have not done that and I will not, even though there has been
some provocation to do so. I believe I have to be true to the
admonition I gave to colleagues yesterday in the House at the
second reading debate. If I want to be consistent with that, and
I believe that I am, then I will not reveal that.
2020
I am of the view that the only reason this parliament has worked
at all, and I happen to believe that it has worked quite well,
has been that the House leaders of all parties have been able to
speak to each other on a variety of issues at any time, without
notice, and to consult each other for the benefit of making this
great institution work. They have been able to do that in full
confidence knowing they would not have to stand in front of a
microphone five minutes later and explain what they might have
said in a remark to their colleagues of other parties.
I am not just saying that about the relations between myself as
the government House leader and any one of the House leaders of
other parties. I believe it has been true of relations between
opposition parties as well, and I compliment all House leaders
for that. Again on that score, I do not believe that it would be
appropriate for me to say that this clause is beneficial for
someone or that there was a deal made this way or that way, and
so on. I will not do that.
In the initial remarks, I heard an hon. member say that I had
experts available this evening. I do not apologize for that. I
believe they are here to answer questions about an individual
clause and how this bill will work. These same officials and
others will be available tomorrow and in the weeks to come for
individual members of parliament because this is, after all, a
bill that affects individual members of parliament.
When it is all said and done, I am told that the House of
Commons officials will distribute a circular informing members on
which officials can answer questions, whether it has to do with
accrual or how one buys back time time, if that happens to be the
case for a particular member.
I was informed earlier this day by the very competent people who
are sitting with me here in the House of Commons that officials
will be available to answer the following questions: How will it
affect the tax treatment? How does it do so if a person has
already full contributed to their registered retirement savings
plan? How does one transfer that? What is the percentage of
interest that one has to pay if one is buying back time? All
this will be made available for members of parliament. Those are
the kinds of questions I thought we would be engaging in
regarding this bill.
Something has been said here that I do not think is accurate.
There is this business of the election to buy back and the
limitation of a year in that regard. On this score, I will say
that no one lobbied me on any side of the House for that
provision to be there that way. That provision is there that way
because it is the one that already exists in the act.
In other words, someone who was, hypothetically, elected in
1984, defeated in 1988, and came back in 1997 had one year to buy
back or to make up his or her mind to buy back the time. If we
are going to have a provision here whereby members can elect to
buy back the time, why should we treat members of the House
differently than we would treat someone who was defeated and came
back? My argument is that they are entitled to the same thing
and that is why that is the case. However, that is not a
provision of this bill. That is already the case for anyone who
has ever served and came back later and bought back their
service. That was not invented for anyone sitting in the House
now. Finally, to repeat what I said, I was not asked by anyone
to put that in as one of the conditions. It is an automatic one
that exists already.
2025
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the government House leader
pertaining to the title of the bill, namely, the retiring
allowances act. I was wondering if the minister might be able to
comment on a bill that was recently passed not so long ago with
regard to retirement allowances.
When I look around the Chamber I see the guards who represent us
here in the House of Commons and who do their jobs dutifully. I
note that the government rated the pension plans of the public
service employees not so long ago, yet it is ready to once again
tinker with the pensions of the members of parliament. I think
that speaks to a real contradiction and conflict of interest when
members of parliament can decide on their own pay, pension and
perks, but other people in the country are not allowed that same
type of privilege.
As a matter of fact, other people in the country do not decide
on legislation that directly affects their net worth because they
are not ministers and they are not members of parliament. People
like the guards in this place do not set their own levels of
remuneration. They do not have pension plans that are above and
beyond what the private sector has.
What I would like to ask of the government House leader is this.
Why does he feel that it is okay for members of parliament to be
making these decisions on their remunerations? In a sense it
begs the question, who guards the guards? I noticed that he had
a particularly broad smile on his face, going from ear to ear, as
the member for the Progressive Conservative Party was speaking. I
have no doubt that the government House leader takes great glee
in his Machiavellian manoeuvres with regard to the MP pension
bill.
With regard to the title, would it not be better for everyone in
the country to have a system whereby a certain percentage of
their wages went to a mandatory retirement savings plan and a
certain percentage went toward a mandatory unemployment savings
plan, whether the person is the grass cutter in this place or the
Prime Minister?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member
has asked a question about employees of the House.
He perhaps knows, or perhaps does not because he is somewhat
newer than other colleagues, that I am the only House of Commons
employee ever to have been elected to this place. I think that
at least on this score I know something about it. Without any
pretension, I would like to say to the hon. member that I
probably know a little more than he does about working conditions
on Parliament Hill.
I also contributed to the House of Commons employees' plan.
When I ceased to be a member of the House of Commons staff and
was elected to the Ontario legislature, I was handed back my
premiums with 2% interest. I was not permitted to transfer it to
the plan that I had as an elected official.
When I came back as a member of parliament for the federal House
of Commons, the federal civil service contributions could not be
bought back and included in this plan. How many Canadians know
that? How many Canadians know that even though I served in the
House for 14 years, I was never able to apply one cent of that
service toward another federal pension plan, namely the members
of parliament plan?
Whereas, for instance, if one worked for Nortel in an Ottawa
plant and was then transferred to Nortel in a Toronto plant, that
person is entitled to transfer the pension plan. In my case, not
only was I in the same plant, I was in the same room but was not
entitled to transfer. How many people know that?
It is fine to say that the plan is generous, and perhaps there
are aspects of it that are, but there are also sectors in which
it is hopelessly deficient compared to plans elsewhere.
Let us not portray this thing as being a way to get rich. That
is not factually correct. There are many people who have very
generous plans in the private sector where the employee
contributes one dollar toward a registered retirement savings
account and the employer contributes a similar amount, or even
stock options. Officials in the private sector are treated not
only as generously but, in many cases, far better than we are.
2030
In terms of the public service pension plan generally, I am
pleased to answer that question too, because members of the House
will know that for many, many years the public service pension
plan was deficient. It did not have enough contributions for its
payout and the taxpayers of Canada, through the Government of
Canada, supplemented that account in order to have enough money
to pay the pensions.
In another period, because of demographics and so on, the most
recent one, when that account experienced a surplus, is it not
normal that the taxpayers of Canada would get some of that back,
given that they had contributed to it in the first place?
Finally, we have made the plan self-sustaining. We have made
the public service pension plan self-sustaining. I believe that
was the right thing to do for the long term.
Even the Canada pension plan has that self-sustaining ability
which the U.S. social security does not have. Many things have
been done in public sector pensions, and pensions generally, even
pensions in the private sector, that did not exist before. I
will not give too much detail about that—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. I was gracious enough to get off my feet so that other
members who have legitimate questions could ask them.
The minister is filibustering. He is filibustering to take up
the hour. I graciously submit that other members should be on
their feet asking questions. The minister is taking too much
time.
The Chairman: I have given the minister signals
previously that he might curtail his remarks and he responded
favourably to that request, as did certain other hon. members to
whom I have given signals. The minister is answering the
question. He may be taking a little longer, but I sense he has
almost concluded.
Hon. Don Boudria: No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished.
The Chairman: All right. We will have a question from
the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the government House leader,
which carries on the dialogue that has been established.
The government House leader said, and I would certainly agree at
one level, that House leaders and others who are privy to the
consultations that preceded the tabling of the bill should not
have to have a microphone stuck in their face and answer
questions. I think that was the phrase he used. However, I
wonder whether he thinks it proper, having said that, that they
should be able to have a microphone stuck in their face and have
it both ways.
I am referring to the fact, as the minister said, that there
were wide consultations preceding the tabling of this
legislation. In my judgment, the final form of the legislation,
particularly with respect to the fact that the legislation
legislates all members who had opted out back into the plan, is a
feature of the legislation that was sought by the party which had
the majority of the people who opted out.
The only reason this is before the House is because it was fast
tracked, because there was unanimous consent sought and given to
deal with this in the manner in which we are dealing with it,
that is to say, in a fast track sort of way. People sought what
we have before us and gave unanimous consent to fast track it.
2035
Then, much to my dismay—and I mean this as sincerely as I can
possibly say it—after seeking it, after giving unanimous consent
for it to be fast tracked, they then voted against it at second
reading.
I admire the government House leader's determination to be a
gentleman about this. Yesterday I stood in this place and I said
that I thought an ugly chapter in Canadian politics was over, and
I meant it. That is because I thought that at the very least the
people who had helped bring this legislation into being, who went
out and defended the legislation, who justified it and said why
they needed it, because of medical insurance, life insurance and
the fact that they had brought this situation on themselves—all
of those things I was prepared to listen to with the
understanding that they would not then walk into the House, as
they did this afternoon, and put the rest of us in a position of
voting for a bill which they now have voted against, in the
majority.
I say to the government House leader that I cannot find this
anything but reprehensible. I wonder, are the people who
voted against this provision not going to exercise their right to
buy back, if that is one of the options that is open to them?
I just find it incomprehensible, I say to the government House
leader, and I seek his view on this, that this could have
happened this way. I understood, yes, that there might be the
odd backbencher, that there might be the odd person who would not
accept what had been negotiated between the parties, but not that
the leadership of the party and the majority of the caucus, after
having sought this, after having fast tracked it, would then
stand to vote against it. I find it absolutely incomprehensible.
I have no more to say. In 21 years I have never seen anything
like this.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate
the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party for the
excellent speech he gave last night in the House. It was
certainly the hon. member at his best. He is a fine orator, and
we all know it. I am sure that he meant very much that which he
said.
Again I am trying to respect the way in which I have done this
work, not only over the last number of months but over the last
number of years, and I am afraid I will have to say to my
colleague that I will not say publicly which clause of the bill
was requested by whom. I said I would not do that yesterday and
I will not do it now.
In terms of the fast tracking, we are at the end of the session.
There are bills which we deal with more rapidly than otherwise
would be the case by consent among the House leaders. This is
certainly one of them. There is no doubt about that.
Perhaps we should take a moment to reflect on what all of this
does. This does not create a new law. This does not even create
a new benefit. This does not add benefits. It only does two
things. One, it corrects an historical wrong in terms of the
severance component. In other words, some people have a
particular benefit while others do not. However, nowhere does it
raise the benefits.
Secondly, it permits people who are eligible otherwise to be
part of a group in terms of pension contributions to be part of
the group that they should have been part of from the very
beginning. It actually makes it such that everyone starts
contributing from the day the bill receives royal assent. I for
one believe that if there is a group package, whether it is group
life insurance or whatever, everyone should pay the premiums.
I have said that all along. I have said that when some members
of parliament were disagreeing with me. Today, of course, I will
say it when people are agreeing with me. The proposition is the
same. If it was the right thing to do then, I have to say that
it is the right thing to do now.
2040
I am being asked about how people should have voted on this. I
am not going to reflect upon a vote of the House that has already
been held. Perhaps, in a little while, when we have the third
reading of the bill, we could show some solidarity, if that is
the appropriate word.
Although not everyone wants the bill, since nothing is unanimous
in this world, at the very least we could show that there is a
form of consensus that we all know exists by having this bill
carried on third reading without a recorded division. Perhaps
that would be the correct thing to do. It would help to
re-establish the balance that the hon. member is seeking.
Obviously we cannot undo anything that has been done before, but
that might be a good way to restore that balance.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, could I ask how much time is left?
The Chairman: Two minutes.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Perhaps I will leave some of my remarks
to third reading.
This bill is somewhat different from most. Most bills come
through the departmental system. They go through the department,
the minister and the departmental consultation process. There is
quite a process in the development of a bill.
This one, as the House leader has already mentioned, has come
through a somewhat different process. Cabinet still has to
approve a bill that goes to the House, but the process to get
this bill to this stage is somewhat different than would normally
be the case.
Could the hon. member tell me whether there was any
consideration given in the drafting of this bill to the
recommendations of the Blais commission report, which was the
last independent commission report that we had before the House
during the last parliament? Was that part of the consideration
in the drafting of this bill?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, in fact, the regular
system of consultation did operate. I am a minister and,
obviously, other ministers had to be involved. This bill has an
implication for the treasury board. It has an implication for
other departments of government. The usual consultations
certainly were held, which is only normal.
The hon. member also asked whether consideration was given to
the Blais commission report. Yes, in fact, that was done.
For instance, in my remarks last night I quoted the Blais
commission report at page 40, and I would like to do so again.
The report stated:
Departing members are entitled to a relatively financially secure
transition from Parliament to the work force or to retirement, as
the case might be.
There is another recommendation in the Blais commission report
which states that the members of parliament retirement plan, the
pension plan in other words, may appear on the surface to be
generous, but it is not all that generous. It is one which is,
in the grand scheme of things, reasonable.
The report states at page 139:
The pension plan for Members of Parliament, while appearing
generous, is not necessarily out of line with public and private
sector plans that recognize the impact of the mid-career hire
aspect of the career path of their senior employees.
The Chairman: Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 12,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Shall the title
carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Title agreed to)
2045
(Bill reported)
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday,
June 12, a motion for concurrence in Bill C-37 is deemed moved,
seconded and carried on division.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to participate in the
third reading stage of the bill. My comments will be very brief.
I thank all hon. members for their contribution to the debate. I
also say to hon. members that whether or not they avail
themselves of the privilege of buying back previous contributions
is their decision. I hope they all do so. Whether they do or do
not is their business. On an individual basis that information
is quite appropriately confidential.
More important, as the House leader of the New Democratic Party
said quite eloquently yesterday, we have put a page behind us
with regard to issues of MP pensions, salaries and so on.
Recent reports have indicated quite clearly that members of
parliament are not overly paid. Anyone who was ever a high
school teacher, high school principal, director of education and
so on, would obviously know that salaries of MPs are not out of
line compared with those professions. Many other professions are
paid even better. We all know that is the case.
I remember in the 1993 campaign when it became fashionable for
some people to say “Vote for me and I will reduce my salary”,
and so on. I resisted that and I took the following position. I
was asked if I would take a pay cut and I said “No. If you do
not think I am worth the salary there are five other people on
the platform with me. Pick the one who is. Do not debase the
currency”. My majority went up in that election campaign so it
is not an issue that necessarily brings a higher level of
support. I do not believe that it does, if that is a concern of
some people.
What is more important is what is right, and what is right is to
have not a compensation package that makes members of parliament
rich but one which is sufficient to attract a high level of
candidates to participate in public life.
