TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, June 13, 1994
Bill C-207. Consideration at report stage. 5185
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 5185
Motion 5185Mr.
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5186
Motion for concurrence 5189
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5189
Motion for third reading 5189
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5189
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5189
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.) 5189
The House resumed at 12.02 p.m. 5189
Bill C-35. Motion for second reading 5189
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 5206
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5206
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5209
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5209
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5209
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5211
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5211
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5211
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5212
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5212
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5214
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5214
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5214
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5214
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5215
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5215
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5215
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 5216
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5216
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5216
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5218
Bill C-41. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 5218
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 5219
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 5219
Bill C-35. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 5221
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5224
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second timeand referred to a committee.) 5227
Bill C-23. Consideration of report stage 5227
Motion for concurrence 5227
Motion for third reading 5227
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5231
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5240
Bill C-24. Report stage (with amendment) 5240
Motion for concurrence. 5240
Motion for third reading 5240
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5247
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5249
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5249
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5252
Motion for concurrence 5252
Bill C-33. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 5252
Bill C-16. Report stage 5254
Motion for concurrence 5254
Motion for third reading 5254
5185
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 13, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-207, an
act to amend the Auditor General Act (reports), as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Motion No. 1 will be
debated and voted upon.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie) moved:
That Bill C-207, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 1,
with the following:
``under section 8(1), at least three''.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the
mover of the motion is in fact here today and, if not, whether we
can address this matter. I believe a negotiation was discussed
and, before making a decision about this matter, we could settle
that question.
Mr. Bélisle: Madam Speaker, Bill C-207, tabled for first
reading on February 1, 1994 by the member for Ottawa-Vanier,
provides in clause 1 that the Auditor General shall report at least
annually to the House of Commons. This bill also provides, in
clause 4, that the Auditor General may report to the House of
Commons on a study of any matter undertaken for the purposes
of this act upon completion of the study.
After second reading, the public acounts committee
considered this bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
President of the Treasury Board moved in the public accounts
committee the following amendments, which were carried on
division by the committee.
The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of
Commons and may make, in addition to any special report made
under subsection 8(1), not more than three additional reports in
any year to the House of Commons. That was the main
amendment moved in the public accounts committee by the
parliamentary secretary.
Where the additional reports are concerned, the Auditor
General shall send written notice to the Speaker of the House of
Commons of the subject matter of the report the Auditor General
proposes to make under subsection (1). Then, again according to
an amendment moved by the parliamentary secretary, the
additional report shall be submitted to the Speaker of the House
of Commons on the expiration of 30 days after the notice is sent
or any longer period specified in the notice.
(1110)
A third amendment was also moved, to subsection 8(1),
concerning the presentation of a special report. It was worded as
follows:
8.(1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on
any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in the opinion of the Auditor
General, should be reported immediately.
That clause 3 was replaced by the following:
8.(1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on
any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in the opinion of the Auditor
General, should not be deferred until the presentation of the next report under
subsection 7(1).
This amendment was moved in the public accounts committee
by the parliamentary secretary.
Since the present act, which is 17 years old, has existed,
subsection 8(1) concerning special reports has never been used
by an Auditor General.
As well, in his testimony before the public accounts
committee on May 26, 1994, the Auditor General stated: ``An
amendment to allow the office to table, say, four times a year
would enable me to do what I would intend to do anyway. There
are few issues that cannot wait a month or two for reporting, and
in those cases there is always subsection 8(1) of the current act
for use in real emergencies''. In fact, that section has never been
used in the 17 years of the acts existence.
Why not simplify this entire system, as proposed in the
amendment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of
the Treasury Board, and add to the annual report, which will
continue to be tabled, the possibility of not more than three
additional reports?
5186
I have already stated in the House that the request by the
member for Ottawa-Vanier during Question Period on January
20, 1994 to allow the Auditor General to increase the frequency
of that person's reports was the 16th such request since July
1980; there has been a 17th in the meantime. It is time that we
took action on this bill.
The federal debt, combined with that of the provinces, has
now reached the critical level of 91 per cent of Canada's GDP.
Furthermore, according to economist John Richards, the author
of a study published by the C. D. Howe Institute, the measures
announced by the Liberal government to reduce the deficit will
probably fail. In Mr. Richards' opinion, it is highly probable that
the present program to fight the deficit will not even achieve the
most modest objectives contained in the Liberals' red book.
