CONTENTS
Friday, November 4, 1994
Bill C-38. Motion for third reading. 7673
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7680
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 7681
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7683
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7684
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7684
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7684
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7684
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7685
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7685
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7685
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7685
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7688
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7688
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7688
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7688
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7691
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7691
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7691
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7692
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 7692
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 7693
Bill C-58. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 7694
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7694
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7694
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7694
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7694
7673
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 4, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that Bill C-38, an act to provide for the security of
marine transportation, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary toMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as an Atlantic Canadian to have an
opportunity to speak on this very important bill.
(1005 )
I rise in the House in support of the Marine Transportation
Security Act and to explain to members of this House the need
for a single comprehensive act to prevent acts of violence which
could be detrimental to Canada's marine interests.
Canada is for the most part a haven from violence for many
other parts of the world. To maintain our security we must, just
as we admonish our children, be prepared and avoid danger. It is
far better to prevent violence than to suffer its consequences.
Canadians as evidenced by their abhorrence of violence and
their support for strengthened firearms control want to end the
needless loss and tragedy caused by preventable acts of
violence.
The Marine Transportation Security Act will help prevent
needless loss to Canadians, their marine transportation system
and its operators, users, employees and dependants. The bill we
are debating today recognizes that Canada is not currently
facing any dire threat. However it also acknowledges that
threats do occur and that to minimize potential injury we must
be ready to deal with these threats in their earliest stages.
Security is commendable at ports under the control of Canada
Ports Corporation particularly at the port of Vancouver where
vessel and port operators practise co-operative security. This
bill will ensure that Canada has an appropriate legislative
framework which enables the implementation of basic levels of
security wherever required and with the flexibility to respond
rapidly should danger increase.
Legislation does exist which enables the Minister of
Transport to take measures to prevent acts of violence occurring
by air and rail transportation. However, it should be a matter of
concern to members of this House that there is not at the present
time any comprehensive legislation in Canada authorizing the
government to take preventive security action to protect
Canada's marine interests.
Canada endorsed and promoted compliance with voluntary
international security measures designed to protect passengers
and crews on board ships. Use of these measures in Canada and
other nations has however been inconsistent. Our marine
industry and those it touches remain vulnerable.
Security provisions in existing marine transportation
legislation such as they are are fragmented and inadequate.
Different legislation applies dependent on flag state, type of
vessel, port, waterway and marine facility.
No Canadian legislation is specifically concerned with
preventing acts of violence. None ties together the various
elements of the marine industry in a way that can provide the
appropriate and timely response necessary to react to security
threats.
The variety of legislation that might apply to any vessel,
facility, waterway or person depending on the location and
segment of the marine industry involved serves to delay rather
than expedite response to threatening situations.
In addition to the potential for confusion, the lack of an
appropriate legislative vehicle for marine security does not
allow effective response. Use of different legal frameworks to
provide for security would result in different security regimes
with more confusion, less compliance and higher costs.
In examining solutions to the lack of preventive security
authority, the government considered the use of existing
legislation and found it to be inappropriate to the task.
The Emergencies Act for example, while allowing preventive
regulations to be made, applies only when an emergency has
been declared. This limits its preventive utility. Further,
members will recall this act was not invoked even during the
1991 Persian Gulf crisis.
7674
(1010)
The Criminal Code and the Security Offences Act while
providing authority to respond to security incidents do not
sanction preventive action.
The Canada Shipping Act is principally concerned with the
safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment
but it is not germane to security from acts of violence in the
broad context of the marine industry.
The Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Ports Corporation Act,
the Harbour Commissions Act, the Toronto Harbour
Commissioners Act, the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act,
the Public Harbours and Ports Facilities Act and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, apart from their obvious
territorial and jurisdictional limitations do not provide specific
authority or enforcement capacity with respect to preventive
security measures.
Before bringing these proposals forward non-statutory
methods of preventing acts of violence against marine targets
were also considered. There are however a variety of problems
with this approach. In considering self-regulations the fact that
the seaborne element of the industry is largely under foreign flag
would create unequal conditions between vessels and would be
unenforceable in a similar vein.
Canadian ports operate under mixed ownership with different
statutes and authorities. Equality in application and
enforcement of requirements under self-regulation would also
be unachievable regarding such ports. It would be unrealistic to
believe that either voluntary compliance or self-regulation
would provide a rapid, consistent response to any threat in such
a diverse industry.
As I mentioned earlier, despite the performance of Ports
Canada police and the North West CruiseShip Association,
voluntary compliance with marine security measures in Canada
and elsewhere in the world has been generally low. It is apparent
there is little practical alternative to regulation. The high degree
of non-compliance with voluntary security standards for
international passenger vessels and the predominant view of
other major commercial segments of the industry that there is no
need due to the current lack of threat underline particularly the
need for regulated preparation. The fact there is no threat to
Canada at the present time should not prevent us and deter us
from being prepared for such an eventuality.
Options to a single, newly minted act have also been
considered, including the retention of the current regime,
amending existing marine transportation legislation on an act by
act basis, and amending the various transportation legislation.
Amending all existing marine transportation security acts by an
omnibus bill was also considered.
After thorough consideration of various options for achieving
appropriate security regarding the marine transportation system
including voluntary compliance, self-regulation and the various
legislative alternatives, the government has concluded that the
most reasonable, efficient and effective method is to enact a
comprehensive Marine Transportation Security Act.
This act has come with a good deal of consideration by the
Department of Transport. The Marine Transportation Security
Act is such a comprehensive act providing the requirement I
have spoken to previously. It incorporates all appropriate
security authorities and provisions in one document, thereby
allowing for ease of maintenance and compliance. The bill will
permit consistent, equitable implementation and enforcement
and can, if need be, apply to all elements of the industry in
Canada regardless of their location or nationality. It will ensure
the government's ability to respond quickly and appropriately to
changing threat conditions.
(1015)
The Marine Transportation Security Act does not apply to
vessels and facilities under the authority of the Minister of
National Defence. Government vessels or facilities, where no
commercial activity is involved, will not be subject to
regulation because they are adequately provided for by the
government's security policy and the government's ability to
control them. Pleasure craft, fishing vessels and small
commercial craft in ports are also not candidates for regulation
as they do not provide the same attractiveness as terrorist targets
as do other segments of the industry.
The international cruise vessel industry and the ports serving
it would be the main regulatory priority once this legislation is
in place. Except for relatively few agencies such as the North
West CruiseShip Association, compliance with voluntary
international security standards by the cruise industry while in
Canada has been inconsistent, in part no doubt because of the
lack of a perceived threat there.
There is no lack of perceived threat here I think.
Mr. Anderson: It's a big impression.
Mr. MacLellan: This priority is in line with Canada's
commitment to the practical standards developed by the
international marine organization and the determination of this
government that the history of violent acts against cruise vessel
passengers elsewhere in the world will not be replayed here in
Canada.
To Atlantic Canada which is a part of the country that receives
considerable benefits from visiting cruise ships this is very
important. The cruise ship industry on the west and east coasts is
very important to the country. We are proud to show the beauties
and advantages of Canada to our visitors.
7675
People the world over rely on Canada as a safe haven and a
stable country that will provide safety and enjoyment while they
are within our boundaries, including our offshore jurisdictions.
I do not think we can let these people down. We have to live up
to this standard and in doing so we have to be prepared as
Canadians to safeguard our visitors. This major piece of
legislation will do just that.
Major commercial vessels, ports and other marine facilities
which serve them are the second priority for preventive security
regulation. Cargo vessels carrying dangerous substances, and
ferries in ports where large numbers of people may be exposed
should be adequately prepared to respond to security threats.
Regulation envisioned for this segment of the marine industry is
primarily in the domain of contingency planning.
The best time for preventive legislation is not after a disaster,
it is before one can occur. I urge my colleagues in the House to
support this legislation so that a preventive security framework
providing appropriate and timely protection for Canadians and
Canada's marine interests can be established.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-38 is a technical bill that tightens up measures
pertaining to marine safety on passenger ships, ferries and
others. It is the marine equivalent to similar bills that have
existed for some time with respect to aviation. It brings
Canada's marine industry more in line with similar legislation
already passed in Britain, the United States and several of the
more sensitive Mediterranean countries.
(1020 )
Communications with user groups and other affected people
produce some concerns with the bill's original wording but
virtually all of these concerns have been addressed by
amendments made at the committee level.
The Reform Party supports this bill but does not intend to
offer any further amendments or any additional speakers. It
appears there is all-party support for the bill as amended.
It is very ironic that we have so much time to debate bills on
which there is no dispute when the government saw fit to invoke
closure last spring on a number of very contentious bills. The
dictionary defines contempt as the feeling that a person, act or
thing is mean, low or worthless. The invoking of closure was
something the Liberals found contemptible when they sat in
opposition. Somehow during the walk across the floor to the
government side of the House their perspective changed. My
position echoes their old position. In fact, I find the invoking of
closure to be actually beyond contempt.
Since Bill C-38 is under the transport ministry let us look for
a minute at other actions of this department as it is the body that
is responsible for Bill C-38.
During the last federal election the Liberals were looking for
some campaign issues to raise their profile. They found one in
Toronto with the Pearson airport contract. They stated that the
contract was a rotten one, full of crooked dealings between the
Tories and their friends. They stated that if they were elected
they would investigate this contract, expose the wrongdoing and
then cancel it.
They left something out on the follow-up to that promise.
They never exposed any wrongdoing. Was there any? We do not
know, do they? There are two possibilities on this issue. One is
that when the so-called independent review took place they
could not find any wrongdoing. If so, they had a problem. After
all, with all screaming about what a rotten deal the Pearson
contract was, it would be embarrassing to admit they were
wrong.