[Translation]
The report of the Blais commission told us that on average a
Canadian parliamentarian earned less than 40% of the salary of a
member of the U.S. Congress. Of course, we are not here to
become rich, far from it. But one should not claim that our
compensation and benefit package is generous. It may be
adequate, but it is certainly not generous, and I would not
claim it is.
I just would like to say that, in my opinion, what
parliamentarians earn is far from excessive.
Benefits provided under this bill are not excessive either. They
are reasonable, no more no less, and I strongly recommend them
to the House.
I hope all parliamentarians will vote in support
of the bill at third reading. Finally, as the bill will be sent
to the other house after the debate in a few minutes, I hope
members in the other place will be able to pass it without
delay. This is my hope.
2050
I thank my colleagues from all political parties for their
support for what a believe is an excellent bill, not only for us
as individuals, but also, and more importantly I believe, for
this institution we so dearly love, the parliament of our
country.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to third reading of this bill. As
I mentioned last night, I still have the feeling of unease as
anyone does when talking about one's own salary and trying to
justify one's self-worth.
As the House leader has already mentioned, at times we have to
get up on our hind legs and do such a thing. Tonight is one of
those moments when we must talk about something that is very
personal. Different members of parliament finds themselves with
different financial needs in different stages of their lives and
careers. That is to be acknowledged.
I wish to address two or three points. There is not much doubt
the House leader of the NDP was referring to me when he said he
did not feel I should vote against the bill when I did this
afternoon. He was offended by that. I should like to speak
briefly on the principle I was trying to follow.
I have been absolutely consistent when speaking in the House, in
what I have written in papers, and what I have said in scrums
outside the House. I have admitted that the issue being
addressed by the NDP House leader is in large part a problem of
our own making. I have said that before. I will say it again.
I understand that by making the MP pension plan as big an issue
as we did back in 1993 we are held to a different standard than
everyone else in this place. I understand that. I understand we
have taken some political heat. There has been a good discussion
down at the far end of this place about that this evening.
However I still maintain that by holding our ground, especially
in 1993, important changes were made to the old pension plan.
People started to consider what is fair to the taxpayers of
Canada as part of the equation. That was an important change. It
was a change that would not have happened unless people forcibly
made remuneration and the pension issues in the 1993 election.
That is just a fact. I do not apologize for it. It had to be
done. It was done with a lot of passion, and some changes were
made.
The fact that changes were made opens the door. The fact that
we are on our third different pension bill since I have been
elected to parliament means that change will be possible down the
road. This deal is not set in concrete. It will be reviewed
again after the next parliament. There is a statutory
requirement to review it. The government has a requirement to
appoint an independent commission as it did last time. Parts of
such commission reports deal with public perception and the
public expectations in terms of pensions for MPs. I hope the
recommendations, whatever they are, will be adopted by the House.
It takes the kind of debate we are having tonight out of the
parliamentary area.
As I have said in scrums, as I have said here and as I would say
anywhere, it is too difficult for members of parliament to say to
everybody that this is what they will pay themselves out of
taxpayers' pockets. If as MPs we say that we are worth $70,000
per year, someone might say we are greedy, self-righteous or
hypocritical. Whatever members might say they cannot fight. They
cannot win the debate. The debate is always slanted by the
audience that wants to hear the message.
There is a better way to do it in the future, and I am hopeful
it can be done that way. We have seen three changes in less than
seven years.
The last change is not so much about the content but about the
way we handle it. I still believe there is a better way to do
it. We would not be having this debate tonight had the Blais
commission report been adopted in its entirety. That would have
been a much better outcome, but that was not to happen and we
have to deal with it. We have to play the cards that are dealt
to us.
2055
I reiterate that the policy of this party has always been that
members of parliament deserve a pension. It was the Reform
Party's policy previous to the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian
Alliance policy is that members of parliament should get a
pension plan. That has never been in dispute.
One good thing about the bill is that the debate in the future
will no longer be whether MPs get a pension. We have turned a
page. There will still be a debate on what kind of pension MPs
should get, which is the proper debate. The public will engage
in it. The National Citizens' Coalition is sure to give us a
pound or two in the next while. Others will get into it. That
is fine because a debate on what kind of pension is appropriate.
That is fine enough question and a fine enough debate.
The mistake, if there was one made or at least the impression
that was left at one time, was that some MPs do not deserve a
pension. That double standard was wrong. If people think I am
coughing up crow feathers, or whatever it is I have to do, I just
say the debate should have never been about whether some MPs
should receive any pension at all. All MPs should receive a
pension. We have said that. It has been our policy.
There was an honest attempt and effective pressure was brought
on the government to change the pension plan. Part of that
effectiveness unfortunately was that some members of parliament
received no pension. It was part of a pressure tactic, part of
of an effort to bring in changes and to bring in the
recommendations of the Blais commission. That tactic was taken
to pressure the government. It was somewhat effective, but the
mistake in the end result was that some MPs were told they would
receive nothing for the rest of their lives, whatever that might
be. That was contrary to party policy. It always was and it
still is.
The party policy of the former Reform Party was that we should
have a pension in line with the private sector. The party policy
for the Canadian Alliance is similar. I can get more specific
and say that we should live with the results of an independent
commission that reports to parliament. We would take its
recommendations as binding. If the commission says we should get
rid of the tax free allowance, gross it all up and base our
pension on a totally taxable amount, we will salute the flag and
we will do it. If it says we should have to work so many years
before receiving a pension, if it says we will get a pension at
such and such an age, or whatever it thinks appropriate is based
on an independent commission, I will thank it kindly, shake
hands, and we will pass it. That is the way to do it. Then
there is no more debate as to how we handled ourselves or whether
we scored or whatever. All MPs would receive a pension plan as
they should, but it would be reasonable because an independent
commission brought it down.
There was a lot of talk last night about the fast tracking of
the bill. A couple of points need to be said. It is true the
entire House gave consent to bringing the bill in without 48
hours notice. As I said to the media earlier today, if we had as
much time to debate all bills in the House of Commons as we will
have to debate this one we would be thrilled. Every member who
wants to speak is allowed to speak to this bill. If we had as
much time as that on the Nisga'a agreement, if we had as much
time as that on the Clarity Act, if we had as much time as that
on dozens of different pieces of legislation, as a House leader I
would be thrilled to death.
There is no restriction on this debate. We brought it in 48
hours early, but as our caucus and members over there know as
many members as want can get up on their hind legs today to talk
about whatever they want to talk about. They are free to do it.
What a wonderful way to do it.
2100
I am much more proud of the way we are handling this bill as a
parliament than the changes we made last time, when we brought it
in and passed it in a day just two years ago. When I went home I
had more complaints about how we handled the passage of the bill
than the contents of it.
Here it is a wide open debate. Yes, it was brought in without
48 hours notice, but what an improvement it is for all of us to
stand up, and I will have to do it too, to go to the media, to go
home and when they ask, “What did you say about the bill? Did
you speak about it?” I will say, “Absolutely. I am on the
record and you can read it in Hansard because no one was
denied the right to speak”. Not only that, but no one is denied
the right to vote. This is the way legislation should be passed.
We have a vote.
This brings me to my final point which is the vote itself. The
House leader for the NDP is offended because I voted against this
bill. I tell him as I told the media earlier, and as I will tell
my constituents, I am voting against the bill because the bill is
not consistent with our party policy. I am going to vote against
it because I am going to be consistent with that. That being
said, and I will say it here and I will say it back home, I am
voting against it but my heart is not in it. That is the truth.
I am voting against it not because I think there are some
shenanigans going on, not because I think that the government
House leader has been sneaky or underhanded or anything else. And
anyone who says that just has not worked with the government
House leader. This is kind of shocking for me to say this, but
those who say that the government House leader has not been
honourable should be ashamed of themselves. I do not mind saying
that. I think it makes cheap political points and I find that
offensive.
All the time we allow bills to come to this place. We fast-track
them so to speak. People should know how this works. It is no
secret. There are negotiations. The House leaders get together
and say, “How many speakers to you think you are going to have
on this bill?” I will say, “I think we have about three or
four speakers”. The government House leader will say, “Okay, I
have two or three. It looks like we are going to have three or
four hours of debate. If we do that we are going to be pressed
for time. Would you cut back to just two speakers so we can get
the bill into committee?” I will say, “Okay, I can see the
wisdom of that, but I am going to vote against it”.
We are not supporting the bill. It is just part of how we
handle it. I have opposed bills because they originated in the
Senate, not for the contents of the bill but because I find it
offensive that the Senate originates bills which I think should
properly originate here.
I have already said that I am voting against this legislation. I
have done and I will again if it is a standing vote and if we
have a vote on third reading, not because I think something
sneaky, underhanded or dirty has happened but because I think
there is a better way to do it.
Often in this place we vote against legislation not because we
think it is heinous, not because we think it is dastardly,
underhanded, sneaky or anything like that; we see what the
government is trying to do but we think there is a better way to
do it. I will vote against the bill because I think there is a
better way. I explained it last night thoroughly. I will vote
against it not because I want to smear anyone. I have not said a
word against anyone here and I am not going to. It is not
because I am trying to paint someone into a corner or take
advantage of someone. I am doing it because there is a better
way. That is the way it works. We do that consistently in this
place, not because we think different bills are awful, but
because there is a better way.
When there is a better way we have an obligation as an
opposition party to stand up, explain that better way and then
vote against the legislation. That is what I think. We do this
routinely. I am thinking even of bills that we will support.
We will bring in report stage amendments even though we know they
are not going to pass, but we think they will improve the bill.
We will bring in the amendments but we will not hold up the bill
or stop it or make somebody down the road pay the price. However,
in our opinion, there is a better way.
2105
It is our obligation to put that better way on the table for
everyone to see. They can say yes or no. They can say they do
not like it or they think it is good, bad or indifferent. As the
official opposition, it is our obligation not just to rubber
stamp it, but to say there is an alternative and this is what we
would like to do. It does not mean we do not think there is some
other benefit in the bill. It means that our obligation is to be
consistent with our party line, with what we proposed and
campaigned on and propose those better ways in the House.
After what I have said I hope people can understand. I will
vote against the bill not because I think MPs do not deserve a
pension because they do. I will vote against it because it is
inconsistent with our party policy. Our party policy is not that
MPs get no pension. That has never been the deal. That is not
going to be the deal. As long as I have anything to do with it,
it will not be the deal. MPs deserve a pension.
The debate is what kind of pension they deserve and who should
give it to them. I wish, I hope and I believe one day that is the
way it will be done. It will take the pressure off all members
of parliament. The debate and the rancour about this subject
will be put behind us once and for all. We will all be able to
go home and say that we got the pension that somebody allocated
to us, not because we asked for it or snuck it through or
negotiated it or anything else. We got it because it was an
independent group of people who gave all of us a fitting
remuneration and retirement package.
I look forward to that day. It is not likely to happen before
the next parliament, but when we go through the statutory review
I hope all members of parliament will consider what I have said
tonight. There is a better way to handle this difficult issue
for all members of parliament.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, like other members of parliament, I am not anxious
to jump into this, but there is an element to all of this debate
that we have to keep in mind and put into a certain context. It
is very easy to say that we want to ensure fairness, that this
bill is aimed at changing some anomalies that exist and that
there are some technical adjustments that need to be made to
ensure fairness. We have pointed them out ad nauseam as to the
purpose of the bill.
Let us not kid ourselves for a minute. This bill is tailored to
allow members of one particular party to opt back into a pension
plan that they denounced. I take very much to heart the comments
that have been made by the previous speaker. I believe him to be
very sincere in what he has indicated. I do not do this with any
great relish, but it is a matter of that was then and this is
now. Those words were easy to say at one time and now they are a
little bitter when they have to be swallowed.
I want to point out something that the hon. member for Fraser
Valley said on this issue not that many years ago in debates in
the House of Commons. On May 9, 1995 he said, “All Reform Party
members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand
on principle and do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt
out”.
His leader that same day in the course of the debate said, “It
is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the pension plan.
We call upon every member of the House to do likewise. Opt out
or get out will be the cry in the constituencies. It is the cry
which must be respected if fairness and leadership by example and
integrity are to be restored to parliament on any budget it
endorses”.
That was obviously a bunch of malarkey. Now by virtue of this
bill, as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has indicated,
the reform members of the House are now swallowing themselves
whole.
They are completely capitulating on their earlier stances.
2110
It was not so much what they said here that really hurts, that
really makes it hard for some members like the member who was
here in 1993 and was defeated. It is not just those members and
the debate that is taking place here, but it is members that are
not here who did not return and do not have the ability to
collect a pension. They stated quite clearly where they stood and
still stand, but now there has been a reversal of fortunes.
There has been a change in the mindset because individuals, in
fairness, came here having said one thing and realized that
things were a little different. The pension was not so sweet
after all. It was not so easy to get on a plane and come to
Ottawa and leave family and friends and a previous occupation
behind. It was not such a great deal after all.
What this comes down to is having said one thing and now turning
completely around. They have made a complete reversal of
fortunes in their favour and have opted back in by virtue of this
bill. That is what this bill allows them to do.
I know they do not like to hear this, but the unravelling of
Reform principle is what we are seeing here. There is a thinly
veiled attempt at reinventing themselves and what they said.
There was a name change but all the while they kept the same
policy, the same membership and the same leadership. A futile
redundant exercise. A cynical attempt at re-branding. That is
what this is all part of in the big scheme of things.
It is easy to find integrity after the fact. It is easy to opt
into the pension plan, the same plan that the Reform Party railed
against. They screamed like banshees and suggested that somehow
it was completely malicious and untenable that members of
parliament would accept some remuneration after the fact for the
hard work they do. That was an issue that was not put forward by
any other party. This was an invention, a tool, a spear that was
used to impale other members of the House. Now it is impaling
them. They are going to have to go back to their constituents
and explain how they can do this, how they can swallow their
principle now and take the pension, vote against it perhaps.
This pension plan will now be mandatory. Make no mistake about
it. All 301 members of the House of Commons are in. When this
pension plan passes, they are all in. Nobody is out. We have an
added bonus and it is a stroke of genius. I am not questioning
the government House leader's intention, it is a beautiful thing.
It is the ability to buy back retroactively all of that
pensionable time. Fair enough. Why not?
Nobody is suggesting that members of one party work any harder
than members of another. Those members are entitled to pensions
and we do not dispute that for a minute, but they should not tell
people they will not take the pension and then take it. They
should not try to hide behind some guise, as was seen in the last
attempt to bring in a severance package that would set up two
separate types of plans. There is the evil pension plan that
members of parliament get and then there is the fine severance
package that will be a lump sum that will go to Reform members.