In the present situation of indebtedness, since we have
reached a critical point and have a program to fight the deficit
that is worse than shaky, why not give the Auditor General more
elbow room and promote a more flexible and workable way for
that person to publish work and take action?
Why put the number of reports by the Auditor General in a
strait-jacket of one annual report, to which in the long term no
more than three additional reports would be added?
In order to give the Auditor General more room to manoeuvre
and more latitude to take action, I move the amendment tabled
this morning, that is:
That clause 1 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 4 to 11 on page 1
and substituting the following therefor: The Auditor General shall report
annually to the House of Commons and may make, in addition to any special
report made under subsection 8(1), at least three additional reports in any year
to the House of Commons.
By means of this amendment, the Auditor General could
publish at least three additional reports, indeed four, five, or
even more. The Auditor General could still publish the annual
report, to which could be added three or more additional reports,
depending on the situation.
This amendment would avoid pointless and tedious
proceedings to amend the act two or three years from now to
allow for more additional reports, if the Auditor General
considered that appropriate, and would be in the spirit of the
initial bill tabled by the member for Ottawa-Vanier, which did
not put a ceiling on the number of reports by the Auditor
General.
That member's bill specifies only a minimum of reports each
year; the amendment moved by the parliamentary secretary puts
a ceiling of three additional reports in addition to the annual
report; and the amendment I am moving today is in agreement
with the bill tabled by the member for Ottawa-Vanier: a
minimum of three additional reports, and thus a broader base, in
addition to the annual report, which would still be published.
(1115)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Madam
Speaker, I am going to comment very briefly on this amendment
requiring the Auditor General of Canada to report at least three
times in addition to his annual report.
We considered such a provision when the bill was drafted, and
we rejected it at that time because, in my opinion, the Auditor
General should be left free to act. It should be his decision when
to table a report. There should not be a minimum of three reports
imposed on him.
What will happen if, for completely extra-parliamentary
reasons, for factors entirely outside his activities as auditor, an
election is called? It is easy to see that it would be impossible for
him to table the three minimum reports plus an annual report in
that year. I am puzzled that the Bloc Québécois is absolutely
determined to impose three additional reports on the Auditor
General, over and above his annual report.
The original idea behind Bill C-207 was to make possible
greater transparency, greater freedom of action, and, what is
more, greater accountability to the people of Canada with
respect to the public accounts that are approved by this House.
I do not see why the Auditor General should be forced to
prepare a minimum of three additional reports. I would have
preferred that we stick to the original bill, which left him the
freedom to decide when, how and why he would report, and did
not impose a minimum of three extra reports.
I cannot support this amendment.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, I support
the amendment of the hon. member for La Prairie to Bill C-207,
under which clause 1 of the bill would be amended to enable the
Auditor General to make at least three supplementary reports a
year.
By allowing the Auditor General to report more than once a
year we would be giving him greater latitude, and that is
something we heartily support. The wording of the amendment
sets a minimum.
It is not restrictive. It says the Auditor General will be able to
present at least three supplementary reports. He could present
more than that, but there will be a floor. I do not think it would be
wise to introduce this kind of change and set a limit on the
number of supplementary reports.
5187
The Auditor General's strength is his credibility. Giving him
latitude is also giving him the room to carry out his mandate
fully.
Changing from one report a year to several is a response to a
long felt need. The proposed amendment to section 7 of the
Auditor General Act has been recommended four times by the
public accounts committee and once by the Senate finance
committee. The Auditor General would like to see this change.
With reports at regular intervals, information will be split up
and will reach us in a shorter time, which will obviously result in
savings.
The Auditor General will be able to report to the House of
Commons as soon as he has finished an in-depth audit of a
department or a federal body, instead of waiting until he tables
his annual report. Parliamentarians will thus be able to have
access to information faster, and act more promptly.
(1120)
The amendment gives plenty of leeway, and the necessary
flexibility, to the Auditor General. Why opt for a ceiling? Where
does this distrust come from? Why give with the right hand and
take away with the left?
If it is felt that the Auditor General needs to produce more
than one annual report a year, which seems to be an accepted
fact, why restrict him to producing no more than three additional
reports?
Moreover, the idea of regular reports reflects a trend that we
can see in other countries: Great Britain, Germany, Sweden,
Australia, New Zealand. They have all adopted the idea. We are
not abandoning a sacrosanct standard and striking out on our
own.