The solution to this scenario was to continue the claim that the
deal was rotten, cancel it and make sure the legislation banning
the contract holders from going to court where they might
expose the fact that there were no rotten deals was passed. The
other possibility is that they did find a lot wrong with the way
the contract was obtained, but the guilty party was the Liberal
connected portion of the contract holders. It would not do to
expose that in court, so we have the same solution.
During the committee stage of Bill C-22 I offered an
amendment that would require any settlements to flow through
the transport standing committee. This would have kept the
amounts of payment and the payees public. The public certainly
had the right to know how this was being handled. Government
members refused. I reintroduced the same amendment at third
reading, but again the government voted it down.
The issue at stake was not so much the Pearson contract but
rather the basic rights of Canadians, whether they were
companies or individuals. If the government can arbitrarily
revoke someone's rights, as it did in the case of the Pearson
contract, it can do it anywhere, to anyone, in any situation,
maybe even in the enforcement of the provisions of a marine
security act. That is beyond contempt.
If questionable activities were limited to the transport
problem that would be one thing. In that situation we could
probably accept Bill C-38 at face value. However, revoking or
ignoring the needs and rights of Canadians seems to be a general
theme of this new Liberal Party with its new found perspective.
This means we must look much closer at the emerging pattern
provided by the Liberal cabinet in order to determine what is its
real agenda.
For example, consider the Minister of Canadian Heritage and
the recent developments showing that he interfered with the
7676
activities of the CRTC. Further examination revealed that this
was not the first time he had done so. That is beyond contempt.
Further it underlines the concerns I have in dealing with Liberals
in all areas, including Bill C-38.
The Minister of Human Resources Development recently tore
a page from the Reform policy on funding for post-secondary
education. We have advocated the use of student vouchers to
channel federal moneys for universities through students to the
universities of their choice. This would have neither increased
nor decreased tuition for students. It was simply meant to be a
more effective way to make the universities more responsive to
the needs of students.
(1025 )
However the minister in tearing out that page must have left
most of it behind. The proposal he made was to propose issuing a
voucher that was in fact a loan repayable to the government, and
then cut off federal transfer payments in support of
post-secondary education. This would have effectively doubled
tuition costs for students who are already having trouble
affording an education. That is beyond contempt.
Bill C-38 deals with the security of those who use the oceans.
In that context let us look at recent actions or the lack of action
by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Millions of west coast
salmon have recently gone missing. Even though the salmon
may never surface again, evidence that the recommendations of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which may have
prevented this catastrophe were ignored by the minister. This
evidence is surfacing regularly. That is beyond contempt.
Safety and security are the main points of Bill C-38. The
health and safety of the Canadian public were the subjects of a
recent private member's bill dealing with HIV testing for
immigration applicants, submitted by the member for Calgary
Northeast. Although a few Liberals were prepared to go against
the grain and vote in favour of the bill, unbelievably the
majority under the direction of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration defeated this basic measure to ensure the health
and safety of Canadians. That is beyond contempt.
Enforcement measures under the marine safety and security
bill will fall in some part into the realm of justice. Let us take a
look at the integrity of the justice minister. This is the minister
who was planning to introduce new restrictive firearms
legislation without one shred of evidence it will do a single thing
to prevent the criminal misuse of firearms.
This is the minister who stated: ``I will not legislate according
to head count. I will do what I believe is in the best interests of
Canadians''. That statement interprets to: ``I do not care what
Canadians want, I know what is best for them''. That is a rather
scary concept. We might have this same minister involved in
decisions that challenge matters arising out of Bill C-38. I find
the minister's attitude to be beyond contempt.
One thing we have not heard is when the government intends
to invoke concerns about aboriginal people into this bill. It may
well be that with potential land settlement claims eventually
some port may end up being owned by an aboriginal group. If
that happens the Minister of Transport would have to work in
consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development whose record on legislative fairness is the worst of
all the ministers we have discussed thus far.
He is the minister who introduced Bills C-33 and C-34. These
two bills were rushed through the House to the extent that the
Liberals invoked closure to finalize the bills on which even
aboriginal people were writing to us with their concerns. If the
land settlements contained in these bills were to be used as a
precedent for all aboriginal people in Canada, we would need a
land area four times the size of my home province of British
Columbia to settle. These bills establish self-government at an
unprecedented level and apparently revoke the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms from the aboriginal people affected by this bill.
This type of action and attitude is beyond contempt.
The Prime Minister is the person who is ultimately
responsible for all ministers and all legislation. Bill C-38 is no
exception. He is the person who recently claimed to have
consulted with the ethics counsellor but had not talked with him
at all. He later stated that he had not met nor talked to the ethics
counsellor personally, but rather had directed his staff to do so.
All this time the Prime Minister was referring to advice that he
received from the ethics counsellor. Now we find that no one
consulted with the ethics counsellor. This is a measure of
integrity from the person on whom the responsibility for Bill
C-38 rests? Not only is this very unsettling, it is beyond
contempt.
Let us look at the Standing Committee on Transport, the
committee that dealt with Bill C-38. At a recent meeting this
committee went through the process of electing chairs and
vice-chairs for the committee. At that meeting I asked for the
voting on positions to be done by secret ballot. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport objected to
this request suggesting that the Reform Party was trying to
introduce unacceptable secret dealings into the committee.
I was forced to point out to the parliamentary secretary that
this procedure was recommended in the Liberal's little red book.
What is more it is the very method by which the Speaker of this
House is elected.
(1030)
My motion was defeated and the Liberals once again elected a
member of the party who is dedicated to breaking up this
country to be the vice-chair of the transport committee. This
procedure was repeated in every committee in this House. I find
that beyond contempt.
7677
I said at the beginning I would support Bill C-38 and I will.
The reason I am supporting it is due in part to my consultation
with users whose concerns have been addressed.
There is some potential for integrity on the other side. It is
hopeful. Some members chose to vote in favour of the bill on
HIV testing for immigrants. Notwithstanding the actions of the
transport committee on the election of vice-chairs it appeared to
be at most times a reasonable group working to resolve
problems facing Canadians, I guess because there are no cabinet
ministers who sit on committees. Because of this I will continue
my support of the bill but it does not end my basic concern that
the attitudes and actions of many government ministers in this
House are beyond contempt.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ):Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 to provide for the security of marine
transportation now before us meets an obvious need. Our party
is in agreement with the principle of this bill and approves the
enforcement procedure. Rather than waste my colleagues' time,
I will limit myself to recalling briefly the bill's objectives, its
highlights and its reception by the stakeholders. Unlike my
predecessor, I will leave considerations not directly related to
the bill aside.
First, the objectives. The bill's objective is to introduce in the
marine sector the same security principles found in the air and
rail transportation sectors. Although these sectors have security
measures regarding boarding, there are none in the case of
marine transportation. The government cannot, therefore,
intervene in emergency situations, such as when a vessel is
threatened by unlawful activities or poses a risk to a port
facility.
The legislation focuses primarily on transportation of
passengers. Screening measures will be instituted in ports to
ensure that weapons and other explosives are not brought on
board. This measure is aimed at preventing hijacking, sabotage
and hostage-taking.
We all remember the tragedy of the Achille Lauro about ten
years ago-and we are only now considering action. A group of
Palestinian terrorists took over a Greek ship by force and took
the passengers and crew hostage. Since then, the International
Maritime Organization has established security standards to be
observed in port facilities and on vessels. These standards,
which were first developed in 1986, were ratified by Canada in
1993. The purpose of the bill before us is to implement these
security measures.
It should be noted that 85 per cent of passengers on cruise
ships are Americans and that the American government carries
out surveillance of port security measures worldwide. In certain
cases, it may recommend that American citizens avoid certain
ports. Guaranteeing security in our ports is a way of protecting
our tourist industry.
The bill puts in place the legislative framework and
authorizes the minister to make regulations to deny certain
vessels access to Canadian waters and re-direct vessels posing
security concerns to a secure place. For example, a vessel
subjected to a bomb threat would be directed to proceed to a
place where it poses less of a security threat to persons, vessels
and marine facilities, before undergoing authorized screening
by Canadian officers.
The bill makes it illegal for passengers or crew to have on
board weapons or materials such as explosives that could be
used as weapons. It will apply to all vessels in Canada, whether
registered in Canada or not, and shipowners and port authorities
will be required to install a security system including sensor
equipment like the ones used in airports. The legislation will
also apply to port facilities and drilling rigs. Naturally, vessels
and facilities under National Defence authority will be
exempted.
(1035)
The legislation will have teeth: in the case of a corporation,
the maximum fine will be $200,000. I might add that the bill was
well received by the community. It met with the full approval of
the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the Canada Ports
Corporation.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to add my voice
to those who have addressed this House today in support of the
Marine Transportation Security Act, Bill C-38.
The primary purpose of the Marine Transportation Security
Act is the prevention of violent acts which could result in the
loss of lives or impairment of the national transportation
system. It is necessary however to also consider the financial
implications of the bill before us now.
This government has a responsibility but even more this
government has an obligation to ensure the security in marine
transport, not only for Canadians but for our guests and visitors
to this great country.
The Government of Canada has promised that regulations
subsequent to this act will be made in full consultation with
interested parties, consultation which is beyond that normally
required for regulation. These consultations will include parties
which have already contributed a great deal to the development
and promotion of good security practices in Canada such as
7678
Canada Ports Corporation and the North West CruiseShip
Association.
I know that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, will
ensure that such consultations are pursued with full vigour in
order to ensure achievement of the optimum method of
protecting the system while at the same time enhancing its
competitiveness.
This legislation has been specifically designed with the
flexibility to require enhanced security measures when threats
are increased thereby requiring minimum expenditures in time
and dollars when there is no apparent danger. This approach is in
keeping with the current lack of threat to Canadian marine
interests. The government has also promised to utilize to the
fullest extent possible best industry practices and performance
standards instead of detailed technical specifications. These
commitments by the government will result in the most
appropriate regime at the very lowest cost.