That is okay. A big lump sum payment is fine, but a pension is
bad.
This reminds me of George Orwell's classic novel Animal
Farm which we all studied in grade 9 or 10 in high school. I
know, Madam Speaker, that you are a scholar and you will recall
this story. We all recall the premise of what was going to take
place in that famous novel.
The pigs were appalled at the farmer and the lavish life that he
lived and the terrible conditions the animals were toiling in. In
Animal Farm the animals gathered in the barnyard and talked
about rebellion and what they were going to do to change things.
They spoke in wild terms of equity and fairness and what they
would not do if they had the reins of power. The animals
continued to gather and whip each other into a frenzy.
Finally the rebellion came. Does this sound familiar? The
animals gathered up their strength and courage and pumped each
other up. They said they would do things differently if they
ever had the chance. They chastised the farmer for his
comfortable life. Remember the rallying cry, “four legs good,
two legs bad”.
When the rebellion was over the pigs moved into the house. They
started walking on their hind legs and they took the comforts
that the farmer used to enjoy and which they had previously
opposed. Does this sound familiar?
2115
In our current circumstances: reformers good, other MPs bad.
That is what we have been hearing for 10 years. For 10 years we
have been hearing “No pensions, no car, no clothing allowance,
no Stornoway. That would never happen”. The list goes on.
The reform leader is standing in the House on hind legs. The
barnyard buddies are also here. The moral of the story is that
it is very easy to say one thing but when one is saddled with the
actual reality of what is taking place it is a different story
altogether.
That is what we have heard. We heard one story when that party
wanted to achieve office, but now that it is in office it is a
different story. The story does not apply anymore. The
conditions are not the same. However, that will be for the
Canadian people to decide. Opting into the pension plan, the
same pension plan that everyone here is entitled to and reformers
are entitled to as well, is not what a lot of them said they
would do. Some of them did address the issue in an upfront way.
What it comes down to is truth or consequences.
What happened to bring about the change? What was the crisis of
conscience? What was the shallow pool of principle that caused
things to turn around? It was simply the reality that some
people may have to leave here and go home. They have families to
support and, as my colleague said, they may have children or
spouses who have made great sacrifices. Those are fundamental
things that cannot be denied. They are fundamental things that
every member of the House has to confront, yet that was put to
one side when it was politically advantageous to pillar other
members of the House of Commons on this issue. I would suggest
that it was done with reckless abandon and malice aforethought.
It was easy to criticize something when reformers did not really
know much about it. They came to the House, after having created
this atmosphere of fear and loathing—and it has taken almost 10
years to go that full circle—and completely swallowed themselves
from head to tail. What we have seen is a reptilian
transformation, a shedding of the skin. Now it is okay to have a
pension.
It is very easy to get up, speak emotionally, tell us that it is
fine and that we wish things were different, but I am just one
small voice. There are many members of parliament who feel very
offended by what has taken place, particularly members who are
not here and who were defeated, and perhaps very much on this one
issue. It was made an issue. It was not something that was a
creation of anyone other than themselves, which is what makes it
so difficult and so distasteful. This is a bed that was made
completely by the reform party, no one else.
It is very easy to criticize and vilify one's opponent, but at
the end of the day, when it has come full circle, in the sharp
light of day and the cameras are on, and we are being asked to
explain ourselves, that is where it gets a little more dicey.
That is where the reform party finds itself now.
The wrecking ball approach is simple: come in, destroy
institutions, strike everything down and criticize. However,
when harnessed with the reins of power, as we know this party
never will be, it is different.
That is what the Liberal government has had to do. It is
nothing new for the Liberal government. The reform party has
been very critical of the current government but even this
exercise cannot hold a candle to swallowing itself whole: the
GST, free trade, privatization, helicopter programs. This
government has not even begun to hold a candle to that record
except the red book promises and the red faces that now exist in
conjunction with that. I suppose there is some comparison with
the green book and the envy and greed that might be associated
with what is taking place now.
2120
This debate, unfortunately, does take a bit of a nasty turn
because it is personal for members of parliament, having suffered
the slings and arrows of what was deemed to be outrageous fortune
by the reform party, which now it wants to delve into it. We no
longer see the plastic pink pigs being stuck in the front lawn of
the House of Commons. Of course, that was part of the new
dignity that was coming to this place, just like the mariachi
band in front of the Senate, a class act. Those things certainly
raised the profile and the feeling of dignity that members of
parliament have for this place. Double that up with the Canadian
flags being tossed on the floor and the old jalopy with the
Canadian flags painted on it circling the parliamentary precinct,
it certainly raised the profile of parliament. A new dignity.
An hon. member: What about taking off their jackets to
fight?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, they were challenging members of
the House of Commons to fight. That was reminiscent of a new way
of doing things, of saying one thing and doing another.
In simple terms, there has been a reality check that has taken
place. I hope Canadians are paying attention because I think we
sometimes fool ourselves. We think Canadians are watching this
place with a close eye. I would suggest it is becoming more and
more of a jaded eye because of this type of, dare I say,
hypocrisy. The Greek god, Hippocrates, would be looking down on
us right now with a very wry smile.
When we arrive in this place we learn in very short order that
this is an onerous task and a heavy responsibility. We have to
choose our words carefully and we have to be prepared to stand by
them. I think the next election is going to be very much about
truth and about restoring some semblance of faith and belief that
Canadians might have in their elected officials again. This
exercise is certainly not going to help that task.
When it is all over, when it is all said and done, if we are
prepared to say something to get elected, we had better be
prepared to follow through with it. We had better be prepared to
stand by those words. The inflamed passions that we see here
today are only the beginning of what may be a very rigorous
campaign that is potentially going to take place this fall. The
spears being used to lampoon one another here may be repeated out
on the hustings.
Canadians deserve to know where we stand. They deserve to be
able to check up after the fact to see if we have followed
through on it. I sincerely hope that members of parliament,
particularly members of the reform party, can go back and look
their constituents in the eye and say that, yes, they have
followed through with their promise in this regard because they
chose to make it an issue. They did make it an issue. There is
no doubt about that. Pages and pages of Hansard have
chronicled the commentary that has taken place in the House.
This bill is about fairness and, in principle, all Progressive
Conservative members of the House of Commons support what this
bill attempts to achieve, which is a fair and equitable system
that brings parity in for all members of this place. What we do
not accept is that this pension plan was used as a club with a
nail in it to beat other members of parliament. We oppose the
fact that the reform party is now very quick to embrace this same
pension plan and gather it in.
However, that was then and this is now. What we have seen is
that there are no more references to gold-plated pensions. That
seems to have dissipated. The rancour has somehow died. The
righteousness has disappeared somewhat. Well, lo and behold, all
the reformers are accepting what they once rejected, embracing
what they once despised, counting and caressing what they once so
vehemently opposed.
Similarly, they cast aside this previous commitment to their
constituents. In simple terms, that was then and this is now.
2125
On that principle, although I accept the magnanimous remarks of
the reform party House leader, it is a bit of bitter medicine to
have to swallow. He has talked about changes. I think we can
all agree that we want to see any sort of change that will be
inclusive and recognize the value and worth of members of
parliament in their efforts, their daily tasks, what they do for
their constituents, what they do here and what they do on the
national scene. We diminish that when we embark on this type of
partisan exercise.
I will not deny that were are engaged in a partisan exercise. It
is necessary to point to the record on how quickly we sometimes
forget what was said. That has been much of the case in Canadian
politics and with the government. It will have its record to
defend. It will have to explain to Canadians what happened to
all that money in the HRDC department. It will have to explain
why the Prime Minister was so quick to talk about tearing up the
free trade agreement and then expand it when elected. It will
have to explain why the Prime Minister said very clearly that he
would axe the tax and get rid of the GST and it is still here.
If we go to the store we see that we are still paying the GST.
It was expanded and harmonized in the maritimes.
However, it was convenient. It is always easy to tell people
what they want to hear. There is a public appetite for it, just
like this issue with the pensions. People wanted to hear that
and the reformers fed it. They fanned those flames to their
benefit. Now it is only fair and just that this has come back,
and that it has come back, in what some would describe as a very
nefarious way, in the last dying days of parliament.
I know that members of my own caucus take issue with the way in
which this was brought about. I am certainly not proud of the
way this has arrived before us. I, as the House leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party, have been a part of it.
However, that is why, at the end of this debate, we will be
saying that we cannot support this legislation. We cannot
support the way this has been brought about, not because we are
against fairness or any form of pension that recognizes work,
labour and input, but because we are against hypocrisy. We are
against saying one thing because it is politically advantageous
and then doing another.
I know that members of the reform party do not want to hear
that. It is not consistent with what they have done. There have
been all sorts of examples of this as well. It is played out
here in the House of Commons on a partisan level every day.
However this is one occasion where there is nothing that can be
said that will exonerate members of that party. There is nothing
that will to replace those words in the minds of constituents who
voted for reform members after hearing that they were not going
to be a part of the pension plan. Guess what? They are in, they
are a part of it and those promises are long gone, just like the
promises on the other side of the House that we heard before the
previous election.
An hon. member: They'll be long gone.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, there will be other members who
will be long gone, too, if Canadians choose to dwell on this
issue.
Should members of parliament therefore receive a pension? Yes,
they should. Should we look at making further changes in the
future? Perhaps we should look at something that is more
consistent with the private sector. However, we have to look at
the whole picture. We know that members of parliament are not
remunerated on the same level as those working in the private
sector, for example, in certain positions.
If we are going to look at this issue we should do it in a
holistic way, not holus-bolus and not to the benefit of one party
and to the detriment of another.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I hope there is
sufficient attention being paid to what is playing out before us
here, this morality play that was so convenient in years past
that has now come home to roost. I hope all members of
parliament, including members of the reform party, will reflect
on their conscience and review their words. Maybe they will not
be so quick to shoot from the hip the next time.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, here we go again. I thought all
this had been put behind us back in 1998 but this pension issue
is kind of like a smelly dead animal.
The dog buried it in 1995 and then he dug it up in 1998 and then
he buried it again. Now he has dug it up again within the last
few days. Maybe, just maybe, some day the public will be
sufficiently offended by the smell of this dead animal that they
will react against the Liberal Party and make it pay a price for
its Machiavellian games.
2130
This bill, this action on the part of the government, has had
the effect of reinforcing the very unfortunate public perception
that politics is a dishonourable profession and that MPs as a
group are self-serving and venal.
As an institution, why on earth would we do this to ourselves?
Why do we want to send out that message? More properly, I would
say, what motivated the government to do this?
The most charitable interpretation is that it was simple
mischief. It wanted to start the type of debate that we have
heard going on in this House for the last 20 minutes, which went
on last night and which will probably continue on interminably
and forever. I would have to say that unfortunately there is a
more probable cause than simple mischief, which is simple
venality on the part of some of government members.
The member for Edmonton West, for example, with her defeat
imminent, has to be protected, along with many of her colleagues
who want to have the best of both worlds. They want to have
their pension at 55, but they would like to have severance pay as
well. It is a new twist on double-dipping. However, even if
mischief were not the prime consideration, it did give the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the opportunity to make a
campaign speech tonight.
Did he attack the government for its perfidy? Of course not.
He raised this silly fiction that somehow the government is doing
this to help the official opposition.
I have been around this place for seven years and I have yet to
see the government do anything to help the official opposition.
That is not the way the game is played. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough should know that. It would be
extraordinarily naive to think that we could move the government.
We cannot even move it on the really big, important stuff. How
on earth could we move it on something like this?
Anyway, the member supported his good friends on the government
side, irrationally attacked the official opposition on a great
variety of issues, and no doubt will have his reward in heaven or
will be rewarded by his good buddies across the aisle. It must
be really tough to belong to a dying political party and be
reduced to licking the hands of government members.
This pension scheme was wrong in 1995 and it is still wrong. It
gives members of this House an indecent advantage over ordinary
citizens. It is as simple as that. People who sit in parliament
should in no way receive a greater public benefit than that to
which ordinary citizens are entitled. This is quite fundamental
in my view to the way democracy is supposed to work.
People who rationalize and say that we work hard and we really
deserve this pension forget that a lot of them would not have had
a pension of any kind if they had not been elected to parliament.
Now that they are here, they say it is a good idea.
2135
I am not saying that a pension per se would be wrong. I never
have said that. However, the pension that we are talking about
today is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is an indecent assault on the
taxpayers of Canada. I do not know of a single member of
parliament who was dragged kicking and screaming into the House
of Commons and forced to work for menial wages. Then, to take a
pension at the end of that work perhaps would not fit with his
views of what is right and what is wrong. We are all volunteers.
I simply cannot go back to my constituents and say that I have
changed my mind and that I will buy my way back into this pension
plan because I sure could use the money. My self-respect
precludes that. I have to look in the mirror every morning when
I shave. We cannot do that if we do not feel good about
ourselves.
Five years ago, two years ago and again this week the government
could have fixed this plan. It could have made it acceptable to
all, but it did not. Originally it could have abided by the
recommendations of the Blais commission. It ignored it. It had
to have the lollipops inserted into the legislation, and the
lollipops have stayed all the way through the various
ramifications of the legislation that we have seen over the past
few years.
I would like to comment on a comment which was made by the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona which suggested that our party was
not playing by “the rules” because some of our officers, after
having agreed to let the government bring this legislation
forward on a fast track, then followed our party policy for
heaven's sake and voted against it. How terrible to vote against
something to support the policies of one's own party. How dare
we do that.
With respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I would
like to point out that some years ago I had a long and spirited
but friendly correspondence with the late Stanley Knowles, one of
my political icons. If Stanley Knowles were alive today he would
be horrified. He is probably spinning in his grave when he sees
his party supporting this perfidious pension scheme. This is a
party that has, unfortunately, forgotten its roots.
Well, by God, I have not forgotten mine. I know where I came
from. I know who my constituents are. I know who pays the bills
around this place. I will not support legislation which unfairly
takes money from the pockets of ordinary, decent, taxpaying
Canadians in order to create a completely unacceptable and
immoral pension scheme for members of parliament.
The hon. government House leader alluded to private pension
plans, which he said are just as rich as the one we are
discussing here. I wish that he would name one as a specific
example. In his statement he talked about a one to one
contributory rate, to which I say amen. That has been our policy
forever, a one to one contributory rate, but we get $3.61 of
taxpayer funding for every dollar which members put into this
plan.