The Auditor General's 1993 annual report has over 700 pages.
If he reported at regular intervals all the information would be
brought out over the course of a year and not just at the end of the
year. That would be more efficient, more effective and more
transparent. His auditing activities show how public money is
being used, which meets a vital need. There can be no half
measures in transparency.
Everyone is in favour of virtue, but when the time comes to
act they get lukewarm and propose to limit the number of
supplementary reports. This is backing and filling. Since 1980
there have been many attempts to amend the Auditor General
Act but none of them has succeeded.
It seems to be difficult to go from words to action and give the
Auditor General the latitude he needs. We are clearly running
into resistance here. Apparent supporters of the idea say one
thing but make a point of setting limits to what they call
transparency. There is no room here for petty politicking. The
Auditor General is the government's watchdog, and he must not
be muzzled.
The Bloc Québécois defines the Auditor General's role
positively. There is no question of imposing limits on him: we
want to give him the manoeuvring room he needs to carry on his
activities.
The bill tabled by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier
originally provided in its clause 1 that the Auditor General could
table at least one report, whereas the text we now have before us
stipulates that he can prepare not more than three supplementary
reports a year. Limits are being introduced, things are being
restricted. After they make their resounding statements of
principle, put the Grits through the mangle and their real
intentions gush out.
The Auditor General ensures probity in the management of
public moneys. He is apolitical. In today's context, participating
in the passage of measures that might make it possible to save
money is not something to dismiss lightly.
The Office of the Auditor General does audits, and we would
benefit from having the findings in a shorter time. The wording
of the amendment is designed to achieve this by providing for
additional reports. The Auditor General already has the power to
make special reports to the House.
(1125)
Section 8(1) reads as follows:
The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on
any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be
deferred until the presentation of his annual report.
However, since 1977, he has never invoked that section. The
member for Ottawa-Vanier wanted to soften the original rule.
In its place, he proposes the present wording which sets
requirements too high, so high in fact that one wonders if they
will ever be satisfied since the auditor has never used this
prerogative in 17 years.
We submit that the requirements of managing a modern state
call for a new way of doing things which allows for greater
visibility. The auditor needs more leeway in the performance of
his duties. For one or two weeks after he reports to Parliament,
everyone focuses on the complexity of the task, on the visibility
of his work. Then, it is back to oblivion for another year.
He must-and arguments favour more frequent reporting-be
given the opportunity to make more than one yearly report. To
achieve this, we will have to use general wording.
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to address the House on this bill to amend the
Auditor General Act. I have followed the discussion with
interest on the question of when and how the Auditor General
reports to Parliament.
5188
[Translation]
Since 1980, the public accounts committee and the Auditor
General have repeatedly recommended that the Auditor General
Act be amended to allow more frequent reporting to Parliament.
Such recommendations were made in 1984, 1986, 1988 and
1993.
[English]
Both the former Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, and the
current Auditor General, Mr. Denis Desautels, have supported
initiatives to amend the Auditor General Act to allow them to
report results of individual audits at their completion.
Both Auditors General have examined the merits of
completion date reporting. They have noted that more frequent
reporting would lead to a more even workload within the office
of the Auditor General. This would lead to improved
efficiencies. However there has been no estimate of the
magnitude of these efficiencies.
The primary benefit for supporting change to allow the
Auditor General to report more frequently would be to enable
Parliament and the public accounts committee to discuss the
findings of the Auditor General on a more timely basis.
This would imply that corrective action could be taken sooner
and that Parliament would be in a better position to influence
that action. These are indisputable goals. However, it must be
clear that we are not referring here to the timely reporting of
very urgent issues.
Section 8 of the current Auditor General Act already allows
him to report at any time to the House of Commons on any
matter of pressing importance or urgency that in his opinion
should not be deferred until the presentation of the annual
report.
[Translation]
This section allows the Auditor General to make a timely
report to Parliament on any pressing matter. Yet, no Auditor
General has never done so. Why is that?
[English]
Another reason advanced for changing the current act is that
more frequent reporting will help the public accounts committee
to do a better job. The committee will be able to hold department
and agency officials more accountable to Parliament and the
Canadian taxpayers.
For instance it will be more likely that public service
employees called as witnesses before the public accounts
committee will be the same ones involved at the time of the
Auditor General's audit. In the past this was not always the case.
Again this is an admirable goal which members should support.