Very little in this world is free. The financial resources that a
regulatory regime pursuant to this act will require the marine
industry to expend are truly very minimal. We know that most
passenger vessels have the technical and human resources to
comply with very little effort should they choose to do so.
Unfortunately because Canada has such a good reputation as a
safe destination, a safe haven, some operators tend to be less
than diligent here in their observation of security precautions.
This legislation will help ensure that passenger vessels do the
things that are necessary and not only the things that are
minimal to avoid becoming victims of unlawful acts while in
Canada.
Other elements of the industry such as major cargo vessels,
major ferries and the ports which serve them will have to expend
a small amount of time to develop and practise contingency
plans and conduct security surveys. Employees of major
Canadian ports will also have to take basic preventive security
training in line with regulatory requirements. Many of the ports
implicated already have security plans and surveys. Some go
well beyond the requirements envisaged.
(1040 )
For those areas that will have to expend limited resources, it is
certainly not more than would be required to conform with good
business practice and management. The government will add
from its existing base of expertise in the Department of
Transport, administration, training, monitoring and
co-ordination resources that will make the sum of the security
efforts greater than the individual parts.
The international cruise trade is worth hundreds of millions of
dollars to Canada annually. This trade over the last 10 years has
grown at an average of 10 per cent a year. It shows no sign of
abating. One incident of violence against a cruise vessel in the
Mediterranean, the Achille Lauro, resulted in major losses,
direct losses to the Greek economy of more than $300 million
U.S. This does not account for losses in subsequent years of
recovery. The preventive insurance this bill proposes is
insignificant in comparison to such potential losses.
My colleagues have pointed out that other nations have
increased their marine security. In particular, we know that the
U.S. has security legislation already in place and that it will
likely implement a marine security regime this year. The U.S.
already has the authority to issue travel warnings regarding
destinations it considers not to provide adequate security. I
would remind members of this House that approximately 85 per
cent of Canada's cruise ship trade is made up of American
citizens. They come to Canada because they feel safe in Canada.
It would be folly to treat visitors to our land or indeed to treat
Canadians themselves moving within each jurisdiction within
this land with less concern and less respect than our American
neighbours do. Will we not be good hosts as many nations
already are, requiring security which adds to the ultimate
enjoyment of travel? I would suggest that considering the cost of
the security proposal before us, failing to offer it to our guests
and to Canadians alike would be like buying friends a meal in a
fine restaurant but refusing them a dinner mint after because of
the cost. Failing to provide adequate protection certainly runs
the risk of discouraging tourism and losing important revenue.
It was only last week that our Prime Minister was speaking on
tourism for Canada, admitting that we will put money, billions
of dollars, into the industry luring international conventions and
trade to come here. They will come here because they feel good
about Canada and they feel safe about Canada. Their interests
will be better protected with this legislation.
I do not think I am far out on a limb when I suggest that safety
in travel is a primary concern of all travellers, for all citizens.
All responsible nations, including Canada, have a range of laws
to ensure that our planes, trains, ships and cars travel with
security. Now it is time that we ensure that marine travel is also
guaranteed that same security. We offer to our people less safety
and perhaps a threat of death if we do not engage in this
legislation in this House. We have still more laws governing
operation of the transportation system such as capacity to drive
rights of way, waterways, roads, et cetera. People simply would
not travel if they were in fear of tragedy of death en route.
None here can have forgotten the tragedy of the Air India
disaster. Security in mass transportation is as critical as a failed
engine or as an impaired driver. It is an important element that
travellers and tourists need and want and that we must ensure.
7679
(1045)
The Saint John Evening Times Globe in a March 4 article
about cruise lines stated: ``For passengers from Miami, New
York and Los Angeles security is a huge consideration. Cruise
lines like to go places where they know their passengers are safe,
and not just from pickpockets but safe from terrorism and the
whole works''. They want safety first. There can be little doubt
that security is critical to life, but it is important to competition
and to the economy and cannot be overlooked.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill to ensure that Canada
has this important competitive advantage. In so doing it will
ensure that visitors to Canada enjoy the beauty of the country,
the serenity of the landscape, and arrive and depart with
memories of Canadians that will live on forever and, above all,
will ensure their immediate and quick return to Canada.
I live in Nova Scotia. I live on the water. Cruise ship lines
come into our ports annually. Their great desire to come to these
small ports, to these unique and scenic landscapes, is growing
immensely. It increases more than 10 per cent a year in the east.
We look forward to promoting it even more. The potential is
tremendous not only for the pleasure of it but for the economic
value. Those people tell us in the follow up reports that they love
Canadians and want to come back.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is imperative and
obligatory that we serve Canadians and our visitors with dignity
and security of safety.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise following
the very eloquent remarks of my colleague who has described
the importance of the legislation from an east coast perspective.
I concur in what she said about the importance of the industry. It
is important not only for Quebec, the Gulf of St. Lawrence area,
Nova Scotia and indeed all Atlantic Canada but it is immensely
important on the west coast.
What has been introduced by the parliamentary secretary is
enabling legislation that will allow regulations to be put in place
and, in addition to regulations, some security measures and
rules. Some are of less importance, less legal standing than
regulations, but nevertheless are legislation, security measures
or rules. They all have the same objective: to ensure a greater
level of safety for the cruise ship industry operating in Canada.
This is very important. My colleague has very correctly given
some figures. I may be repeating one or two of them. However
the cruise ship industry is estimated to be worth $500 million to
Canada's economy.
Let me remind the House that we are facing a tourist account
deficit in the country of $8 billion per year. This is a major
financial hemorrhage to the national accounts. Every effort must
be made by Canadians over the next few years to rectify that
balance and to improve the opportunities in Canada for tourism.
That is precisely what my colleague's legislation will do.
Cruise ship operations create a demand for port services.
Victoria and Vancouver in particular are very fortunate to have
the opportunity of taking advantage of foreign ships, which may
be of Panamanian, Dutch, German or British registry, that come
to our ports and then take people north up the inland passage and
ultimately to Alaska.
Generally the process is for the passengers to get off at that
point, participate in some tourism in Alaska or in Yukon, which
is very important to those areas, and then fly back to their home
destinations. At that point another group of tourists will arrive
by air and board the ship for the return trip to Vancouver and
Victoria. In our cities they live aboard the ship. However once
the ship turns around with another group of tourists to go home,
many of the people stay behind for a few extra days.
(1050)
Cruise ship companies are enormously supportive of efforts
to extend the tourist period of their passengers in Canada and, I
might add, in the area of the United States adjacent to us. We are
trying to keep them in B.C. and Washington. We are trying to
give packages. I give cruise ship companies full credit for the
efforts they make to assist us in having the people stay longer in
our part of the world. They have allowed promotional materials
and packages to be promoted on their vessels, which is
immensely helpful to our balance of payments position.
Virtually all operating vessels are registered outside Canada.
Most of them are not of American registry. Most are from
outside North America. We are getting a few more of the
so-called pocket cruise ships with anywhere from a hundred to a
couple of hundred passengers on board. Some have even fewer
than that. They are important as well. A new niche area is the
private yacht type cruise with 50 or 150 on board, not the
massive cruise ships as we know them. There is expansion in the
industry. People are moving into different areas which have not
been exploited previously.
The Canadian shipping industry in Canada has been depressed
in recent years because of rising costs, changes in Canadian
ownership requirements and, very important, the recession. As
my colleague mentioned, in the cruise ship industry there have
been 10 consecutive years of growth and an increase of 190 per
cent in traffic in that period.
In 1991 there was a total of approximately 714 cruise ship
sailings, nearly half a million embarking passengers and a total
number of passengers of nearly three quarters of a million. I
should add that it is still increasing dramatically.
Thanks to American legislation it is more advantageous for a
foreign flag vessel to use a Canadian port. The Jones act requires
that American ships be used between two American ports. Going
up to Alaska it is advantageous to foreign ships to use Canadian
7680
ports. If they could not do so they would simply be out of the
business.
We know well of the importance of safety to this industry. We
know well because there have been a series of accidents, fires in
particular, in the Caribbean and elsewhere which have led to loss
of life. We have all heard of the tragic loss of a ferry in the Baltic
in recent weeks. It is an industry which can be dramatically
affected by accident.
It is also an industry that can be dramatically affected by other
people's regulations. I remind the House of the impact of
American regulations on the Caribbean cruise ship industry
some years ago following a series of fires that essentially
enforced American law throughout the Caribbean regardless of
the flag of the vessel involved.
With the legislation we are trying to put in place a system
whereby we will be able to regulate and put in place security
measures and rules for vessels so that we can guarantee the
goose will lay a very important golden egg. We want to ensure
that we keep costs to the industry down.
Our belief is the extra cost that could possibly come as a result
of these measures would be less than $1 per passenger and
probably closer to 80 to 85 cents. The extra cost would not be
borne by Canadian taxpayers or by Canadian ports but by the
industry. I might add that many cruise ship companies will have
absolutely no extra costs as a result of meeting Canadian
regulations because their standards are extremely high; they
have very safe and seaworthy vessels at all times. This is not a
major expenditure item that will impact adversely upon the
industry.
(1055)
I do not know the exact amount of time, but we will have some
period of time after the legislation comes into effect to consult
with industry and analyse the impact, where the costs can best be
borne and how the charges can best be made. We will ensure we
work as closely as possible with other regulatory agencies
internationally to ensure that we do not get out of sync with
international regulations.
We will be able to show to potential tourists that we have a
system in place in Canada which will go a long way toward
assuring their safety at sea. There have been accidents in
Canada. Cruise ships have hit rocks or had other unfortunate
mishaps. It is important for us to be able to show that we have
gone an extra mile and have done what was necessary to ensure
safety in the industry.