That is why it is not right. It is both fiscally and morally
unacceptable to me and I believe to the great majority of my
colleagues.
2140
Let us not kid ourselves. It is easy to rationalize. It is
easy to throw out one's chest, as the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who is going to get his pension
has done, and criticize the rest of us. The bottom line is that
it is a bad plan. It smells. It is that dead animal dug up for
the third time. I hope that this time we bury it and bury it for
good, and that the next government of Canada will again revisit
this situation, appoint a completely neutral commission, with no
ties whatsoever to this place, and say “Gentlemen and ladies,
sit down and give us a plan. What is an MP worth? Show us the
remuneration. Show us what the pension should be and then we
will act on it”. Then we would not have to have these nasty,
divisive debates again and again. It is unproductive and I am
getting sick of it.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, in
listening to the hon. member of the Reform Party speak about the
pension—
An hon. member: Alliance. Members of the Canadian
Alliance.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I forgot. Yes, they changed the name.
Is it CCRAP? No, it is CA.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: That is really classy, Elsie.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It was not real classy when you did it
either.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the Speaker has mentioned many times that people
should use the proper names of the parties. I would specifically
say before the member gets started that if she wants to be a
class act she should change the way she is heading into this.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, indeed, I must
remind the hon. member that the Speaker has ruled that in the
House we call the official opposition the Canadian Alliance.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, if we are talking about
a class act, I would say that we would not be debating this issue
if members of the official opposition had conducted themselves in
a class act fashion in the past. We would not even be discussing
this.
I brought forth a private member's bill to change the pension
plan. Oh, yes. They are smiling. My private member's bill did
change the pension plan. I had asked that no one be entitled to
a pension until the age of 60, and the government lowered it to
the age of 55. Others can take all the credit they want, but it
came through my private member's bill.
When I listen tonight to the comments being made by the official
opposition about money being wasted, I have to say that 90% of
those who are sitting in the House when they leave will not get a
pension until the age of 55, if they have been here for six
consecutive years. Some of them will have a long wait. Some
members of the official opposition probably have about 25 years
to wait before they will get anything.
When we talk about taking all of this money from the taxpayers,
that really is not painting the picture that should be painted.
My hon. colleague, who is not in the House right now, who comes
from the southern end of the province, mentioned that if I were
to go out on a pension it would be $21,000, but it would not. If
I were to go out on a pension for the length of time that I have
been here, it would be about $17,000, probably a little less than
the vice-principals of our schools back home would receive.
That is fine. That is very fine with me. That does not bother
me one bit. However, I want to say this.
I listened to the quotes that were made, the things that were
said about the people here who have given from their hearts and
souls to do what is right for Canadians from coast to coast. I
heard the things that members said. They called us names.
2145
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member once more. I just want to make sure that she
understands this is questions and comments. If she wants to
comment, she can do so as long as she wants.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On September 12, 1995, an MP from B.C.
who at that time was a Reformer said that MPs were still at the
trough. Others did not think it was being at the trough. They
thought they owed it to their offspring.
I have been hurt by the statements and comments made in the
House about members of parliament. I cannot believe what some
members said about those of us who have given over 25 years of
our lives to make for a better quality of life for our people. I
would never say that about any member of the House. I have never
ever said it. I have never used that kind of language. I do not
intend to use it tonight. I will quote what members of the
official opposition have said about everybody else in the House,
but I have never referred to any of them in that way. Nor will I
do it tonight.
The member for Fraser Valley stated that all Reform Party
members would opt out of the pension plan because they stand on
principle and do not swim in gravy. I have never swam in gravy.
I am pleased that I am known in my riding as someone of
principle.
Last week I was asked to go to a Baptist convention in Moncton.
I was the guest speaker for a pro-life meeting. Representatives
from all across Canada were there. They did not ask others to do
it. I was humbled and proud to be there. I am a person of
principle. I take great offence at the statements that have been
made by members of the official opposition about me, about others
in my party and about others who sit on the government side. We
are people of principle. Most of us would not even think of
being here if it were not that we wanted to do something that was
best for the people of Canada.
I think about why members would come here if they did not want
to do something that was better for their people. Why would they
want to be here and do and say the things they do? If members of
the official opposition wish to come into the pension plan it is
up to them. Fine and dandy. We have heard all kinds of rumours
in the House about the large numbers in that party who want to
have a pension. That is fine, but they should not say derogatory
things about other people.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are in questions and comments. I think the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands should be allowed time to respond to
this comment. I hope you would take that into consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, indeed. I will
ask the hon. member for Saint John to allow a couple of minutes
for the member to respond.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Unlike members of the official
opposition I will say yes because I do not have a problem
listening to other people. I will listen for a couple of
minutes.
2150
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I guess there was a
question in there somewhere. I was touched to hear that the hon.
member was hurt by the tone of debate in the last parliament, as
the practitioner of some of the most vicious debate that I have
ever heard in this place. It brings to mind the old proverb of
the pot calling the kettle black. This is one for the books.
The hon. member mentioned that she will only get a pension of
$17,000. I do not know what she did wrong or why she will be
punished. Anyone else with her number of years of service would
be getting $19,096. Perhaps she was bad and they took away some
of her money.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, hon. members down the way and
members of the Progressive Conservative Party seem to be
suggesting somehow what Canadian Alliance members ran on in the
last election as Reformers. I have here a copy of our quick
facts policy handbook for Reform Party candidates from the 1997
election which says that a Reform government would abolish the MP
pension plan and replace it with pensions comparable to those in
the private sector. That is our position.
I note that the Tories had a position. They promised a
privatized plan like those of other Canadians. Yet they were in
government from 1984 all the way to 1993. They had a massive
majority. They could have changed the plan but they did not.
Would my hon. colleague comment on that?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, my comment would be that
between 1984 and 1993 the Tories could have done a lot of things
that they did not do. This is just a very small example. They
could have balanced the budget for openers, but all they did was
whine about it after they finally got booted out.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, as
usual the comments of members of the official opposition do not
surprise me, but I will inform them of what it was like in my
riding when we were in government.
When we were in government we had 4,000 men working at our
shipyard, contributing to our economy and educating their young
people. It was a beautiful time for our city. We also had a
sugar refinery which dates back to 1903 with over 300 men
working. It is closing at the end of this month. We had VIA
Canada with over 300 men working. None of them had to go to the
United States to work. They had their dignity. I have to say it
was about the best time I had ever seen in Saint John, New
Brunswick. I have nothing negative to say about our people when
they were in power. They did an excellent job.
I read the comments that have been made. People will never
forget the comments made in the House of Commons about everyone
who sits in the House and whether or not they will take a
pension. In the next election the comments that were made here
will certainly be repeated. There is no question about that, but
they will be repeated by other parties. They will remind the
people of the statements that have been made.
This is not what one does. One does not rise in the House of
Commons to say the derogatory things that were said about all
other members. I look at our members who have contributed so
much to try to stabilize the foundation of our country for our
young people. Yet Reformers say we should never have a pension
at age 55.
2155
We lost one member of the House before she became 55 years of
age. All kinds of nasty things can be said but the people do not
appreciate that. The people do not want that and the people will
never forgive members of the official opposition for the things
they have said.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I was one of the members who ran in 1993 and was
defeated in 1993. We have heard a lot about what happened at
that time. It was a split vote from the right. The vote I
achieved in 1988 which put me in office was split in 1993. A big
argument that was used to take the votes away from me was that
the Reformers would not allow the pension plan to stay in place,
that they would not participate in the pension plan.
I was hammered with it day and night in that election campaign.
Many Reform members gained their seats based on that argument.
That was the sole, main or prime argument they used against
members of parliament like me who had served one term.
I remember it just like it was yesterday. They accused me of
coming back only for the pension. I did not run in the first
place for the pension. I did not run in the second place for the
pension. It is part of being a member of parliament. They
hammered away at that and I lost my seat because the vote was
split.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on another issue in
that campaign, that members of parliament should be subject to
recall if they do not honour their promises. Reform members at
that time said they were not interested in participating in the
pension and that they would do away with the pension. I wonder
if the member for Saint John would comment.
Considering that the former Reform Party members who are now
Canadian Alliance members say that members of parliament should
be subject to recall, does the hon. member for Saint John think,
if Reform members accept the pension and vote to go into the
pension again, they should be subject to recall? That is the
first part of my question.
The second part of my question is: Does the member think that
the leadership candidates for the Canadian Alliance Party should
state their positions? I propose that each candidate should
state his position on the pension plan. They should indicate
whether or not they support the pension plan and whether or not
they support members of the Canadian Alliance Party opting back
into the plan and buying back their former service. I wonder
what her thoughts would be.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, I say to my hon.
colleague that when it comes to the maritime provinces and
Newfoundland we have absolutely nothing to worry about in the
next election because the people will not vote for the official
opposition. The member does not even have to worry about that.
The opposition got only 2% of the vote in Newfoundland.
Should there be a recall? Certainly there should be a recall if
any one of them joins in the pension plan. We should be watching
that on both sides of the House. We can look at the comments
they made. On November 2, 1999, they said that 34 Reform MPs,
including all second term Reformers from Alberta, fought for, won
and exercised the right to opt out of the MPs pension plan.
However, reflecting on the difficulty of going without a pension
does not mean any of these principled MPs have changed their
minds. In any event they could not legally opt back into the
plan even if they wanted to at that time.
They can opt into the plan now. We certainly will be watching
to see who opts in to the plan in view of the statements that
have been made in the House about everyone else who has been part
of the pension plan.
2200
When I ran in 1993 I did not even know there was a pension. I
never got a pension after 18 years at the local level. I never
knew there was a pension plan up here. I did not run for a
pension. I would not have dreamed that there was a pension. My
hon. colleague asked me about the candidates who are running to
be the leader of the Canadian Alliance. There is one and that is
the person who was the leader of the Reform Party who stated just
this week, and I believe it is in Quorum, that if he
becomes the leader none of them will be able to take the MPs
pension because he will not allow it. It will be interesting to
see what happens.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, tonight we have heard members of the Conservative Party
talk about the two times the Reform Party reversed its position
on issues. One was to do with Stornoway and the other one,
according to them, dealt with taking a car for the leader of the
party. They have dwelt on that and they have brought that up
again and again yet in 1984 their party ran on balancing the
budget and lowering taxes. I remember it well because I voted
for them in 1984. They reversed their position on those issues.
Would the member lay it out before the people of Canada as to
how important she sees the issues are of taking a car and living
in Stornoway as compared to the issues that her party reversed
their position on? That was the issue of balancing the budget.
When they left they had a $42 billion deficit that year. They
ran on reducing the debt, but they more than tripled the debt in
their nine years in office. They ran on lowering taxes but they
increased taxes more than 100 times in the nine years they were
in office.
I would like the member to clearly lay out for the Canadian
public how she sees the importance of the Stornoway and the car
issues compared to the importance of the issues they reversed
their positions on, which was the issue of running a $42 billion
deficit, the issue of tripling the debt during their nine years
in power, and the issue of raising taxes which they did over 100
times. Would she very clearly lay out how she feels the
importance of these issues relate?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon.
member from the Canadian Alliance would like to change the
subject to something dealing with the economy instead of dealing
with whether or not they are going to take a pension.
I want the member to know that when Brian Mulroney became the
Prime Minister there was a $39 billion debt that was left to him
by Pierre Elliot Trudeau. A $39 billion debt was left to the PC
Party by Pierre Elliot Trudeau and no one even talks about it.
Back in the maritimes there is no prayer for the Canadian
Alliance because our people understand the different regions of
Canada and that different needs in different regions must be
addressed. I look at the flip-flops that have come from members
of the official opposition, and they even flip-flop on their own
name. They flip-flop on everything. They flipped out of the
pension plan. Now they would like to flip-flop back into the
pension plan. They flipped out from the Reform Party name and
went to another name and I believe they said it was CCRAP. We
did not say it; they said it. Now they are down to Canadian
Alliance. They are flip-flopping all over the place. The
stability is gone. People have seen it and we know that.
When it comes to the pension plan, certainly as our House leader
stated tonight, we feel they should all have had a pension.
Certainly they should have been in the pension plan. There is no
question about it. There is no reason in the world for them not
to be in it. We could change it so that no one gets a pension
until a certain age. It was 60 for me. Now it is down to 55 and
the majority of the people do not get one when they leave here.
2205
There have been major changes that have come about. In the
class of 1988 the immediate pension was about $37,000. Now the
immediate pension is around $18,000 or $19,000. That is only
since the class of 1993. There have been major changes and
people in all communities across the nation respect that.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague from
Prince Albert.
I cannot say that this is a great pleasure to speak on this bill
because it is not. Back in 1992 I had just finished serving six
years on council and I did not get a pension after I left.
I found out from talking to many people, as a person at the
municipal level does, that there was great discomfort in the
country about the fact that there had been successive deficits
run for years and years. We had managed to amass a $600 billion
in debt, yet the members of parliament had rewarded themselves by
giving themselves a pension plan that was not available to anyone
else. It was a plan that was topped up by their employer six to
one. For every dollar put in by the member, the taxpayers of
Canada, the poor beleaguered people who had already been taxed
into submission and into $600 billion worth of debt, had to fund
the members of parliament pension plan six to one.
It was not my idea to bring this to the Parliament of Canada. It
was my constituents' idea. When I sought this nomination, I
thought that one of the things we would have to put a stop to was
the runaway spending and the unnecessary taxation of people.
I will never forget the day when Don Mazankowski was the newly
minted finance minister. I had a lot of respect for that man and
thought maybe he was someone who would give us a budget that was
somewhere near balanced. My hopes were dashed. I think his
deficit that year was a meagre $22 billion. At that point I said
I had to get out of municipal politics and into federal politics
because it was absolutely horrendous; I had children whom I hoped
soon would have children and I was very concerned about the state
of the nation.
What options do ordinary Canadians who pay taxes to this place
have for retirement benefits? If they are lucky and have any
money left after tax, they can put a few dollars into an RRSP to
pay taxes on at later date. They do not have a pension plan. I
suggest that a lot of the people who came to this place from some
other business did not have a pension plan. Now that they are
here they say they have to have a pension plan, that someone else
is paying for it, so why not.
There is a lot of talk about the changes which have taken place
to this very plan. It is extremely significant that there have
been three bills in seven years to deal with it. If it had not
been for pressure put on by the former Reform Party, those
changes very likely would never have taken place.