Anything we can do to improve the results of this important
committee should be seriously considered.
However the most important question we must ask ourselves
today is what will be the impact of this bill on the effectiveness
of the office of the Auditor General?
(1130 )
The Auditor General is effective because of his independence
and the credibility that results from that independence. We
would not want to support changes to the act that would put the
Auditor General's independence at risk.
The Auditor General recognizes the importance of his
independence. It is a key component of his office's mission
statement. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada
conducts independent audits and examinations that provide
objective information, advice and assurance to Parliament. We
promote accountability and best practices in government
operations.
The importance and the necessity of the work of the Auditor
General and the public accounts committee is not a question for
debate. It is how we can make the best use of these important
tools that is the issue.
In the past when the issue of completion dates reporting was
discussed in the House, it was noted quite correctly that the
findings of the Auditor General have become more positive in
recent years. The Auditor General has been reporting in his
annual follow-up chapter that progress has been made in solving
problems reported in earlier reports. Improvements in
departmental management are being made and reported by the
Auditor General.
Reporting audit findings closer to the completion date of the
audit will result in early reports to Parliament, but this alone
will not solve the timeliness problem.
[Translation]
The very nature of the auditing process is a partial
explanation. Complete auditing within a department can in fact
take up to two years. I know the Auditor General is working on a
solution.
[English]
It should be remembered as well that audit findings are
discussed with the managers responsible as they are being
developed. Issues are addressed by government managers on a
priority basis as they are identified by the auditee. Corrective
action plans are generally developed well before the tabling of
the Auditor General's report to Parliament.
I believe that the Auditor General would be happy to report
that all the problems have been solved. In one of his first reports
he noted: ``Accordingly, the greatest professional satisfaction
for me and for my colleagues in the office will not be the
disclosure of error, waste and loss, but rather the evidence that
management has corrected unsatisfactory situations''.
5189
Mechanisms are in place within the government to address
observations made by the Auditor General. Furthermore, as I
commented earlier, provisions already exist in the Auditor
General Act that empower the Auditor General to report to
Parliament on an urgent basis at any time.
This act is a very important piece of legislation. It is critical to
the accountability process that takes place between the
government and Parliament and the Canadian public. However,
it is an act that is viewed as being very successful. Canadian
taxpayers are happy that they have an independent and effective
watchdog on their side.
I have another concern relating to the proposed amendments
to the current act. I am concerned that the Auditor General could
come to be used as a short term investigator asked by House
committees and others to respond to the partisan controversies
of the day. Pressures to agree to investigate concerns of this
nature could place an unbearable workload on his office. This
additional workload could put completion of his extensive
statutory workload in jeopardy.
In summary, I would like to emphasize that we should be
careful when amending the Auditor General Act. We should
ensure that we have all the facts on the table. We should know all
the consequences, both the positive and the negative.
In conclusion, the amendment proposed here at report stage is
an inappropriate one. It calls essentially for mandatory quarterly
reports rather than a more reasonable approach of one report
annually with the option for additional reports as audits are
completed.
The Auditor General opposes this sort of additional duty
because it forces him to have a new report three more times a
year, whether he is ready or not. The amendment has the
potential to be an absurd waste, given the fluctuations of the
audit cycle.
[Translation]
The Auditor General is opposed to the amendment because he
does not feel he should be required to report until he is ready. He
must have the choice, as given him by the act.
[English]
I urge all members to oppose this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion negatived.)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): As there is no further
business before the House we will suspend until 12 o'clock
noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.37 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12.02 p.m.
5189
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved that Bill C-35, an act to establish the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, there is something very strange
going on this morning. For those viewers watching on television
I was almost getting a standing ovation from my friends on the
Reform side. I thank them for their generous and very thoughtful
co-operation today. I thank my hon. friend, the Reform Party
critic, for moving to second reading and showing some degree of
flexibility to move to committee of the whole. I understand the
Bloc Quebecois does not want to do so. I hope to find out the
reasons why.
The bill before the House of Commons today is relatively
short, straightforward and important. It is only six pages long
and 22 paragraphs in all.
5190
[Translation]
Its purpose is obvious: the creation of a Department of
Citizenship and Immigration.
[English]
The House will recall that one of the commitments of our
party during the campaign was that the business of immigration
had no business being in the department of public security.