As a west coast person I rise to join with my colleagues from
elsewhere in supporting this piece of legislation. Its major
purpose is the safety of people who use cruise ships that are
major contributors to a very important and growing area of our
tourist industry. Given the balance of payments considerations I
repeat the importance of having everything possible done to
insist that we in Canada gather the maximum advantage from
tourism. This is the type of low cost measure that will assist us in
doing so. Therefore I am delighted to be here in support of the
legislation.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify matters that have
appeared in the press today which may have an impact on
question period or later in the day in the Chamber.
The New Democratic Party caucus has for some time
expressed concern about its ability to raise issues in question
period on behalf of those Canadians who are looking for
alternative views and questions to be discussed in this place.
This week as a caucus we have taken a specific analysis of
question period to the Speaker. That analysis is currently being
examined by the Speaker and the clerks at the table. As a caucus
we are waiting for the Speaker to complete his review of our
concern. We are then prepared to meet with the Speaker to
discuss how we can improve our access to question period to
ensure the views of all the people who voted for us in 1993 and
who support us today are heard in this place.
Our caucus concerns remain, but as a caucus please let it be
understood that it is not our intention to imply in any way the
Speaker is or has shown any favouritism during question period.
On behalf of the New Democratic caucus in Parliament and as
the House leader for the New Democratic Party, I say that we are
looking forward to continuing our discussions with the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for making that
clarification to the House at the earliest opportunity.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
7681
7681
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members of the
House that Down's Syndrome Awareness Week runs from
November 1 to 7, 1994.
About one person in 700 is born with Down's syndrome.
During this week, the Canadian Down's Syndrome Society is
making the public aware of the abilities, strengths and needs of
Canadians who have Down's syndrome.
For a child or adult, as well as the parents, family and health,
education and social science professionals, Down's syndrome is
a challenge which must be met so that everyone with this
syndrome can develop their full potential.
Together let us wish the Canadian Down's Syndrome Society
an excellent awareness week!
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday, the President of the Treasury Board tabled in this
House the federal government's regular Supplementary
Estimates, which call for additional expenditures of $1.9
billion. They show that the Liberal government intends to spend
$5.3 billion more than originally anticipated.
The Minister of Finance plans to spend another $3.3 billion on
debt servicing because of his mistake in forecasting interest
rates. This increase is offset by a $3.4-billion reduction in UI
benefits.
Without this reduction in UI benefits, this week's
Supplementary Estimates would have amounted to $5.3 billion
instead of $1.9 billion. When will UI benefits be cut next? The
next time interest rates fluctuate! The Minister of Finance and
his Treasury Board colleague should tell us so clearly.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is Community Safety and Crime Prevention
Week. It has special significance for me and my constituency of
Surrey North because of the many tragedies that the community
has experienced in the past few years.
The list of victims keeps getting longer: Jesse Cadman, Sian
Simmonds, Laurie Wood, Linda Williams, Chris Lussier, Paul
McDaniel, Graham Niven, Sukhjit Sangha and now Pam
Cameron.
It might be expected that tragedies such as this would sap a
community of its strength. Instead the people of Surrey have
been galvanized by these tragedies and have become proactive
in preventing further misfortunes. Community groups such as
CRY have sprung up and have been able to turn the anger of
individual citizens into a constructive group trying to change
our justice system.
Let this week become a constant reminder of the need for
legislation conducive to establishing and maintaining a
constructive and co-ordinated partnership involving the laws,
the enforcers and the citizens.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity today to speak to the occasion of
Remembrance Day, which falls next Friday, November 11.
It reminds us of our veterans, of our heroes, living or dead. It
reminds me today of one World War II hero from my riding of
Winnipeg North, Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski, to whom a
memorial was dedicated last June 12.
Officer Mynarski in a real sense was the very archetype of a
hero in that he gave his life that others may live in freedom, in
peace and in prosperity. Thus he exemplifies the service,
courage and self-sacrifice that our veterans have displayed
throughout Canada's history.
On this occasion it is not only a reminder to all Canadians to
remember their heroic deeds but a reminder to us in Parliament
to assist veterans and their families in their independent living
that is their due.
Remembrance Day is an occasion to recall the deeds of our
heroes, the sacrifices of their families and to do our public duty
to them.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Acadia University's division of
continuing education in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants
was selected as the recipient of the 1994 Michael Smith award
for science promotion.
This award is presented to individuals and groups that have
demonstrated strong efforts to encourage young people's
interest and abilities in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. Staff and students alike can take pride in being
recommended by a jury of their peers in science promotion and
education.
7682
Acadia University and its division of continuing education
have long been considered centres for science education.
I had the pleasure to attend this ceremony in Ottawa and I am
proud of the accomplishments of this outstanding program.
(1105 )
I encourage all members of this House to join me in saluting
this achievement by Acadia University.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I wish to give the House an update on the program to increase
energy efficiency.
[English]
Next week in Bathurst the energy and environment ministers
will get together to discuss voluntary measures to increase
energy efficiency.
In September of this year the federal ministers of natural
resources and environment along with the provincial
representatives of this initiative sent letters to about 250 CEOs
of major companies involved in industry such as forestry,
manufacturing, and oil and gas seeking voluntary commitments
to limit greenhouse gas emissions. To date we have received
about 100 replies indicating an overwhelming support for such
measures. This support should be duly recognized.
May the efforts of the ministers next week in New Brunswick
advance this important initiative.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a government member castigated
the Bloc Quebecois for the success of its festivities marking the
first anniversary of real power with our friends, the Premier of
Quebec, many Quebec ministers and over 800 supporters.
Quebec sovereignists are not afraid of appearing in broad
daylight to show their allegiance to a sovereign Quebec.
Sovereignists always meet openly.
However, the Prime Minister of Canada and Daniel Johnson
meet secretly behind closed doors, taking special care not to
alert the media. Federalists are preparing for the referendum
battle, which is fine. But they should do so openly.
Stop hiding and use the same weapons we are using, namely
frankness, intellectual honesty and openness. Face to face, I
have no doubt that we will win.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
through a well timed leak we understand that the Minister of
Justice now has the Liberal caucus on side on the issue of gun
control.
The compromise agreed upon would be a voluntary
registration of all guns over five years at which point it would
become mandatory. I say what an absolutely spineless, weak
kneed cop out on the interests of their constituents.
The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister say all
Canadians register their motor vehicles so why would they
object to registering their firearms. I respond to that by saying
that the registration of motor vehicles in great measure has been
a move to tax Canadians for the use of their motor vehicles. This
move to register all firearms in reality is a move to allow this
government to tax all firearms to pay for this unjust firearms
control policy and the bureaucracy it creates.
I ask all those backbench Liberals who would support this
proposal, is this representing the interests of your constituents
or are you simply hanging your heads in front of the Liberal
whip?
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, violence is
unacceptable in our society and women are particularly exposed
to that problem.
Indeed, firearms are used against women in family homes.
The majority of firearms used in domestic homicides are legally
obtained. The presence of firearms in the home is dangerous.
Our government is taking concrete measures to make our
streets and our homes safer by passing more strict legislation on
gun control. I was pleased to hear representatives of the
Coalition for Gun Control and of women's groups remind us of
the importance of the measures which we intend to take in that
regard.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week I had the great honour of presenting
7683
three Governor General scholarships in environmental sciences
to three Nova Scotia women studying at the Nova Scotia
Agricultural College.
Tracy Shinners, Charlotte Stratton and Danielle Vienneau
were the only three university students in eastern Canada out of
a total of 25 in Canada to receive this high scholastic award in
environmental sciences. All three students attend the Nova
Scotia Agricultural College and all three plan to seek
post-graduate degrees in environmental science and medicine.
This high academic achievement speaks very well and very
highly not only of our students but of the professional staff at the
Nova Scotia Agricultural College. I congratulate them in this
prestigious House for their very good work.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we learned that a group of Liberal MP's wrote a report
on gun control in which they ask the Minister of Justice to put
the accent on harsher sentences for crimes committed with arms.
Those Liberal members are therefore endorsing the
philosophy of the arms lobby, which believes in imposing
harsher sentences to criminals in order to stop violence.
However, the American experience shows that, without any
doubt, such an approach is doomed to failure.
Moreover, the recommendations of those Liberal MP's go
against the commitments made by the Prime Minister himself
last spring.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of more effective control
regarding firearms, so as to make them harder to get for
criminals. We urge the government not to listen to the right
wingers in the Liberal Party, as in the case of young offenders.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, next Friday in cities, towns and villages across this
land Canadians will gather to remember our war dead and to
give silent thanks for the years of peace bought with their
sacrifice. Those brave men and women gave up their families
and homes to fight Canada's wars, many of whom never saw this
land again.
This is a special year of remembrance for those who fought in
World War II. Along with our veterans we will honour those who
gave their lives for democracy and freedom 50 years ago.
In the peace and tranquillity of this land, this exceptional
country, war may seem far removed. Let us remember that our
peace was bought with the blood of our sailors, our merchant
seamen, our soldiers and our airmen.
I call on all Canadians on November 11 and during this special
year of remembrance to think of those who are not with us here
today because they found this country to be something worth
fighting for, something worth dying for.
We must never forget.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in a recent announcement that the government may
ban the octane boosting gasoline additive MMT by January, the
Minister of the Environment suggested that this ban would
foster the development of safer grain based ethanol alternatives
and that Canada plans to promote the development of ethanol in
other countries.
I support the development of the ethanol industry in this
country, including specific proposals from communities such as
Big River and Turtleford in my own Saskatchewan constituency.
In this regard I would urge the Minister of the Environment to
take action that would support community based ethanol
development in Canada, including extending the present 8.5
cent per litre federal excise tax exemption for ethanol.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the good news
continues as we courageously climb out of the recession.
The town of Wallaceburg in my riding is leading the way.
Seventeen of 24 local industries either have expansions under
way or are planning one in the near future. Just a few examples:
AAR-KEL is adding 2,000 square feet; Durachrome is putting
on a 15,000 square foot addition; and Accurcast leads the way
with a new 32,000 square foot expansion with new die cast
machines.