2210
When we came here we were the Reform Party. We made some
changes to the pension plan by putting the pressure on the
government. That is how that happened.
Let us see what people have available to them. They have the
famed, or is it fabled, CPP. They have the Canada pension plan
and for the low, low price of 10% of what they earn, they can
enrol in it. The premium will soon be 10%. By 2003 that plan to
which self-employed Canadians, and lots and lots of the people in
my constituency are self-employed, will pay $3,270 per year for
an annual pension of $8,800. That is a whopping $733 a month, and
certainly they will have money left over from that to pay taxes,
to make sure that members of parliament retire in the manner
befitting members of parliament. Would that be reasonable? I
think not.
Today it takes a record 20% of Canadians' average earnings just
to pay their taxes. In the small amount of time we have been
here we have made changes to this plan. Taxpayers were putting
in $6 for every $1 a member put in. It was six to one. It has
been reduced to $3.61 for every $1. That is still pretty rich
and it is still too rich for me.
I concur with my colleagues that the only way to handle this is
to put it to an independent arm's length group who will come in,
assess the job and the fact that we have to spend time away from
our families.
I have heard people down at the other end say, “We spend time
away from our families. We have to get on an airplane”. Where
did they think MPs went to work? Did they not know they had to
come to Ottawa to go to work? Did they not know that the House
sits 135 days a year? Was this some surprise, that after
election day they said, “Oh my God, I did not realize I had to
go to Ottawa”. Of course they have to go to Ottawa.
There are people out there who are struggling. They do not know
where their next paycheque is coming from and we are worried
about a pension plan.
I submit that anybody who has the wherewithal to get themselves
elected to this place should have some wherewithal to make a
living once they leave here. If they have not, how in the world
did they ever get here? I think every one of us has that
wherewithal.
There has been a lot of talk that we co-operated with the
government to bring in the bill. Yes, we did. We did that so we
would get an opportunity to talk to the bill. If we had not
co-operated with the House leader, he very likely would have
brought it in anyway. He very likely would have put closure on
every aspect of the bill. He very likely would have got his bill
and we would not have had any say. We would have looked totally
complicit in the whole affair.
I do not want to eat into my colleague's time because I know
that he has things he wants to get on the agenda, too.
Members of parliament have families and they do have to prepare
for their golden years. However, I would like to see a pension
plan that is fair, one that is reasonable, one that is somewhere
near the ones that my neighbours have. My neighbours manage to
get along just fine and they do not have a cheque arriving from
the Government of Canada every month.
2215
At no time have I ever said that members of parliament do not
deserve a pension plan. What they do deserve is a pension where
they can hold their head up high and say that this pension is
somewhere in the neighbourhood of what their neighbours, their
friends and the people who fund this place have available to
them.
This bill, in my opinion, and the whole approach to the pension
issue, is just one more reason that I believe this government
should be sent packing. We have heard people down at the other
end say that there will be nobody who will vote for the Alliance
Party. There will be people who vote for the Canadian Alliance. I
want to put them on notice that an election is in the offing. I
am sure the Prime Minister is a man of his word. He said that we
can rely on having an election within a year's time. I would like
to put the party down at the end of the hall on notice that a lot
of them are not going to be here next time around.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member
for Wetaskiwin. I have a bit of a theory about the Liberal House
leader out on a fishing expedition and casting flies. Lo and
behold, a fly fell in front of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and he leapt on it like a big
trout. He and his colleagues have been doing the work in this
place of the government.
As members of the House may have noticed, the government members
have had nothing to say all night. They have been sitting there
smiling like Buddha while that group over there does their dirty
work for them. I think this a little delicious.
I would like to ask the member for Wetaskiwin if he believes
that the other party, the fifth party, licking the hands of the
hon. House leader for the government, is the shape of things to
come?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, if ever there was a
loaded or leading question that would probably be it.
If my hon. colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands truly
expects me to answer that, we will have to have a beer and talk
that one over in private. I am not prepared to make statements
like that in the House of Commons.
The question from my colleague does give me an opportunity to
let him know that I do recall that when we first arrived here
after the fall election of 1993, my good friend from Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, my colleague from Prince George—Peace River
and myself went over to pay and benefits. We said that we wanted
to get out of the pension plan. The people in pay and benefits,
after they had quit laughing and had picked themselves up off the
floor, said that nobody gets out of this pension plan. They said
that there was no way for anyone to get out of the pension plan.
They told us that we were in it and that was all there was to it.
There has been a lot of talk tonight about all the Canadian
Alliance members being in the pension plan. I would just like to
point out to you, Madam Speaker, and I know that you have a grasp
on this, no one is vested in this plan until they have served six
years.
At this point, I do not think it is entirely accurate to say
that the Canadian Alliance people are in the pension plan. They
are making contributions to a pension plan that will absolutely
ruin their RRSP eligibility which will be all but taken up by the
contributions to this registered plan. Therefore, to say that
all the Canadian Alliance members are in the plan is absolutely
inaccurate. There will be no more Canadian Alliance members in
this plan than there are at the moment. Members will only be in
once they have served their six years.
2220
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about an image
that comes to mind when we get to the debate about pay, pensions
and things like that.
I will go back to the Trudeau years. I did not pay too much
attention to politics in those days, but we were into
hyperinflation in some of those years. All of a sudden, Trudeau,
his cabinet and the Liberal Party slapped handcuffs on the wage
aspirations of the average Canadian worker of 5% and 6%. Can
anybody in the House forget where they were the night that
happened, when Trudeau sat there in his expensive suit with a
flower in his lapel and locked us into 5% and 6% wage increases
over the next couple of years? Before he did that, he made big
wage increases to two classes of people: members of parliament
and senators, and federal judges. The political and judicial
elite of Canada were exempt from the laws they made for every
other person in the country.
Madam Speaker, could there be a little less cross-talk in the
House so I can speak and be heard?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
asking for a little silence as he makes his speech. I suppose
that it can be very disturbing, so I would ask hon. members to
please respect that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Put a sock in it.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for asking
them, as my colleague said, to put a sock in it. It is hard
enough to speak here when these people are talking over what one
is trying to say.
The Trudeau era is the primary image I have of what happens when
the political elite takes control of its own wages and benefits,
and passes legislation that is not to the benefit of every other
person in the country. That is why this needs to be taken out of
the hands of the political elite and given to an independent
commission to make those kinds of recommendations.
I am sure that in those days maybe even the Trudeau Liberals
could have been re-elected—if they had not done something like
that—if they had put it in the hands of somebody else outside
the system. No, they made sure that their pocketbooks were good
and thick at the expense of Canadian taxpayers who were held back
at a time when they were losing their homes, farms, businesses
and everything else as a result of inflation.
I want to talk a little about the pain the PC Party down at the
end of the building here seems to be feeling as a result of the
MP pension issue. Members of that party think they were defeated
because of the MP pension plan. They think that was the major
issue in the last election.
Let me tell the House that the last Conservative to be elected
in my riding was John Diefenbaker. No other Conservative has
been elected since. We have had Liberals but they were defeated
because they did not happen to know there was a place called
western Canada. It was just where another automatic vote came
from. It was good-bye to Gordon Kirkby who was one of the
primary architects of Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. Prior
to that it was a NDP member. It has been back and forth as they
searched for an alternative who would make a difference.
As for Mr. Diefenbaker, most of his supporters, workers and
campaigners are now members of the Canadian Alliance. They came
through the reform party. They have had it with the Progressive
Conservatives.
Those are the many reasons why the antipathy toward the
Conservative Party runs so deep, so longstanding and is so
visceral. It is based on a number of factors.
The national energy program instituted by the Liberals was
supposed to be done away with immediately when Mulroney and the
rest of the Conservatives were elected. They left it in place
for years and took billions more out of western Canada. That is
one good reason.
The aircraft maintenance contract was taken from Winnipeg by
force and transferred to Bombardier in Quebec by an act of
cabinet after it was fairly awarded by a competitive contract.
They wonder why they do not elect anybody in western Canada? Let
them think about it: the ongoing deficits, the spiralling debt,
increasing taxation.
In Saskatchewan there was a bush league boondoggle called
gigatext where they thought they could translate French
into English and English into French just by pushing a button.
The only button that was pushed was the voters of Saskatchewan
who awarded the Progressive Conservative Party roughly 7% in the
last election. I do not think it got much more in the previous
election. It had nothing to do with MP pensions. It had to do
with the things that I have just mentioned.
2225
Added to that were ongoing, well documented excesses and
scandals. There is a book written about it, On The Take
that most of us have read if we are from Saskatchewan. In case
the Progressive Conservatives are under any misapprehensions,
they should read the text of what I have said tomorrow and they
will understand why they have no voice, no members and no
representation in western Canada.
Getting away from the historical aspects, we had an opportunity
to do it right by adopting the recommendations of the Blais
Commission report last time. That was rejected out of hand by
the government, which is a total waste of more tax dollars. We
could have converted the non-taxable allowance to taxable and put
the pension on a commercial basis, but we lost the opportunity.
This is just another example of a process that is flawed when it
is in the hands of MPs. It needs to be taken out.
The Canadian Alliance is governed by its members meeting in
biennial assemblies and they set the policy. We are just asked
to implement policy. I think it is rather a good idea. They get
to set the stage.
Some parties have a policy similar to ours but they have zero
chance of bringing it into effect. What is the purpose of having
a policy if we cannot bring it into effect? For instance, the
NDP wants Canadians to elect 20 of them so they can be the
conscience of parliament. Big deal. When have the Liberals or
the Conservatives ever listened to their conscience? Why would
anybody elect a party like that or any of its members? For
goodness sakes, that is just too much to hope for.
I abstained from the previous vote to send the bill to second
reading. I will be opposing the bill in the upcoming vote.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have a simple question relating to the reform platform. There
are some aspects of it that I actually agree with from time to
time, especially on tax policy and the need to lower taxes and
pay down the debt. Those are the kinds of things where a broader
Conservative consensus can be built some time in the future.
One aspect that I am curious about is the issue of recall. How
many signatures are required under the reform formula for recall?
If we could obtain those signatures on this particular issue,
would reform respect that petition?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member is
well aware, there is no reform policy any more because we are now
members of the Canadian Alliance.
I did make a commitment to my voters that if a majority of them
got together and recalled in a petition, which has not happened
by the way, then I would honour it. I think that is the best
answer I can give the hon. member. Until a party becomes
government it cannot implement recall. I am quite sure that if a
recall policy had been in effect in the last years of the
Mulroney government, we would not have had to put up with so many
years of mismanagement by the Tory Party.
I am glad to hear that the Conservatives agree with our taxation
policies. That is important but it is only half the game. There
is parliamentary reform, which they are not interested in, and a
whole list of things that need to be dealt with.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I just want to explore
this issue a little further. We do have some concurrence on how
we grow an economy by paying down debt and lowering taxes, so we
do agree on that side of the equation.
On the parliamentary reform aspect of things, he said I did not
have any interest. I am trying to get more interested as
we speak.
2230
In that regard, the question is quite simple. How many
signatures under the Reform formula that exists, which now
represents individuals from the Canadian Alliance, are required
to have a recall on any particular issue? How many signatures
are required to do that? That is my question. It is a direct
question. What is the number of signatures required for a recall
under the platform on which the hon. member ran?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, I wish I had the blue
book with me. I believe it is about 25%, but he is asking for an
absolute figure. If we are talking percentages we cannot give an
absolute number because numbers in ridings continue to change.
I do not know, but maybe he is interested in recall because
someone in his riding is planning to start a campaign against
him, or something to that effect. He is afraid people are going
to ask why he does not pay attention to the previous Reform Party
policies so that they can get rid of him.
For me, it is no worry. Nobody is that unhappy with me as their
member of parliament.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, the member of the Conservative Party brought forward the
issue of recall in a way that he seems to think is somewhat
threatening to us.
I would ask the member for Prince Albert directly, if this
government were to bring in a bill tomorrow on recall, would he
support that bill?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, that is a hypothetical
question which does not require an answer, I am sure to say,
because the government would never do such a thing. If the
Canadian Alliance did it, yes, I would support it.
I rather doubt whether we would ever see such a piece of
legislation coming from any other party in the House, but the
answer is yes.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to make some remarks in the
debate this evening. The course I will take in terms of the
presentation I will make over the next number of minutes will
reflect on the comments that I made in last night's debate. I
will speak very much to the politics of this particular issue,
more so than to the substance of it.
I think it would be wrong for me to stand and accuse members of
the CA, the party formerly known as Reform, of being people
without principles because I clearly know that is not the case.
They are individuals who believe in their country and they want
to make a better country.
The energy of the debate comes from the stunts, the antics, the
rhetoric, the visceral attacks that members of the former Reform
Party make against numerous members of parliament. I could refer
to the Minister of the Environment. They chose to put that
individual's picture on a billboard with one of Canada's most
horrendous mass murderers to illustrate an issue with respect to
the feint hope clause, section 745.
That was done not only by Reform candidates. To be fair, it was
also done by a special interest group. The point is, no one
deserves to be put on a billboard or to be subjected to that kind
of tactic.
I can also point to the stunts they pulled on the House of
Commons lawn, where they actually had replicas of pigs to
represent parliamentarians feeding from the trough.
2235
We also remember the stunts that they pulled with respect to
giving away the keys to a car which was meant for the leader of a
political party.
The hon. members for West Nova and
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and I in my riding of
Fundy—Royal like to play bingo. It is an institution that
exists very much in rural Canada. I know that my constituents
who have pensions play bingo. Bingo cannot be played in
Stornoway, as the member for Calgary Southwest advocated, because
it was not turned into a bingo parlour. It is now the home of
the Leader of the Official Opposition. Reform members made a
stunt out of it.
They also said that they did not need a chauffeur, but now the
member for Edmonton North has a chauffeur driving her car. Those
are the stunts and the language these members choose to use.
My comments are made in tribute to principled individuals who
sat in the Progressive Conservative government between 1984 and
1993, individuals who lost their seats because they were attacked
with that same kind of rhetoric. Some of these comments may be
applicable today, but they would be against their own internal
mechanism.
The member for Calgary Southeast commented in the Vancouver
Sun that MPs who opt back in are liars or hypocrites. He
went on to refer to one member of parliament who had opted in.
He said that he had told the voters he was opting out and that he
had broken his word.
The leader of the party formerly known as Reform said in
September 1995 “Canadians will know which MPs are greedy and
which really care about taxpayers. Believe me, the voters won't
soon forget those MPs who promised integrity in government but
decided to pig-out while the trough was still full”.