The growth in the industrial area of this community bodes
well for a brighter employment picture. Wallaceburg is the
sparkplug of Kent county's economy. I applaud local workers
and industry leaders for their confidence in the future.
7684
Liberal policies are working to instil a new spirit in
Canadians. It is truly good news.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people
of Cambridge received some great news yesterday. Toyota
Motor Corporation announced that it will be expanding its
operation in my riding of Cambridge by investing an additional
$600 million in its Corolla plant.
This move will create an additional 1,200 direct new jobs and
hundreds of jobs in spinoff industries by 1997. Production at the
plant will increase from 80,000 to 200,000 vehicles per year.
Yesterday Toyota informed the rest of Canada and the world
that Cambridge is a community with a skilled workforce, one
worthy of investment.
I would like to thank Toyota for having faith in the people of
Cambridge and of Canada. I look forward to a long and good
working relationship with this exceptional corporate citizen.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Edmonton is noted for having one of the largest urban parkland
areas per capita in North America. This spectacular river valley
park system, combined with the city's role as the gateway to the
northern forests of Alberta, led to the designation of Edmonton
as the 1994 national forestry capital.
The purpose of this designation is to promote a better
understanding of the dynamic nature of sustainable forests, to
highlight the significance of the forest industry on the economic
prosperity of the community and to recognize the historical
contribution of the forests to Edmonton for two centuries.
Recently I had an opportunity to participate in the ceremonial
sod breaking for the John Walter Forest Interpretive Centre. The
Interpretive Centre is part of a major legacy project involving a
forest capital trail in the river valley and other educational
projects.
The John Walter Interpretive Centre is an excellent example
of what can be achieved when all levels of government, industry
and community interest groups work together to achieve a
common goal. The Interpretive Centre will be a major
educational legacy for future generations.
I would like to congratulate the city of Edmonton and the
organizers from the Forestry Capital of Canada Society for
having the vision and initiative to undertake this impressive
project.
7684
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Within less than a year, three different estimates of the
balance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund were announced.
Last March, there was a deficit of $216 million; in September, a
surplus of $240 million; and in October, a surplus of $2.2
billion. This week, the Supplementary Estimates indicated that
this year, there has been a reduction in $3.4 billion of
unemployment insurance benefits.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm that the
Unemployment Insurance Fund will have a surplus in excess of
$2 billion this year and that the surplus will be used to reduce the
cumulative debt of the fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of
the year, the Unemployment Insurance Fund had a deficit of
around $5.9 or $6 billion, I believe.
This year, we expect a surplus for the current year. However,
that will still leave us with a cumulative deficit in the account. I
think it would be premature for me to give any figures, which
will certainly be less than $6 billion, but I think we will have to
wait until the end of the year. In any case, at that time we will
still have a deficit.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he
brought down his budget, the Minister of Finance said that
premium increases were killing jobs and that he would create
40,000 jobs by reducing these premiums starting next January.
What explanation does he have for the fact that with a surplus
of $2.2 billion, a surplus that is growing very rapidly, he did not
immediately announce a reduction in unemployment insurance
premiums in order to create thousands of jobs? Was that not his
priority?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that
despite this year's surplus, the cumulative UI account will show
a deficit. Obviously, we will have to eliminate that deficit before
we have a cumulative surplus.
That being said, the hon. member is quite right when he says
that we want to reduce unemployment insurance premiums. We
certainly do. In fact, that is the position I announced before, and
it certainly is the position of the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
7685
What is even more important is, that when we lower
unemployment insurance premiums, we will be able to keep
them down. This means we must be able to give the business
community the assurance that the account is in good enough
shape to keep premiums down.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance made a slip that was very revealing. He
referred to bringing down unemployment insurance premiums.
In fact, we now know that he is far more inclined to reduce the
benefits paid to the unemployed than to reduce the premiums
paid by workers.
(1120)
Would the minister agree that this enormous surplus in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund, which, I may add, is growing
very rapidly, was partly accumulated at the expense of workers
that the government's social security reform has excluded from
the unemployment insurance program and thus prevented from
drawing benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the
unemployment insurance account still shows a deficit. We will
have to deal with this deficit, and that is what is happening.
I would have thought the hon. member would wish to
commend us, as the government, for the fact that as a result of
our economic philosophy, we are at last bringing down this
deficit and putting ourselves into a surplus position.
I may add that the reason we are now bringing down the
deficit and giving ourselves a surplus is, that as a government,
we are creating jobs at record levels. I am very pleased to say
that the unemployment rate in Quebec went down again this
month.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 protects pharmaceutical manufacturers
who invest in research and development; they have major
investments in the Montreal area.
In most industrialized countries, these manufacturers benefit
from legislation that protects the results of their research for at
least 20 years. Now, manufacturers of generic products, most of
whom are in Ontario, have put tremendous pressure on the
government to eliminate these same guarantees in Canada.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the
importance of the brand-name drug industry in the Montreal
area and the concern raised in this industry by the attitude of
some Liberal members, can the Deputy Prime Minister rule out
any threat to amend Bill C-91 and its regulations?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question seemed to suggest that
only Liberal members were interested in this issue. Obviously,
the people throughout the country who have to pay the cost of
drugs, organizations of all kinds, seniors and so on are very
interested in it as well.
I want to assure my hon. colleague that although a committee
of the House is looking at Bill C-91, the Government of Canada
is very clear in its commitment to check all the data concerning
this law, as the law itself provides, or any other legislation
which must be reviewed at the appropriate time.
The original law already provided for a review of Bill C-91 at
some point. We will do what must be done, but do not believe
that just because a House committee is looking into some issue,
the government's policy will change.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister
responsible for the Montreal region.
Could the minister for once defend the interests of the
Montreal region and formally commit himself in front of this
House to defend Bill C-91 in Cabinet and against all comers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will obey the law,
which requires us to review the regulations before 1997. We will
obey the law and I hope that the member opposite wants us to
obey the law.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government recently released its much ado about nothing
immigration plan for 1995.
Included among the things that were expected to be reformed
but were not was the strengthening of the enforcement branch of
immigration. No firm action was taken to beef up Canada's
woefully inadequate deportation system. The government said
that Bill C-44 would ensure that those who are ordered deported
actually get deported.
My question is very specific. What effect would Bill C-44
have on those who have been ordered deported for violations of
immigration law as opposed to criminal law to the minister of
immigration?
(1125 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question.
7686
I hope it means that the hon. member and his party will be
supporting Bill C-44. Bill C-44 will ensure that deportations
take place in the required time with all due speed and that the
laws of Canada are properly enforced.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, six
filing cabinets full of deportation warrants were recently
discovered in Ontario. Tragically, they were discovered in the
same office as the misplaced deportation file of Clinton Gayle
who stands accused of killing a Toronto police officer.
These warrants are for violations of immigration law.
Therefore they are not subject to any of the terms of Bill C-44,
are not addressed by the 1995 immigration plan and would not
be given priority by the minister's so-called task force.
Why has the government, the minister and the department
done nothing this year to address the enormous and dangerous
backlog of removal orders relating to immigration violations?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
again thank the hon. member for his question. I am delighted he
asked it because a number of misconceptions are out there with
regard to the story.
It was an inaccurate story. These files were not lost. They had
been screened by the department of immigration. They have
been input into the Canadian police information computer and
are in the process of being input into the immigration
department's computer.
I want to reassure the member that things are going as they
should. I thank him again for his question and the opportunity to
set the record straight.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary is making much ado about the tiny steps
that have been taken to push criminal immigrants out the back
door while she and the immigration department and refugee
board appointees, at least one of whom was an illegal
immigrant, are allowing with no screening whatsoever
thousands of refugees with criminal records in through the front
door.
Will the minister or parliamentary secretary admit that the
RCMP refugee identification section has found in the first part
of this year that fully one-quarter of all successful refugee
claimants to Canada were identified after the fact as having
criminal records or having made multiple illegal refugee
claims?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows or should know, this problem is one that affects
all refugee receiving countries.
The minister travelled to Russia very recently to deal with
international concerns in this matter. An international
conference will be taking place within the next month to deal
with this very serious matter.
Again I am delighted that the member has shown such an
interest. I hope this means his party will be supporting Bill C-44
and our endeavours to clean up problems with regard to
criminality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. At the Rio
Summit, the previous government undertook to stabilize carbon
dioxide emissions responsible for the greenhouse effect at their
1990 levels, and to do so by the year 2000. In their red book, the
Liberals went further, promising to cut these emissions by 20
per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005. But the Minister of
the Environment has admitted publicly for the first time that she
will not be able to fulfil this election promise.
Does the minister still intend to fulfil one of the most basic
environmental undertakings in the red book, namely cutting
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never said that we
would not fulfil our commitment. What I said is that, in order to
achieve a 20 per cent reduction, as provided by government of
Canada policy, co-operation will be required from both the
private sector and the provinces. That is why I am really looking
forward to seeing, on Monday, what policies the governments of
Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have, so that we can
develop a plan of action not only for federal institutions but also
at the provincial level. We need the support of the provinces to
succeed. I hope that the hon. member opposite will speak to her
Quebec counterpart to convince him to develop a plan of action
in conjunction with the federal government.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister reconcile the answer she just gave with a recent
statement made in Vancouver to the effect that the government
did not think it would be able to fulfil its commitments with
respect to greenhouse gas emission control?
(1130)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the hon.
member opposite said that we could not have a Canadian
environment act because environmental issues fall under
provincial jurisdiction. Her leader approved of the bill, yet
voted against it.
Today, she is suggesting that a plan of action affecting
industries in every province be developed without getting the
provinces involved.
7687
As I said-I repeat it here today and I will repeat it in Bathurst
on Monday-the federal government will do its utmost to try
and achieve a 20 per cent reduction, but we need the
co-operation of all provincial governments, including the
Quebec government. And I do hope that Mr. Brassard will join
us.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
Department of Fisheries and Oceans document reveals that on
March 25 of this year, three months before the opening of the
salmon season, senior fisheries officials on the west coast were
warning of a disaster if the level of enforcement was further
downgraded on the Fraser River. They warned of a ``repeat of
the missing sockeye problems that occurred in the 1992
season''.
Why did the minister ignore these warnings and initiate the
reduction in the enforcement effort which led to the disaster of
1994?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know
of his genuine concern about the state of the salmon stock. Many
stakeholders in British Columbia are concerned about the state
of the salmon stock.
I do not know what document the member is referring to. It is
evident that many enforcement officers who work for DFO in
the Pacific region have expressed concerns through the system
about the state of enforcement. Indeed, as I said several weeks
ago, many of those concerns and detail have not reached me.
It is for that reason two nights ago, for two and a half hours,
that I as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sat down with 40
enforcement officers from all over the Pacific region to hear
from them firsthand their concerns about the state of the stock
and their suggestions for improving the situation.
I have given them a commitment that I will come back to them
through the department with a solid plan within our fiscal means
to ensure proper enforcement everywhere the salmon run to do
the job that is necessary.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I warned the
minister last spring and others tried to and he refused to listen.
As we learned on BCTV last night, rather than accept blame
for his incompetence the minister is fanning the flames of
racism by saying: ``The biggest goddam conservation problem
on the Fraser River is the Sto:Lo''-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would urge
members feeling as passionately and as strongly as they do in
this place of vigorous debate on all issues of importance, and
this one specifically, to choose their words carefully.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the minister. He
said: ``The biggest-conservation problem on the Fraser River
is the Sto:Lo''. Will the minister admit that he is afraid that a
real judicial inquiry will simply point the finger at his own
incompetence?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anybody has been playing games that seek
to generalize about an entire group of people, an irresponsible
attitude about an entire group of people in the fishing industry, it
is the Reform Party that does it with respect to Canada's First
Nations, that does it with respect to Canada's immigrants, that
does it with respect to Canada's poor, that does it with respect to
anybody who does not have a right wing, narrow minded,
bigoted attitude about people in the country.
Mr. Cummins: That is wrong.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me say something. What I have
said in the province of British Columbia, what I have said to
everybody I have-
Mr. Cummins: We know what you said right here.
Mr. Tobin: Excuse me, you have asked a question. Now take
the answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. First I remind
everyone to direct their interventions through the Chair. Second,
in order that we might get as many questions and answers on the
record as possible today, both should be succinct and brief.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what I said to every one of the
groups I met in British Columbia-and I met with aboriginal
leaders, the leadership from the commercial sector and people
from the sport and recreational sector-is that all groups
without exception, if the truth is to be heard in this place, must
accept obligation for conservation, enforcement and
compliance whether they came to this nation first or came to this
nation last.
(1135 )
If the member is not trying to cull selectively from meetings, I
said that whenever there is a problem in whichever group there
is a problem, be it commercial, sport, recreational or aboriginal,
we will stand, call the problem a problem and bring about the
necessary enforcement measures.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Hibernia
consortium recently awarded an untendered contract to Saint
John's Shipbuilding in New Brunswick. This $35-million
contract represents several hundred jobs. This decision is
outrageous since the MIL Davie shipyard in Quebec had already
bid
7688
on this contract, unlike Saint John's Shipbuilding which never
did.
My question is for the minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec. How can the minister explain that he
did not step in to keep the Hibernia board of directors from
awarding without tender a $35-million contract to Saint John's
Shipbuilding, without a bid from this company, when MIL
Davie had already submitted a bid?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
member knows this matter has been under review by the agency
responsible for offshore gas and oil in Newfoundland. The
whole subject matter will be studied and a report will be given.
We do not want to prejudge what that agency is going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister responsible for regional development does not answer,
I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that awarding this
contract without taking MIL Davie's bid into account is unfair to
the Quebec shipyard, which is struggling to survive with all the
energy it has left and which is better qualified to fill this order?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just
said, it is being reviewed. The whole matter will be considered
by the agency. I think it would be ill advised for the government
to get involved in it at this particular time. When all is done,
fairness will have won out.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Extrajudicial executions, incarceration without trial and
torture are widespread in China. Given the Prime Minister is
going to raise China's human rights record with its government,
will the Deputy Prime Minister give us her assurances that soon
after his return the Prime Minister will report to the House on
the outcome of these private information meetings?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously in two
weeks the Prime Minister will be back in the House and the
member is free to pose any question on any subject he wants.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, that was not much of an answer but that is not
uncommon.
Canada was very actively involved in sanctions against
Serbia, South Africa and Haiti. I would like to know what the
government is prepared to do to ensure that China will reverse
its dismal human rights record. What action is the government
going to take?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary
of State for Asia-Pacific answered that very question most
appropriately yesterday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Last spring, the
Official Opposition asked the minister about two ships
belonging to the Canadian government that were flying the flag
of the Bahamas. At the time, the minister indicated that he
would check on the reasons of such a practice and provide a
valid explanation.
(1140)
Can the Minister of Transport tell us if he checked the facts
and corrected the situation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, we were indeed informed of that situation and we
examined the facts concerning the ferries, which are the ships at
issue. It is true that these ships fly a foreign flag and, at times,
some crew members are foreigners.
We asked management at Marine Atlantic Inc. to check all the
implications of a transfer, so that these ships can fly the
Canadian flag. There are several issues involved, including the
rather high costs of such a conversion, but we are looking at the
situation.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government takes so long to solve problems. The issue was
raised five months ago.
What sort of example is the Minister of Transport setting for
shipowners by operating Canadian government ships under the
Bahamian flag?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's frustration. We are
trying to do the best we can. We have been here for a year now. I
am sure everybody recognizes that we are trying to do as much
as we can in a year.
May I say with respect to many of these issues that they went
on for years and years under the previous administration. It was
not able to deal with them through eight or nine years. We are
going to try to get it done as quickly as we can.
7689
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. On October 31 the
U.S. department of agriculture announced the 1994-95
allocation for subsidized exports under its export enhancement
program for barley and malting barley at 2.6 million tonnes.
The targeting of South Korea with a 50,000 tonne barley
export is a direct affront and challenge to a market opened up by
Canadian exporters. This trade action violates the intent of our
agreement with the United States and creates further market
distortion.
Considering the minister has described the American EEP as
``the worst trade distorting policy on the face of the earth'',
could he now indicate to the House what specific action Canada
will be taking to respond to this new and damaging application
of U.S. trade policy?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's aggravation
about this particular situation can be exceeded only by my own.
The federal government is very disappointed by the U.S.
government's continued use of the export enhancement
program, which is a major market destabilizing export subsidy.
Not only are we concerned by the recent U.S. announcement
allowing for the subsidization of 2.6 million tonnes for barley
and malting barley, Canada finds particularly distressing the
50,000 tonne allocation of U.S. barley to South Korea.
Canada is in the process of considering the form and the
content of the appropriate protest to be lodged with the United
States about this allocation. The Minister of International Trade
and I will be pursuing that issue at the very earliest opportunity.
As the hon. member pointed out this is especially aggravating
because it was Canada that worked very hard to achieve the
opening in the Korean market. It is disturbing, to say the least, to
see the United States attempting to undermine that through the
use of export subsidies. We will make the Canadian position
abundantly clear.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister will know that the
government must enjoy the moral authority to govern if it hopes
to implement the very difficult but necessary decisions ahead.
Part of that moral authority is derived from the certain
knowledge of citizens, that we are all equal before the law and
before Parliament.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how private
privileged meetings among the Prime Minister, ministers of the
crown, and those willing to pay $1,000 to join the Liberal
Laurier Club will help to build trust and confidence between the
governed and the government?
(1145 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should be
aware of the fact that the Laurier Club is a public club. If he
cares to walk down to 200 Laurier Street he can get a copy of the
membership list. The club has been in effect for almost a decade
and the contribution of every single member of the Laurier Club
is a matter of public record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would remind
colleagues that questions should refer to the administrative
responsibilities of government. We are walking a fine line here.
I know we have been sensitive to some of the issues that have
been raised over the last number of days. I would ask members
to keep that in mind.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Acting Prime Minister.
This week a private reception of members of the Laurier Club
was held in Montreal organized by Senator Leo Kolber, a man
closely connected with the Pearson Development Corporation, a
group now locked in battle with the federal government over the
closure of the Pearson airport.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister consulted with the ethics
counsellor as to the propriety of such privileged access to
ministers of the crown or would that consultation be done
retroactively?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only party that is
supporting the Pearson deal in this House is the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
For most crimes committed with firearms in Canada, the
weapons were smuggled from the United States. The Solicitor
General has told this House many times that the RCMP and other
police forces were stepping up their efforts to stop gun
smuggling.
Can the Solicitor General tell us what concrete action he has
taken since this commitment was made and how the RCMP is
intensifying its efforts against guns being smuggled from the
United States?
7690
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, the national anti-smuggling program announced
last February was aimed not only at cigarettes but at other forms
of smuggling, like the smuggling of weapons.
The added resources both of the mounted police and of the
Department of National Revenue are working to deal with the
smuggling of arms as well as the smuggling of other goods. This
co-operation has intensified and the objectives of the plan,
therefore, are being pursued as we said they would be.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):Mr. Speaker, the minister made some commitments last spring.
Can he give us clear examples of specific results obtained by
the RCMP in the fight against gun smuggling?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I will see what additional information I can obtain
for the hon. member.
I also point out that this area of the smuggling of arms is one
that is being examined and worked on by the Minister of Justice,
the Minister of National Revenue and myself to be dealt with as
part of our package for stronger gun control.
I hope the hon. member's question indicates that he and other
members of the House, but especially his party, will give us
strong support when we bring forward those measures.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, in a news release sent out yesterday the
government announced it will hold 60 public consultation
meetings on light station destaffing. This consultation process
was not to determine whether or not people accept destaffing.