It is this sort of visceral attack that actually precipitated a
fair amount of the energy of the debate we have before us at this
time.
On February 28, 1995 the former leader of the Reform Party
stated “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the MP
pension plan. We call upon every other member of the House to do
likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the
constituencies. It is a cry which must be respected if fairness
and leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to
parliament and any budget it endorses”. Those comments were
made by the member for Calgary Southwest.
What are the big picture issues that Canadians are concerned
about? They are concerned about the fact that we still have a
$600 billion national debt. We owe it to every young person and
future generations to pay down the national debt in a very
deliberate way.
We also owe it to the Canadian economy so that we can maintain
our place in the world. We must address the fact that we have
the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world
as a percentage of our economy and the highest personal income
tax rates.
Those are the issues Canadians want us to talk about in this
place. Instead, time and time again we have ratcheted up the
rhetoric using the kinds of quotes I just read. They are very
visceral attacks made in the course of campaigns for crass
political gain.
That is the issue that we have before us.
2240
A few weeks ago in my riding the member for Edmonton North said
“We are going to send the member for Saint John, the member for
New Brunswick Southwest and the member for Fundy—Royal home
after the next election whether they receive their pension or
not”. The fact is, there is not one poll to substantiate the
fact that they would even have one iota of a chance of winning a
seat in Atlantic Canada. The point is, they were still willing
to use the pension card only a few days ago.
I was very happy to celebrate my nomination, at which there was
a very articulate speaker. Bernard Lord is one of the youngest
and most dynamic leaders that we have in this country. As the
Premier of New Brunswick he has done some very special things in
his first year in government. He has been able to lower taxes,
balance the budget and put more money into priorities such as
health care and education.
I am very pleased that he had a chance to speak at that
nomination meeting, which was attended by 300 people. All eight
MLAs were either there in person or sent letters of endorsement.
A couple of cabinet ministers attended. More importantly, 300
grassroots members came to support and endorse that campaign.
I want to pay tribute to my president, Glen Baxter, whom I
regard as one of the strongest presidents of any political party
in the country, for putting together such a positive event.
What that illustrates is that with all eight riding associations
supporting my campaign provincially, all eight MLAs, we know that
we will be very strong in the riding of Fundy—Royal the next
time around.
The debate that we have before us today gives us a chance to
illustrate the stunts of sombrero dances against the Senate,
visceral attacks against a great Albertan, Ron Ghitter, the
stunts with respect to the car, Stornoway, the pension plan and
the changing of the party name.
All of these stunts come down to one issue. I refer to the
comment which came from across the way from the parliamentary
secretary for heritage. He said that they were going to do
politics differently, in a more mature fashion. What Canadians
have witnessed on numerous occasions over these last seven years
has been exactly the opposite.
I will not taint all members of the Canadian Alliance or Reform,
but the fact is, that is what they did. They assailed our
leaders. They assailed people like Brian Mulroney, who was the
prime minister between 1984 and 1993.
They were very quick to point out that the economy was in a
worldwide downturn, but they went at it as if we were the only
country not to have a balanced budget during that era. Margaret
Thatcher was a Conservative. She had some of the same challenges
in Great Britain. I do not know if they would attack Ronald
Reagan or George Bush in the same way, but they faced the same
challenges over that timeframe.
They forget to comment on the fact that the Progressive
Conservative Party from 1984 to 1993 was indeed a prosperity
builder. It was able to upgrade our trade with the Americans
from around $100 billion each and every year to over $320
billion. That is why we have growth in our economy today.
Those are the issues that Canadians need to hear and talk about.
That is the legacy that we need to point out. The debate comes
down to one issue: the visceral attacks, almost hatred, being
uttered by so many of those members.
2245
I will not repeat the comments that were uttered time and time
again in yesterday's debate. But we should probably take the lead
from the House leader of the Canadian Alliance when he said, “We
have no one to blame for this but ourselves. This is a bit of a
dilemma of our own making. Let us not kid ourselves”. My
comment to the members of the alliance is if they sincerely want
to do politics differently, if they sincerely want to build a
broader coalition of conservative voters, they have to do one
thing and that is to tell the truth and apologize for the stunts
and the antics which they performed.
The Progressive Conservative Party has taken the time to speak
here tonight to point out the hypocrisy that was demonstrated by
those members. A good number of them are now choosing to
participate in the pension plan. I do not begrudge them
believing they should have some kind of compensatory regime upon
retirement. I will even tip my hat and say that the pension plan
is more palatable to Canadians currently because we cannot
collect it until we are 55, that of the amount of contribution
dollars required there is a higher input from members than from
the taxpayer. I will tip my hat to the Canadian Alliance for
helping moving the yardstick and helping to correct the issue.
But the issue of concern here is that they have an awful lot of
crow to eat. There is the pensions, the bingo hall, the car
keys, the chauffeur. In the election of 2000 or 2001 the voters
will remember this issue more than anybody can imagine.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I might suggest coming from a House leader, I think we
could probably wind up this debate. I want to make a few
comments to capsulize what we have been saying with regard to
Bill C-37.
To remind people who may be channel surfing and watching this
ordeal, Bill C-37 is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act
and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Being a
former educator, I think it is important to lay out what the
debate is all about in such a fashion that the Canadian viewers
understand. From time to time we tend to get off track to make
our point and I am no exception.
This bill will allow members of parliament who opted out of the
pension plan to get back in. This is the third go around for
what was formerly known as the Reform Party. Those members have
basically swallowed themselves whole. I have used that
expression a couple of times tonight.
Members of that party, as my hon. friend mentioned, railed
against pensions for years until they came to this place. Many of
them got elected on that issue. There are other issues and we
concede that, but many of them got elected on that issue because
it was a popular thing to say, only to find out that once they
were here it does put limitations on what they can do back home
in terms of a business and what they can do in the future when
they leave this place. They have suddenly realized they might
need it. They actually conceded that last night in the debate.
How this was brought about was there were secret meetings on
this issue between the House leader of the Canadian Alliance,
formerly known as the Reform Party, and the government House
leader.
They did it behind closed doors. They were pressured by members
of the Canadian Alliance to do something about the state of their
pensions because obviously they had since found out that they may
need a little bit of a safety net when they leave this place,
understandably. They had to do it in such a fashion that it
would not appear that they were pushing that agenda. They were
pretty clever at it. They almost succeeded until our party
decided to rail against it and vote against it, which we did.
2250
Whatever twisted logic the CA wants to use in terms of our
position, it just ain't going to work. The fact is we will vote
against the bill in the way in which it was brought about. It was
brought about by secret meetings between the House leader of the
former Reform Party and the government House leader.
The National Post tells it just about as well as anybody
else in its June 13, 2000 edition. That would be today's, almost
yesterday's edition by now. The headline reads, “Grit pension
plan ploy divides alliance” and goes on to say, “Bill prompts
party to drop hardline stance against system it has often
attacked”. Our House leader often refers to the National
Post as the Reform Party daily bugle, I guess with a little
sense of humour to be fair. This capsulizes what we are talking
about tonight. That is why we have been up on our feet so much
on this. The National Post article said:
The pension bill, introduced in the dying days of Parliament's
spring session, also allows dozens of Alliance MPs who were
elected as Reformers in 1993 to “buy back” years of forgone
contributions to the plan. The party which once threatened MPs
with punishment for joining the plan has apparently dropped its
opposition. Its MPs agreed to give unanimous consent to the
tabling of the legislation last night, which ensures its speedy
passage through the House of Commons before Parliament's spring
session ends this week.
They did exactly that. They gave unanimous consent to push the
bill through the House truly without debate. They did not want a
debate on it. They did not want to vote on it. They did not want
members to express their feelings on it, as we are doing tonight.
I would say it was a conspiracy of silence on their part. They
simply wanted to slide it through in the dying days of this
session, which in fact they have done on a couple of occasions,
pressuring the government to do so.
The government has a legitimate interest in this as well. We do
not want to deny that. But the fact is that MPs were left
outside of the process. Again this is to educate the people back
home. Hopefully as the final speaker we can get a sense of what
is actually happening. We will not deviate onto the national
debt and past history.
The bill was laid on the desks of members of parliament one-half
hour before we came into this place last night. That rarely
happens unless the government is trying to push something through
quickly without debate. That is what it is attempting to do with
the help of the Reform Party. There was unanimous consent to
push it through, ram it through.
The bill is complex. Tonight in the House of Commons the
minister responsible for this bill, the hon. government House
leader, who is still here with us to give him credit, had three
officials with him, three technical advisers to explain to him
what the bill is about if he got questions from the floor of the
House of Commons.
2255
This bill was laid on our desks one-half hour before it was
debated. There was no opportunity to review it or to get any
kind of consultation or advice on it. The House leader tonight
had the audacity to say, “We are going to pass this bill and you
people will have an opportunity to ask these officials exactly
what you want to know about it. Let us get it through the House
of Commons”. That is truly what he said tonight, let us get it
through the House of Commons.
I am going to quote from the bill, just to give an idea of how
complex it is. We have to go back into a lot of past history and
bills that preceded this to truly understand it. I am reading
from page 1 of the bill. Listen to this:
Section 1(1)(70)(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act is replaced
by the following:
(4) Subject to subsections (4.1) and (5), the severance
allowance to be paid to or in respect of a person under
subsection (1) or (2) shall be a lump sum amount equal to 50% of
the aggregate of
(a) the sessional allowance under section 55;
(b) any salary or allowance under section 60, 61 or 62 of this
act or section 4 or 5 of the Salaries Act.
That tells us exactly the complexity of this bill. And it was
laid on the desk of every member of parliament minutes before it
was going to be introduced and debated. They did not want
debate. We have to remember that. They did not want debate on
this issue.
What has to be known when this bill is read is that the
Reformers are now in the pension plan. They have achieved
exactly what they wanted to do. They have done it by stealth.
Last night the Canadian Alliance House leader spoke in this
House. To quote from the Hansard of Monday, June 12, he
said, “We have to vote on this issue”. He was talking about
the bill in question here.
We will have to move on it and defend it and explain it. All of
the speeches and all of the debate will give people confidence
that members of parliament have applied themselves to this
thoughtfully and have come to a conclusion collectively.
That is the member for Fraser Valley who happens to be the House
leader for the Canadian Alliance. He went on to say:
It is very unfortunate that those of us who have remained out of
the pension plan have run that gauntlet and, as I said earlier,
have reaped what we have sown. We had hoped that by staying out
of the plan we could press for a more modest and acceptable plan
but alas, it was not to be.
He went on to talk about the Blais commission.
The National Post actually picked up on part of what he
had to say. He is basically saying they railed against this in
1993; they railed against it for almost 10 years, actually long
before 1993 leading up to the 1993 election. The House leader of
the Canadian Alliance, the member for Fraser Valley said, “We
have no one to blame for this but ourselves. This is a bit of a
dilemma of our own making”. Imagine. He was being quite modest,
“This is a bit of a dilemma of our own making. Let us not kid
ourselves”.
He got up in the House tonight and 24 hours has given him enough
time to spin his story. As the member for Winnipeg—Transcona
said tonight, it is almost unbelievable that the same House
leader of the Canadian Alliance allowed his party to give
unanimous consent to push this bill through without debate.
2300
Now, after 24 hours of reflection and probably getting some
calls from back home, he has completely flip-flopped on his
position. It has basically allowed him to massage the message
that he was giving last night. Although every one of them
unanimously consented to ram the legislation through the House,
they stood in their places tonight and voted against it. They
want to have the best of both worlds.
I have received a note from my House leader which says that
Reformers are in an suspended existence of purgatory, caught
between the devil and the deep blue sea: what they said to get
elected and what they truly want and desire. They now walk
softly and avoid the big stick with which they like to club other
members of the House. That is pretty good humour, but does it
not tell the whole story about exactly what they are attempting
to do.
That pretty well winds it up from our point of view. They truly
have swallowed themselves whole. That is the long and the short
of it. I think the Canadian people have basically figured them
out. They have attempted everything. We have talked about some
of the things they have attempted to do in terms of watering down
their policies, trying to broaden the base of their party,
changing the name of their party, and so on and so forth. We
could go on and on forever on some of the things they have
attempted to do.
The truth is they wanted this to slide through the House in the
dying days of this session without any opposition. They
conspired secretly with the House leader of the Liberal Party to
make this happen. In terms of the cynicism that is sometimes
expressed about the way this place works, that is living proof of
it. The House leader of the government does not have a lot to be
proud of. Certainly the House leader of the CA has nothing much
to brag about on the particular bill. It is a sad day for
parliament when we see a display of arrogance like we have seen
in the last couple of days. On that note, I rest my case.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make and
hopefully the hon. member will keep his comments short. I know a
couple of my colleagues would like to have some time during the
10 minute question and comment to make some comments about the
hon. member's intervention. He raised a number of issues during
his intervention. If I can understand where he was going with
it, one was—
An hon. member: He wasn't going anywhere.
Mr. Jay Hill: One of my colleagues says “He wasn't going
anywhere”. During the committee of whole process he said that
he did not have an opportunity to direct questions to the
officials or to the hon. government House leader. Anybody who
has been watching the debate tonight at home and anybody who has
been participating in the Chamber knows that is rubbish, as one
of my colleagues said. The hon. member used the majority of that
time.
We had one hour in committee of the whole during which
opposition members and members of the government could ask
questions pertaining to the bill of the minister responsible, in
this case the government House leader, and the officials he has
asked to be present. The hon. member used 20 minutes or 25
minutes of that time to rant and rail against the Canadian
Alliance. Anybody watching the debate saw that. He had lots of
time to put questions to the officials or to the government House
leader, yet he chose not to do so. That is the first fallacy in
what he stated.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When bills are brought forth in the House they are
normally sent to a parliamentary committee where they are
scrutinized and Canadians participate, as opposed to being sent
to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member is into debate right now.
2305
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, as you correctly pointed
out, even though it is eleven o'clock at night that certainly was
not a point of order. The hon. member knew it before he rose in
his place.
The second assertion of the hon. member from New Brunswick was
that somehow my House leader, the member for Fraser Valley, and
the Canadian Alliance had an opportunity to spin their story. Let
us look at who is spinning what story.