Previous consultation showed that west coast communities,
boaters, fishermen and coastal pilots do not want this. This
consultation is on implementation of the very policy the
government previously agreed not to implement.
My question for the Minister of Transport is why is this
government cutting back on operational jobs which affect public
safety instead of cutting back on senior bureaucrat jobs that only
affect the spending of the Canadian taxpayers' dollars?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, it boggles the mind even on a Friday morning that
Reform comes along and tells us not to try to save the Canada
taxpayers money.
The fact of the matter is that in the United States there is one
lighthouse that is still staffed and it is a historical site. The
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, countries around the
world have destaffed their lighthouses.
(1150 )
I understand the importance historically of lighthouses in
British Columbia and Newfoundland, on both coasts of this
country.
If the Reform Party wants to be consistent it should
understand that even the Vancouver Sun had a headline that said:
``It is time to switch off our lighthouse keepers''. It is time for
the Reform Party to switch on the light to reality as it relates to
some of these technological changes.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to follow the example of
other countries, I hope the justice minister will take note that
Australia cancelled its firearms registration because it did not
work.
The minister's departmental publication ``West Coast
Lighthouses'' states that despite technological changes over the
past 200 years in the automation of equipment, the human
element has proven essential in warning of unpredictable
changes in weather, aiding in search and rescue activities and
providing essential services to mariners.
Will the minister tell us why he is ignoring his own
department and jeopardizing safety to save money by cutting
operational people instead of bureaucrats?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I will say in response to my hon. friend that we are
not being very picky at Transport Canada about what we are
cutting.
People who are looking at what we are attempting to do in this
department recognize that we are trying to be even handed about
it. We are trying to reflect new technologies. We are trying to
make sure that we have a very safe environment for Canadians to
travel in this country.
I want to make it very clear that I cannot continue to accept
questions like this coming from a member who says he thinks
there is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal and then expects
me to take him seriously when he is talking about lighthouses.
7691
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is on climate change and is for the Minister of the
Environment.
Next week provincial and federal environment and energy
ministers will meet to discuss the reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions to deal with climate change.
Can the minister indicate to this House what kind of
co-operation would be needed from the provinces and from the
private sector in order to reach the desired target of minus 20 per
cent in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows,
at this point in time we are about 11 per cent short of our goal for
stabilization.
To meet even the stabilization goals, the bare minimum goal
established by the previous government at Rio, we would need
to have an action plan tabled by the national government and by
every provincial government in advance of the Berlin meeting.
We believe that science is telling us that we have to go further.
We are convinced that at the meeting in Bathurst we will get the
full support of energy and environment ministers across the
country to go beyond voluntary action. We need voluntary
action but we also need other legislative action to make sure that
we meet our goals of stabilization and 20 per cent reduction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
The minister has not yet rejected the recommendations
contained in the SECOR report on the future of cultural
industries. Yet, all are unanimous in saying that if the minister
implements the recommendation regarding Telefilm Canada, to
the effect that the government should only invest in presumably
profitable projects from a commercial point of view, the whole
independent motion picture industry will be jeopardized.
Does the minister realize that the recommendations giving
priority to major profitable corporations would have the effect
of eliminating the whole cultural dimension of Telefilm Canada,
and does he agree that this strictly commercial approach would
adversely affect the arrival of new creators on the market?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the SECOR report was submitted by a
consultant who has ideas and who made suggestions. That study
was commissioned by the previous Conservative government.
Obviously, there are other sources of advice and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage will make a decision in due time.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the study was indeed commissioned by the
Conservatives, but the contract was awarded to a prominent
Liberal.
Does the minister not realize that he is losing all credibility
within the cultural community and, in order to reassure once and
for all the creative artists and those who will follow into their
footsteps, will he categorically dissociate himself from the
recommendations of the SECOR report? Yes or no?
(1155)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants me to make
decisions right now in this House to answer her questions.
However, when I make decisions, it is precisely in
consultation with the people she claims to be protecting. In fact,
I am doing just that right now. I have responded. I said that
policies would be implemented after those concerned had been
consulted.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Finance.
Farmers who lose their land due to debt settlement are being
treated unfairly due to the taxation of capital gains. When land is
taken back in debt settlement it is deemed to have been sold for
the amount of the debt with interest. The deemed proceeds
usually exceed the value of the land. This results in a taxable
capital gain. The taxpayers lose land, livelihood, child tax
credits or benefits and they have to pay provincial tax as a result
of the fictitious calculation.
Will the minister confirm that the Income Tax Act will be
amended to retroactively rectify this situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good news
and bad news here. The good news is that the member gave me
advance notice of this question. The bad news is that he gave me
advance notice about three months ago and I am not sure I can
remember the answer.
The fact is that the department has taken the member's
question under consideration and I believe that we are going to
be in a position if not to satisfy all of the question, certainly to
give a favourable response. We are working on it.
7692
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not
press for an answer sooner after having given notice is that the
minister is so rarely in the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Morrison: Anyway, I thank the minister for his positive
response and I will await with some eagerness the outcome of
this.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me put it this
way: As soon as I got notice I was in the House every day, but
after about two months-
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign the Liberals
promised Canadians they would bring honesty and integrity to
government. Yet earlier this week the Prime Minister slipped
out of Ottawa to meet with 350 Canadians who paid $1,000 each
to the Liberal Party to buy access to the Prime Minister.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who will
remember that when the previous government carried on these
sorts of activities she and her colleagues aggressively criticized
that Prime Minister. Will she indicate how these secret meetings
with those who pay for access and influence square with words
about honesty and integrity that this government has spent so
much time expressing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in
the hon. member. We did not raise this issue when his leader had
a boat cruise. We understand there is a legitimate function for
fundraising in all political parties. Take a look at the Reform
Party. There is a recent annotation that it received $75,000 from
Sabre Energy Limited, $25,000 from Canadian Pacific, $20,000
from Hollinger Inc., $15,000 from Company No. 135482.
Obviously parties have to raise money.
In the instance of the Laurier Club, the Laurier Club
membership is even open to the member from the New
Democratic Party. It is a public document. Membership is
available to anybody who wants to walk four blocks down to 200
Laurier Avenue.
I can tell you that in the Liberal Party, unlike the Bloc that
does not want to tell people who gave it money before the
election, we are prepared to open our books and let everybody
in.
(1200)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Canadian government bought a year of peace for wheat
exports to the United States by signing a very bad agreement.
Among unresolved agricultural issues, the U.S. is still using
NAFTA to challenge the tariffs filed by Canada under the GATT
agreement on supply-managed agricultural products, namely
milk products, poultry and eggs. Section 424 of the GATT bill
before the U.S. Congress requires the President of the United
States to personally deal with this dispute and report back within
a few months.
Can the minister give us an update on the negotiations in this
specific matter and tell us why, on the eve of a new trade dispute
with the U.S., he is not using the conciliation mechanisms
provided for under GATT and NAFTA?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the hon.
member's question. One of those relates to the wheat agreement
recently signed between Canada and the United States.
The hon. member characterizes it as a bad deal. He ought to
know that the volume of access that we have secured by this
agreement is higher than any other year in history except one
year in which U.S. production was distorted by the worst
flooding in 300 years.
This is a high level of access that we have secured for
Canadian wheat. Those who argue the contrary should explain
why they would take about $150 million out of the pockets of
Canadian grain producers by forcing them into a trade war
situation.
With respect to the quota situation dealing with supply
managed products, those items were under discussion with the
United States at the end of last year and the beginning of this
year. The United States preferred in the month of June to focus
exclusively on the wheat issue. It will at some point I presume in
the future again raise these issues with Canada.
However, it is our view that tariff equivalents that we have
filed under the GATT agreement are perfectly legitimate and
proper in the context of international practice. If they should be
challenged by the United States we have indicated that we will
defend the Canadian position.
7693
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, at its last meeting the board of directors of Ports
Canada decided to close down the grain elevator at Churchill.
A draft of the minutes containing that decision was sent to the
Minister of Transport, not a popular decision for the Manitoba
Liberal leader with a provincial election looming. When the
official minutes came out, magic-no mention of this Ports
Canada decision.
Can the Minister of Transport tell this House who is
responsible for doctoring the minutes, the long time Liberal
Party loyalist who chairs the board or the minister himself?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, a question like that obviously reflects the total lack
of respect that the Reform Party has for members of this House.
If the hon. member thinks I have doctored anything she should
say so, say it in here and say it outside. I do not take lightly my
responsibilities as a minister. If there is any doctoring to do I
think perhaps the hon. member should see if there is something
that can be done for her.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I refer to
Standing Order 18 with respect to disrespectful or offensive
language.
Earlier in question period the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans referred to the member for Delta or the Reformers as
bigots. There was no intervention on your part, Mr. Speaker,
with respect to that language and yet while the member for Delta
was quoting the minister's very own words you rose and held
him back.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what your ruling would be
on that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me see if I can be
helpful to the House. Clearly I heard the words from the member
for Delta as reported by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and
I reacted. However, as clearly I did not hear other words that
would have led me to rise in the same fashion and react as the
House would deem appropriate and also as the Chair would.
I would remind members while I am on my feet to always use
more judicious words. I will also undertake to review the blues
and report back to the House if necessary.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I did use words
which are unparliamentary, words which I want to withdraw.
One of the words was ``racist'' and the other word was
``bigoted''.
(1205 )
However, the member who has just risen will know that his
colleague who sits just beyond his arm's reach, in asking the
question, which prompted that response which I have withdrawn
unequivocally, used the words ``racist comments'' in referring
to me. The member thinks those kind of words are unacceptable.