The hon. member represents a party that had a massive majority
government between the years 1984 and 1993. If I am not
mistaken, the father of his House leader, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, was a member of that government
for a portion of that time as a cabinet minister. These
individuals in the Progressive Conservative caucus are somehow
trying to point the finger during this debate. They had a
majority government for nine years. At that time they promised
the Canadian people a privatized pension plan like those used by
other Canadians. They had a massive majority government for nine
years and did nothing to change the MP pension plan.
Since we were elected in 1993 we have tried for seven years to
bring about changes to this plan, and we are in opposition. We
have tried everything we can including opting out of the plan to
draw public attention to what we believe is an unfair plan. We
have tried to get changes that we all can participate in. We
have tried to get a plan that we can all participate in, hold our
heads up, look at ourselves in the mirror, and participate in.
The Progressive Conservatives were in government between 1984
and 1993. They had a massive majority, indeed the largest
majority in Canadian history. They had 212 of the 285 seats and
they never changed the pension plan. They have the audacity to
stand and attack others who have tried to change it. They should
be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, I hate to say it but I
think I am getting under the hon. member's skin. I certainly
would not want to do that. This is the famous old bait and
switch tactic. He wants to get us off the topic. The truth is
that they are attempting to spin their story and they are not
succeeding. The truth is they conspired with the government
House leader to sneak the bill into the House of Commons in the
dying days of this session. That is what they attempted to do
and they will not get away with it.
The reason for that is pretty simple. Now that they are going
into an election they realize they have been here long enough to
be pensionable. Most of them have been here at least six or
seven, going on eight years. They realize they need a little
safety net for themselves. They are saying they may not run as
Reformers so they do not really care.
All they want is to get locked into a pension in some fashion
even though they railed against it for the two terms they have
been here. When they leave, when they wave goodbye as one of
them is doing now, they will have the golden parachute, the thing
they railed against.
That is what is getting under their skin. They have truly
flip-flopped on this issue as they have on every other issue
including changing the name of the party. They went from being a
party that would bring in the west. Its rallying cry was that it
would let the west into this thing called Confederation because
the west wanted in.
Now that they are courting with Bay Street, the big blue machine
in Ontario and Tom Long. They risk losing their party to the
very people they railed against. They are going from a western
based party to a Bay Street party, from a populous party to a
corporate board party.
In the meantime they will do whatever they have to do to land on
their feet back home. If it means a safety net that is fine.
They might have railed against it, but the fact is that is what
they want and that is what they will get. They conspired with
the government to move this through the House very quietly, very
silently. Unfortunately some of us stood up on our hind legs and
railed against exactly that type of manoeuvring.
2310
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member from New Brunswick Southwest knows that
his House leader was involved in those discussions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not believe that
is a point of order.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, that is rhetorical
nonsense and he knows it. Again he is attempting to find a
scapegoat as they normally attempt to do on any issue they are
not comfortable with. The truth of the matter is that his House
leader conspired in secret with the House leader of the
government to bring their members into a pension plan which they
railed against for 10 years of their elected life. That is the
sad reality.
We are talking about a simple plan that no other member of
parliament including House leaders were involved in. We have
always made pretty clear where we stand on pensions, as do the
NDP and for the most part the Liberals. They conspired with the
House leader of the government to bring this about very quietly
in the dying days of this session of parliament.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like you to rule on whether the term that the
hon. member used is parliamentary. I do not believe you will
find that it is. He is saying that the alliance conspired.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): After researching in
our reference book the word is not considered unparliamentary,
especially in that context.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, that was a great ruling
and I appreciate it. I just want to remind the House of one
thing. CA members said that they would never take a pension,
that pigs would fly first. All I can say is that there is a lot
of pork in the air tonight.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to debate Bill C-37 at
third reading. It is a matter of great concern to me and has
been for some time.
I want to mention that the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands suggested during his remarks that the bill
represented a carcass which is being dug up for the third time by
a dog. He asked me to correct the record on his behalf and
suggest that it was a herd of pigs which was digging up this
carcass for the third time, or hogs as the case may be.
2315
This is a serious matter and it rests with a very basic
principle that ought to govern our affairs, the simple principle
of fairness.
It is fairly well known in these environs that I have a long,
outspoken record on this issue as former president of the
Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough earlier suggested that in fact it
was the reform party that was responsible for making issues, such
as extraordinarily generous parliamentary perks and pensions,
issues in the past. No. I think that citizens advocacy
organizations, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, can
take the lion's share of the credit for having amplified public
concern about the double standard to which parliamentarians here
and in the provincial legislatures had begun to treat themselves
through the 1980s.
Let us just revisit the history because we have heard various
comments from various shrill members of the regional fringe party
to my extreme left, the fifth party. We have heard all sorts of
huing and crying this evening about the parliamentary pension
plan. In that process, I have not heard a single word of
contrition or humility from that party which was reduced to two
seats, in large part because of the overstuffed attitude and
arrogance of its former government, which was typified by its
unrelenting defence of a then platinum-plated pension plan that
provided pensions of $6.50 for every dollar provided by the
parliamentarian.
Those members seemed to have remembered everything but to have
learned nothing from their experience in government. One of the
things they seem to have forgotten is that Canadians were
disgusted with the party that refused to accept the simple
principle of fairness. I have heard them stand in this place all
night long and criticize this party and Canadians for wanting a
fair pension plan that operates on a self-funding, dollar for
dollar, actuarially sound basis.
The history of this is that before the early 1970s there was no
pension remuneration for members of parliament. I hear some
defenders of the status quo ante often say that if we do not
provide super rich benefits far in addition to what one could
expect in the private sector, that we will not be able to attract
high calibre parliamentarians.
I think most Canadians would suspect that before the days of
great largesse, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, before the
gold-plated pension plan was introduced, we had some pretty sound
public servants working in this Chamber on behalf of Canadians.
To suggest that these benefits, at the levels introduced in the
1980s, are necessary to attract talent, I think is rather
specious. In fact, there seems to be a direct inverse
relationship between the generosity of pension benefits and the
quality of members of parliament.
It was in the early 1980s that the then Liberal government
introduced a pension plan with a 5% accrual rate at its maximum
generosity. It was shortly thereafter that we had nearly 200
Tory members of parliament in this place, supposedly attracted by
that generous benefit, who decided to double the country's
national debt, double federal spending, increase taxes 72 times
and help bring about the longest and most painful recession in
post-depression history. Boy, did we not get our money's worth
by juicing up those benefits to attract those Tories to this
place, benefits for which they still shamelessly apologize?
I am proud to say that members of the former Reform Party stood
on principle in the lead-up to the 1993 election and thereafter
by the principle of fairness when they said, as we do today in
the Canadian Alliance, that members of parliament and public
servants ought not to be given access to benefits, pensions or
remuneration that is any more generous than what is available to
ordinary working Canadians. That is a very simple principle. It
ought not to be difficult to understand but it seems to be for
the regional party on my extreme left.
2320
I want to point out that what the Canadian Alliance policy stands
for is to allow an independent commission to determine the
compensation for members of parliament so that it removes us from
this intolerable conflict in which we are placed every time a
bill such as this is brought before the House of Commons.
In fact, we see that virtually every province has undergone a
major overhaul of their compensation packages for MLAs, MPPs,
MNAs and so forth. For instance, the provinces of Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and, I believe, New Brunswick
have all trashed their old, gold-plated, unfunded, actuarially
unsound, taxpayer subsidized pension plans and replaced them with
what our party has long advocated, which is a simple dollar for
dollar, actuarially sound, money purchase style pension plan, the
kind of plan available to all Canadians.
What does the current plan do that this legislation maintains?
It creates and perpetuates a defined benefit pension plan that
provides for benefits far in excess of what the MP contributions
plus matching government contributions could possibly fund. It is
a recipe for an unfunded, future liability, otherwise known as a
taxpayer IOU, an IOU which will be picked up by future taxpayers.
How does it do this? It does this because it has in it a 4%
benefit accrual rate.
The members of the regional party on my left do not seem to
understand how this pension operates. In fact, I heard the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough completely disingenuously and
shamelessly suggest that the one time severance package brought
in in the last legislation was somehow comparable to the generous
benefits under the current pension plan before us this evening.
That is totally facetious and completely inaccurate.
This is a 4% benefit accrual rate. What does that mean? That
is a technical term, so let me explain it. The Income Tax Act of
Canada has certain limits for what constitute registered pension
plans. Registered pension plans are those to which contributions
by employers and employees are tax deductible. There is a certain
maximum that the Income Tax Act creates in terms of the
generosity for registered pension plans. The maximum benefit
accrual rate under the Income Tax Act is 2%. This is a 4% plan.
In other words, the benefits are twice as rich as the income tax
allows.
The Tories love it. We hear them rushing to the defence of
that system. Fortunately, because of the efforts of my
colleagues in this party and the Reform Party in the last
parliament, the benefits were slightly modified from a 5% accrual
rate to a 4% accrual rate and certain other peripheral changes
occurred, such as an increase of the age of vesting to 55 and a
certain restriction on the practice known as double dipping.
By and large, this plan is not an actuarially sound plan. It is
a plan that is available to fewer than 2% of Canadians. In fact,
it is so extraordinarily generous that the government in this
legislation must actually go outside of the Income Tax Act to top
up the contributions that are not tax deductible. This is
essentially twice as generous as the average defined benefit plan
available to Canadians in the private sector.
Mr. Dale Johnston: By law.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, by law. The legislatures of
British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and other
provinces looked at these unfunded, actuarially unsound pensions
and they decided that they would bring in the same fair dollar
for dollar money contribution plans that would be fully funded.
Guess what they did?
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mike Harris got $1 million when they
closed that pension plan.
Mr. Jason Kenney: They trashed the defined benefit plan
and introduced a defined contribution plan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Ernie Eves got $850,000. You are full
of nonsense.
Mr. Jason Kenney: The member across the floor points out
that the members of the Ontario legislature, in the process of
converting from a gold-plated, defined benefit pension plan to a
self-funding defined contribution plan, received a certain lump
sum payment to be invested into an annuity. He is absolutely right.
They invested that money into an annuity and the money that went
into that annuity is a fraction of the defined benefits they
would have been paid through the unfunded liability. Mike Harris
did what was fiscally responsible.
2325
I wish the members of the regional party on my extreme left
would follow the example of Mike Harris or Gary Filmon on this
issue, or of Ralph Klein who followed the leadership of the
reform party in moderating these benefits and putting them on the
same level that average Canadians expect and anticipate. Yes,
they got an annuity, the annuity being a fraction of the benefits
that would have been paid to them under the old status quo ante.
The point that we raise here is one of simple fairness. Why
could we not simply have introduced and passed in legislation the
recommendations of the Blais Commission. Honest, hardworking
Canadians volunteered, such as a former colleague, Ray Speaker, to
sit on the Blais Commission, look at parliamentary compensation
and determine what would be fair by analyzing the workload and
responsibilities of members of parliament and senators and
comparing those responsibilities to compensation packages in the
private sector.
The commission came up with some very sensible recommendations,
first among which was to take the defined benefit plan we have
now, the actuarially unsound plan, and convert it into a
self-funding, dollar for dollar, standard pension plan, the type
of which has been adopted in Ontario and several other provinces.
That was the Blais Commission's recommendation.
This government, instead of accepting the recommendations of that
hardworking, thoughtful and objective independent commission,
decided that it was going to continue with the status quo.
Incidentally, that commission also recommended that we eliminate
the completely odious practice of allowing MPs to hide a portion
of their income and shelter it from taxes. Elected officials, alone
amongst Canadians, are allowed, through a special provision in the
Income Tax Act, to exempt one-third of their ordinary income from
the same taxes that we impose upon Canadians.
I have a private member's bill that would eliminate the
so-called tax free expense allowances which, of course, are
effectively a proportion of our salary, and make that money fully
taxable. This would create full transparency so that Canadian
taxpayers could see what they are actually paying their members
of parliament.
The Blais Commission made the same recommendation that we
eliminate the tax free status proportion of our income and gross
it up for full transparency. However, again the government decided it
did not want Canadians to see what we are actually being paid. It
does not want Canadians to see that the $21,000 tax free
allowance is actually worth about 40,000 pre-tax gross dollars.
It does not want Canadians to see that so it ignored the
recommendations of the Blais Commission on issue after issue.
Why does the government continue to put us in this conflict of
interest position? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
I voted against this bill at second reading because it fails to
implement the recommendations of the Blais Commission. It fails
to live up to the spirit of fairness that has swept the
legislatures of this country which have reformed their
legislative compensation packages. It also fails to simply
respect the basic principle of fairness.
I want to make it absolutely clear, as a former president of the
Canadian Taxpayers Federation and somebody who has raised the
issue of fairness, that I for one have never advocated that
parliamentarians or legislators in Canada ought to have no
retirement benefits. Quite to the contrary.
I remember appearing before committees in this place in the last
parliament as a lay witness and suggesting the kind of pension
plan that Canadians would accept, the sort that has been
adopted by the various provincial legislatures, a defined
contribution, completely actuarially sound pension.
I never suggested as president of that organization that any
member of parliament be required to opt out of the pension plan.
In fact, we never asked for an opting out provision. I want to
make it clear that those who have been fighting for fairness in
MP compensation have been fighting for reasonable fairness. They
have not been fighting for a double standard where MPs of one
party would be set at a disadvantage compared to MPs of another
party. We think MPs of all parties should have the same standard
as all Canadians, and that is what this debate is about.
2330
I can understand why my colleagues in the fifth party are
shrill. After all, they are not only fifth in number of seats
but I think they are now fifth in the public opinion polls. They
are sad and tired with a retread leader from the 1970s who cannot
even figure out whether or not he wants to run in a byelection,
It has been postulated to me by members of the PC Party that one
of the reasons their leader will not run for election to this
place is that is he is receiving very generous pension plan
benefits right now, whilst at the same time receiving from his
party a compensation package equivalent to that of the leader of
his party in this place. Talk about double dipping.
These shameless advocates of the old status quo have learned
absolutely nothing. Their leader will not run, in part because
he is getting that very generous pension and a very generous
salary from his debt ridden party. Is it not interesting that
the party which doubled the national debt, which ran the longest
and largest string of deficits in Canadian history but never
apologized for it, all the while defending a six to one
parliamentary pension plan, should now have for a leader a man
who continues to collect that pension plan and a generous salary
from a party that is in as much debt as it put the country in?
What a delicious irony. They have learned absolutely nothing.
The shrill partisan squawking we hear from that extreme and
narrow fringe of Canadian politics will continue. I think that
they should do themselves and this place a favour. I would be
willing to exempt my principles on the question of euthanasia
because I would like to see that party die a dignified death.