I have withdrawn them. I ask the member opposite to do the
same.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do thank the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans for his unequivocal withdrawal.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I was not involved in the
interchange between the two members. Second, the member for
Delta in reference to the word ``racist'' was using it in the
context of a question. He was not referring to the minister as
being racist because we know the minister is not racist.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I understand, because once or twice
in the 15 years I have been here I have been guilty of using words
that one would not want to use. However, the member for Delta
used the word ``racist''. I heard it, which is what caused my-
Mr. Cummins: Racism.
Mr. Tobin: ``Racism'' is the word he used, referring to my
comments. I am sorry. That is what the member said. I would ask
him to withdraw that. I would ask that the members of the
Reform Party adopt a standard at least equal to that which they
preach or seek from other members in this House.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did not
refer to the minister as racist. What I did say was that he was
fanning the flames of racism. I think that is an entirely different
point.
Mr. Tobin: Withdraw. You heard it now, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Having been apprised of
the remarks, the quotes from the hon. member for Delta, I would
ask him to withdraw.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do that.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hate to continue on the same train of thought,
except that another member, namely the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, accused the hon. Minister of Transport of
falsifying government documents during question period. That
is a very serious accusation. Needless to say it is far more
serious than that which has been previously withdrawn. I would
seek the guidance of the Chair with regard to that issue as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, there is a
very fine line. We remind one another to use more judicious
words. It sounds repetitive but I think it bears repeating. I would
hope that as we break today for a week back in our constituen-
7694
cies with family, friends and constituents we would give that due
thought upon returning.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, actually in my question I believe I was asking for
clarification. I certainly hope no one is suggesting here in this
House that I would question the honourability of any member,
cabinet minister or anyone else.
I think my performance in this House in not quite a year here
indicates the respect with which I treat others.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Mission-Coquitlam.
_____________________________________________
7694
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1210)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 47th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order
92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present four petitions duly signed by constituents
from my riding of Calgary Southeast.
The first petition is signed by 54 constituents. The second is
signed by 189 constituents. In both petitions they pray that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality by including in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is signed by 41 constituents and the fourth is
signed by 221 constituents.
In both petitions they pray that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre. The first is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners
request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be
enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I wish to present requests that the Government
of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the
phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an
inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits
and societal privileges as married people.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition duly certified by
the Clerk of Petitions and signed by 36 citizens of my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap.
It asks that Parliament not change criminal law against
assisted suicide and euthanasia because such actions would lead
to degrading the value of human life. It also asks Parliament to
increase pain relieving care for the terminally ill.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions to the
House today.
In the first one the petitioners are praying and requesting that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are
praying that Parliament will act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
7695
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to the
unborn human being.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are
praying that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in law
that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to
present two petitions, one on behalf of my constituents asking
the government to ensure that present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada which prohibit assisted suicide be enforced.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, I am presenting more petitions on behalf of
Canadian grandchildren and grandparents. It is long overdue
and I sincerely hope that our government recognizes the urgent
need to stop punishing a large percentage of our grandchildren
by not allowing them access to their grandparents.
My private member's bill to grant grandparents continuous
access to their grandchildren is soon to be debated in this House.
I ask all members of this House to support our Canadian
grandchildren.
(1215 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I am pleased rise today to present three petitions
from constituents of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The first petition calls on Parliament to extend protection to
the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to ensure
that Parliament rigorously enforce provisions in the Criminal
Code of Canada to prohibit assisted suicide.
The petitioners also call on Parliament to make no changes in
the law which would allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
euthanasia.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament not to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships
and homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise again to
present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are calling
on the government to support ethanol and especially the world
scale ethanol plant slated for Chatham, Ontario.
This brings the total signatures from my riding to over 11,000,
a tremendous show of support for this environmentally friendly,
job creating and renewable fuel industry.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the following questions will be answered
today: Nos. 72 and 73.
[Text]
Question No. 72-Mr. Caccia:
With respect to the buried radioactive waste at Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited's Chalk River plant, (a) to what extent, if any, has tritium spread into
the environment within a radius of 50 kilometres, (b) to what extent has tritium
been measured in drinking water and is this considered a safe level, (c) is the
disposal site safely insulated and (d) is there any danger to humans emanating
from the disposal site?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), tritium emissions from
the waste site at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Chalk
River plant do migrate to some degree within a radius of50 kilometres of the plant. However, tritium emission limits are
set so that hypothetical doses to the public are always well
below the regulatory limits set by the Atomic Energy Control
Board. In practice, nuclear facilities do not operate anywhere
near their emission limits and Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited's Chalk River plant is no exception. The tritium
releases from the plant are well below the regulatory limits.
In response to (b), local drinking water is monitored for
tritium and the levels observed, being very much less than
regulatory limits for the public, are considered safe. Daily
samplings are collected at the Pembroke main water supply
intake and these are measured monthly to confirm that releases
are a small fraction of the regulatory limits.
In response to (c), yes, the radioactive waste disposal site is
safely insulated. It is located well inside the plant boundary and
is not accessible to the public. The releases of tritium from this
site are well below the regulatory limit.
7696
In response to (d), the radioactive waste site is safe and poses
no undue risk to humans.
Question No. 73-Mr. Caccia:
Is 40,000 becquerels of tritium in a litre of drinking water considered a safe
level?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, 40,000 becquerels per litre is the
regulated standard for drinking water and corresponds to 10 per
cent of the legal public dose limit of 5 millisieverts per year.
Even if a person's water supply through a whole year were to be
at 40,000 becquerels per litre, the radiation dose to that
individual would be less than the current dose limit for members
of the public. It would also be below the reduced limit that is
recommended by international authorities.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Could the hon.
parliamentary secretary give the Chair a moment?
I have taken somewhat of a liberty. Since we are getting ready
to go home to our families, friends and constituents and since
this break particularly marks the occasion of Remembrance
Day, I have asked the hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the senior member of the
House, to please say a few words on our behalf.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every November 11 Canadians take time out
to remember those who served in two world wars and in the
Korean war. Now must be added the several peacekeeping and
peacemaking expeditions where several young Canadians have
lost their lives.
Korea was the first big test for the United Nations when the
North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel. It was a case of the
United Nations proving itself and its role within the
international community by keeping boundaries stable or losing
its clout in the world.
Sixteen nations went to the aid of the United Nations and
between 1950 and 1953 brought order back from the chaos of
that particular area of the world. Five hundred and sixteen young
Canadians today rest in Korea.
During World Wars I and II the Royal Canadian Navy, the
Royal Canadian Air Force, the Canadian Merchant Navy and the
Royal Canadian Army and Canadians who served with other
forces played their roles.
In World War I, 66,605 young Canadians lost their lives. That
talent was lost to this Parliament, to municipal governments, to
provincial governments and to all walks of life.
In 1939-45, 45,000 more young Canadians lost their lives in
battle; 55,000 came home wounded. All told, including our
peacekeeping expeditions, this great nation has lost more than
114,000 young Canadians in war.
(1220 )
Can we as members of the House of Commons today, right
now, fully realize the atmosphere that prevailed in this Chamber
when Canada declared war in World Wars I and II and the
Korean war?
On September 1, 1939 Germany and Russia invaded Poland
and Poland collapsed. France and Britain had promised that they
would come to Poland's aid, and they both declared war on
Germany. On September 7 the House of Commons of Canada
was called into special session to decide what Canada was to do.
By September 9 it had decided it would support Britain and
France. On September 10, 1939 Canada officially declared war.
The battles of Dieppe, Hong Kong, the Italian campaign, the
Battle of Britain, the freeing of Holland, the north Atlantic
battle and the war at sea generally, and the D-Day campaign
were among many in which Canada participated. The only great
conclusion is that no matter where these campaigns took place,
wherever they will take place, war is hell.
The joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate
has recommended a one day debate per year on Canada's
international role, a very important debate. If we do not work
toward keeping peace in the world, we are not keeping faith with
those 114,000 young Canadians whom I mentioned earlier.
The world is not a happy place today. It has some 75 to 80 hot
spots. The greatest service we can do is to try to keep cooling
them off. This process is to a great extent shaping our world
today.
On behalf of all members in the House, I congratulate the
1,700-plus Legion branches across Canada for inviting all
Canadians to attend a November 11 Remembrance Day
ceremony to remember those young Canadians who left their
high schools, their universities and their careers, who left their
jobs in the factory or the corner store, who left their ploughs and
cultivators and their farms; people from all walks of life who
left loved ones to go out to fight for freedom and for eventual
peace.
Canada has a great role to play in the negotiations for peace in
the world. Think of those today who are far away from home on
peacekeeping duties. Think of their families who are at home
awaiting the return of their loved ones. These people are keeping
the faith with those who died. If we do not give them our support
7697
and if we do not play our role around the peacekeeping tables
and at the United Nations, then we are not keeping faith with
those who died.
By our own neglect we may well be promoting another
debacle and more loss of Canadian lives. As we leave the House
of Commons today, let us remember them. Let us not just
remember them on Friday next as we stand around the Cenotaph.
Let us remember them 365 days of the year because they gave
their all.
What we should do as Canadian parliamentarians and as
Canadians is work toward the peace and the sanity of a good
world for our young people. We must not neglect our duties and
allow international plans that might hinder their lives.
Let us think of our families and all young Canadians who are
looking forward to a future. If we keep faith with those who died
and keep faith in international relations we will indeed be
remembering them.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask all members of the House to rise for
one moment's remembrance.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I get back to the
parliamentary secretary, perhaps I may add the following on a
more personal note. I draw your attention to the Table today. Our
Senior Clerk, Mr. Camille Montpetit, arrived here on the Hill on
November 4, 1968, so this is his 26th anniversary.
On behalf of all previous and present members, we want to
thank you for your good offices and your friendship.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, after those very moving words
from you and from the hon. member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I think you might find there is
unanimous consent to call it 2.30 in light of the excellent
progress we have made today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until Monday, November 14, 1994 at
11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.29 p.m.)