What we see before us now is anything but dignified, as the
Conservatives continue to apologize for the grandiosity and the
pomposity of the regime which they represented and the six to one
pension plan which Canadians have said enough about.
I am proud of my colleagues for having taken a stand on this
issue, for having forced the moderation of these benefits. I
look forward to the day when we sit on the other side and one of
the very first pieces of legislation we introduce will be to
institute an independent commission, which I fully anticipate
will come back with recommendations to create a self-funding,
actuarially sound pension plan.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point. I just
want to help out the hon. member. His members have taken great
pains to point out that they should be called the Canadian
Alliance and not the Reform Party. He called himself the Reform
Party.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that party is in such a
pathetic state that it cannot even use progressive political
terminology such as reform without getting nervous.
The reality is that I am proud of my colleagues for having led
the fight on this issue over the past two parliaments, for having
forced the moderation of these benefits, something that party on
the fringe has never advocated, has never stood for and is
fighting against here tonight.
I look forward to the moment when we will see under an alliance
government a commission report back that we should have an
actuarially sound, fully funded pension plan. As the Blais
commission recommended, we ought to eliminate the hide and seek
game of the tax free expense allowances. We ought to put
ourselves on the same standard as the rest of Canadians and
remove the conflict of interest which we are now in. I look
forward to that moment. Unfortunately the only bitterness for me
is that members at the other end will not be in this place to
enjoy our retroactive reduction of their pension benefits.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very simple question for my hon. colleague.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Do you have any other kind?
Mr. Mark Muise: Wow, we are full of interesting comments
tonight. I would like to ask my hon. colleague a very simple
question.
2335
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Simple colleague.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I did not say my simple
colleague. I said I had a simple question for my hon. colleague.
Today my hon. colleague's successor, Walter Robinson, called what
the alliance was doing slimy, slimy politics. I would like my
hon. colleague to respond to that comment.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I concur with that comment
with respect to this government, its approach to this issue and
its legislation. I think it is irresponsible and that is why I
will vote against it. I think it is irresponsible not to accept
the recommendations of the independent commission. I think it is
irresponsible not to bring in legislation which adopted the
recommendations of the Blais commission. I agree completely with
Mr. Robinson and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation when they
fully and heartily endorsed the recommendations of the Blais
commission.
However, let me tell the House what is really slimy. It is a
party that continues to defend a pension plan which Canadians do
not think is reasonable. It does so without any shred of
humility. It pains me to see my colleagues at that end, after
all of these years, refusing to learn the lessons of their tragic
defeat in 1993. It was a tragic fall. Tragic falls come after
the hubris. They still have not divested themselves of the
hubris of their government. Had they simply taken the steps
recommended by the Blais commission in 1984, I suspect there
might still be a Tory party worth talking about in this place.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask the member quite a specific question. He talked
about the Canadian Alliance's intention if it is elected. Let us
hope that never happens. It will retroactively change the
pension. He sang the praises of Mike Harris. Mike Harris took
action in Ontario. I do not care what hat he wants to wear, the
former president of whatever. Mike Harris got $900,000 when he
changed that pension. Bob Runciman got $900,000. Ernie Eves got
$850,000. Norm Sterling got $800,000.
In other words, they calculated the unfunded liability, what an
annuity would be, and rather than put the annuity in trust they
gave themselves the principal. It is a heck of a deal. Just
before Christmas an order in council in the Ontario government
allowed them to access that money immediately.
Is the member singing the praises of Mike Harris style of
pension reform? Is that what he is talking about? The silence
was deafening. The silence in this regard from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation and from the Reform Party was deafening.
They made instant millionaires out of these people. Yet they
parade themselves around as great pension reformers.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that member was shouting
so loudly a few moments ago that he was deafening himself with
his heckling. I pointed out to the member that the annuities
paid out to those MPPs of the Progressive Conservative Government
of Ontario were substantially less than the benefits would have
been paid under the status quo defined benefit pension plan. That
was clearly the case. That was clearly the intention.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Not bad. The member can say that
with a straight face, but the member beside him cannot listen to
it with a straight face.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for
Ottawa—Vanier is not an actuary. Perhaps he is not familiar
with the figures. I looked very closely at that issue and
understand that the members of the Government of Ontario saved
the Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars by reforming the
pension plan. They received a one time benefit based on years of
service, based on what they had funded in terms of contributions.
It is marvellous that the Ontario government decided by order of
council to allow those MPPs to manage those dollars themselves
through their own annuities to generate a higher rate of return
than they would otherwise get through a government managed
annuity. That is essentially the same principle that we advocate
for all Canadians. They should be free to invest what belongs to
them. Those are benefits vested in them for the future. They
ought to be able to invest them to maximize the rate of return.
The point is that the MPPs are then taking the risk and not the
taxpayer, which is the case in an unfunded defined benefit plan.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
question at hand is the amount of rhetoric that we receive from
the member when he talks about the hypocrisy of the situation and
attacks our government.
2340
This debate is about the unprecedented rhetoric and the stunts
that were played by putting replicas of pigs in the House of
Commons and by giving away keys to cars. They said they would
not take the chauffeur and would not move into Stornoway.
On August 6, 1998, when a member of that party decided to opt
into the pension plan this member said, according to an article
in the Vancouver Sun, that MPs who opted back in were liars
and hypocrites. He went on to say that he opted out and told the
voters he was opting out. Now he has broken his word. This is
the same pension.
My question is quite simple. Which one of the members who voted
yes to Bill C-37 is a liar and which one is a hypocrite?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We settled this
yesterday. I am going to refresh everybody's memory. We will
not sanitize the English language to the point where it loses all
its spice, but we will not use hypocrite or liar when we are
directing those words directly at any member in any circumstance.
I said yesterday that hypocrite in the general sense of an
action that is hypocritical in nature was fine. Hypocrite
singularly will not be permitted.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the
question. I think the way I phrased it was indeed over the top
and I do apologize in that regard.
Which one of his members who voted yes to this bill would he add
to the comments he made to the Vancouver Sun? Would the
members who actually voted yes to this bill fall in the same
class and receive the same kind of reaction on an internal basis?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, there are no members of
parliament opting into this pension plan under this legislation.
I think the question is immaterial. At the end of the day
constituents will make a judgment about the conduct of their MPs
in all these matters.
I can say with confidence that when they do so they will see
that this party and its members have fought tirelessly for the
moderation of these benefits so that they are put on a fair,
fully funded basis. They will see that members of the regional
party at the other end continue to this day not to have learned
the lessons of 1993 and continue to apologize and promote a
double standard for MPs.
They have not said a single word tonight about the Blais
commission. I have not heard a Tory MP utter a single word about
the principle that the compensation of MPs ought to be set
independently and at arm's length. They seem not to care about
the conflict of interest in which we are put by legislation such
as this bill.
I have not heard a single word of concern about the unfunded
liability which exists in this sort of pension plan. I have not
heard a single word of commendation for the Progressive
Conservative provincial governments which have brought in
sensible legislation to moderate pensions plans, not a single
constructive word, not a single word of humility, not a single
word that would contribute positively to the debate about how to
make the compensation of MPs a matter for independent scrutiny
and not this kind of conflict of interest. Canadians will make a
judgment and I think that the judgment will be on that party.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will only take a couple of minutes. I think we have
had all the fun we can probably stand for one night. I should
like to correct some misconceptions that have been said tonight.
The first one was corrected by my colleagues. I am referring to
the allegation by the fifth party, the Conservative Party, that
Reform MPs and now Canadian Alliance MPs have always been against
an MP pension plan. That is just simply not the case. What we
have been against is a pension plan that is unfair and is out of
line with what Canadians expect from us.
The second one is that the bill is about the Canadian Alliance
forcing the government into allowing Canadian Alliance members
back into the pension plan.
That is what one of the Conservative Party members said. That is
so absurd we should think about it again. He said that the
Canadian Alliance House leader somehow put pressure on the
government House leader to bring in a pension bill to allow
members of the Canadian Alliance party to get back into the
pension.
2345
If we are that powerful as the official opposition, imagine what
we will do when we are in government a year from now. I would
like to know why the Conservative members, the few who are left,
are not rushing to join us given that kind of power. That was an
interesting comment by the member from the Conservative Party.
The third thing is members of the Conservative Party have said
that some kind of dealing went on which allowed the bill to go
ahead with unanimous consent and that there would not be a debate
or a vote.
Any member of the House can deny unanimous consent. There are
still about 17 members in the Conservative Party. Where were
they to deny unanimous consent? If they were doing their jobs,
they would have denied unanimous consent. They went along with
it too, because all that unanimous consent did was to allow the
legislation to come to the House two days earlier than normal.
With full debate, we could debate it for the next 10 days if we
chose to. That is what is allowed here. For the Conservative
Party members to suggest that there was conniving which took
place to allow this to go ahead and that they were tricked, I do
not know what they are saying really. The fact is that any member
of the Conservative Party could have denied unanimous consent to
allow the bill to go ahead two days earlier than normal.
When the Canadian Alliance forms the government, we will change
this plan. We will change it based on the recommendations of an
independent commission. We supported the Blais commission
recommendations. An independent commission is needed to set the
pay and benefits of members of parliament. That is what will
happen when we form the government, I believe a year from now.
Because that has not been allowed to happen in this situation, I
will vote against the bill at third reading, as I did at second
reading.
There has been a lot said about the bill. I think we have had
full debate on it. There is still a lot I could say about it but
I think it has been said. I will leave my comments at that.
I agree with others who have said that our constituents will
judge each one of us on this issue. I welcome that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's
comments. As with the previous speaker, it was a cross between
vitriol, high octane fuel and pure adrenalin. At the end of the
day it really boils down to a simple question. He has told us
what he would do and we have heard about what they would do
before. That seems to have dissipated. Why should Canadians
believe the member now?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why
Canadians should believe me now. The answer is that I am
trustworthy. I make a point of speaking the truth. I would like
the member to say so if he doubts that. That is my answer. I do
not know what he was referring to beyond that.
2350
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Lakeland put to rest some of the absurd
comments from the Progressive Conservatives tonight. I am not
sure whether they were trying to be progressive or conservative
or just completely irrelevant which I think they have succeeded
in.
I do find it interesting that there is one thing that was not
covered by the member for Lakeland. Many members of the Tory
caucus said that they did not know anything about the bill and it
was a complete and absolute surprise.
Perhaps the member for Lakeland could describe what exactly they
think their House leader was doing for the past three or four
weeks and if he is not talking to his own caucus what exactly he
thinks his role is. It seems to me, and I am just guessing, that
there were discussions about it. The government House leader
said members did not even have to go to a caucus meeting. They
could pick up a newspaper a month ago and read that people were
talking about it.
The Tories seemed to be completely and utterly surprised at
this, that it came out of nowhere. It was just laid on the table
and then the Canadian Alliance gave unanimous consent, just like
the Tories said they did, “Just like us in the Tory party, they
gave unanimous consent”. Whoops.
I do not mind someone giving unanimous consent because we knew
this was being talked about. What I find remarkable is they gave
unanimous consent to something they say they had no idea existed.
They said, “We will give unanimous consent to something which
we have not got a clue what we are talking about”. I give up.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it as well
as my colleague did. It shows the state of that party. Those
members granted unanimous consent, obviously according to what
they said, not knowing what is going on. It shows the state of
communication within that party when the House leader who was
involved in all of these negotiations did not tell his own
members what was going on. My question is what is going on over
there?
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I want to take a few minutes to be on record at third reading of
the bill. I greatly regret what is happening in the House these
days. We should be debating what is good for Canadian taxpayers
and we find that distant party over there has used pretty well
all of the time to spread misinformation about us and to try to
make political points in a very cheap way. That is very
unfortunate and I also found it very hurtful. The things they
said about me are things which are just not accurate. It reminds
of the 1997 election campaign.
I will say this. In the 1993 election campaign the Conservative
who was the sitting member of parliament was a real gentleman.
He was a really good man. When we had the all-candidate debates
in the different fora he was a real gentleman. He was thoughtful
and considerate. I do not hesitate for a moment to give him, Mr.
Brian O'Kurley, great accolades for the way he conducted himself.
Somehow the party which was defeated and annihilated in 1993
decided to use the approach of attacking people viscerally and
personally. That was why the Conservative candidate in the 1997
election, whom I will not name, said things about me which anyone
who knew knew were not true. They were just not true. When he
said these things publicly on one occasion I remember I stood up
and said at a meeting, “Mr. Chairman, anyone who knows me knows
that what this candidate has said about me is untrue. Why should
they consider even voting for a person who has so little regard
for the truth?”
As a matter of fact, that Conservative candidate did not even get
his deposit back because people saw through that.
2355
Earlier this evening things were attributed to me that I take
personally because they were attributed to me as a member of the
Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party. Publicly and
loudly the members of that distant party put me into a category
which is frankly not true.
I came here with great ideals. I believed then and I believe
now, that the MP pension, because it exceeded what was available
to other Canadians under the Income Tax Act rules, was
excessively generous. Very frankly, for them to say these things
is very demeaning and I was hurt by it when they spoke that way.
Be that as it may, I guess one cannot be in this business and
not expect to be falsely accused occasionally. However, I would
like to say unequivocally that I have been committed for the last
seven years and continue to be committed to bringing into this
place a pension plan which a person of honour can participate in
without shame. I do not believe that we are there yet.
It is important for me to also say that this plan is
particularly bad for me because I decided in 1995 to opt out of
the other plan. I have been making contributions to an RRSP. I
am trying to organize my financial life so my wife and I will not
be on welfare when we finally retire. This particular plan is a
real dilemma for me. As soon as this plan is brought into place,
money will be taken from my paycheque without my ability to stop
it which will thereby take away my RRSP deposit room. I find that
distressing because I had hoped to do it that way.
It was not my choice to change this system and plan. To be
falsely accused that I wanted it and that I want back in is
hurtful, harmful and simply is not true. I think it is
unbecoming of the members who have made those accusations.
Nonetheless, it is almost midnight. I am on the record as
saying that I am opposed to it and that I will vote against the
bill again, as I did earlier. This is being done against my
will. I want that to be clearly on the record. Very frankly, my
integrity is not for sale and I really regret that even that
implication is being made.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made on Monday, June 12, 2000, the division stands deferred until
Wednesday, June 14 at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order made
yesterday, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 11.59 p.m.,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.59 p.m.)