(1205)
That was a move made in the dying moments of a very
desperate government that Canadians saw fit to replace. That is
not the issue that caused consternation for the Prime Minister,
this minister and all caucus members of the Liberal Party of
Canada. It was that the move of putting immigration in public
security was very directly a slap or a black eye for all those
people who came to the country as immigrants and who are now
for the most part full members of the Canadian family through
their Canadian citizenship. Placing that in public security very
much undermined the real story that immigration has played in
the country.
Sure there are cases of abuse. Sure there are individuals who
claim refugee status, are not refugees and are everything but.
Yes, there are those who make multiple claims on our welfare
systems. We have tried to address that through memorandums of
understanding with municipalities across the country. We have
those problems, but show me a department of government that
does not have abuse problems. Show me a UI system that is not
abused. Show me a CPP disability system that is not abused.
Show me a welfare system that is not abused.
We are saying that regrettably there is abuse of various
programs in society. Regrettably that is part of human nature not
only in our country but the world over. Our system, when
stacked up against other systems of the world, certainly speaks
to a sense of clarity and a sense of integrity.
We are also dealing with a minority of cases that should not be
translated to being the majority story. That is why I was
personally offended, as was my party, by immigration being
placed in public security. The Prime Minister made a
commitment that if he were elected Prime Minister that would
cease and desist. True to his word when he appointed his cabinet,
lo and behold there was a new department called citizenship and
immigration.
We have been carrying out our work notwithstanding the bill
that gives legal authority to that department is before the House
of Commons today. It enacts changes announced by the Prime
Minister on November 4, 1993 and delivers on the principles
contained in the red book.
The bill organizes the citizenship and immigration mandate
and promotion functions of the government in a coherent and
common sense fashion. More important, the legislation before
Parliament today modernizes and streamlines government to
meet the needs of Canadians and to give us the tools needed to
deal effectively with myriad complex citizenship and
immigration issues.
The Prime Minister spoke on many occasions. Our party
spoke very eloquently and indicated that immigration was a
building tool for our country. It is a building tool that through
the years has helped to build a modern day Canada. Immigration
will also be part of our future. It is up to us how to shape it, how
to mould it and how to help it address current day phenomena
which are different from yesteryears. Nonetheless immigration
is an absolutely vital part of the lifeblood of our country.
There is also citizenship. Sometimes citizenship gets lost
because immigration is so overpowering or is such an emotional
issue that the media clearly focus on it as opposed to citizenship
issues. I might also add that oftentimes the media deal with
immigration in a negative way. It is always the negative issue
that screams the loudest on page 1 or on the first story on our TV
sets or radios. Sometimes that is how news is covered. Negative
stuff sells but if members of Parliament are interested, as we all
should be, about talking fact and not fiction then there is also the
need to distinguish for the public that the culmination of all
those negative cases does not define the essence of the issue.
(1210 )
Sometimes immigration gets covered the way media covers
aeroplanes. Media covers aeroplanes only when they do not
land. They do not talk about the ones that land safely. They ask
why they should. We feel bad when aeroplanes do not land. We
send our sympathies to the families of the victims of aeroplane
crashes. We try to learn from aeroplane mishaps. We try to
figure out whether it was pilot error or whether it was a
malfunctioning in one of the motors, engines, wings or whatnot.
We study and we try to prevent another one from happening.
We in the House of Commons do not go around and across the
country as members of Parliament alarming our fellow
Canadians because of an unfortunate accident. We know better.
Ninety-nine per cent of aeroplanes land at airports seven days a
week, 24 hours a day. In fact the statistics show that travelling in
aeroplanes is safer than driving cars. Members are responsible
to learn from those mistakes, but we have to be responsible
about reflecting the total picture, the context of those aeroplane
mishaps and landings.
I ask my fellow colleagues: Ought we not do the same when
we talk about the emotional issue of immigration? I think we
should and it is important that we do so. It is not to say that we
forget about the negative cases or that we do not learn from the
negative cases.
5191
I will be presenting legislation before we rise for the summer
on individual cases that have been in our newspapers which have
driven Canadians, the opposition and this minister right up the
wall and around the bend. We will learn from them and make
amendments so that we make the laws as foolproof as possible
from those who want to play with or abuse our laws.
Citizenship is also part of my mandate. I would suggest to
hon. members that citizenship can help us with immigration. It
is a natural fit when the Prime Minister put citizenship and
immigration together. As immigrants come into the country and
are facilitated, the processes of citizenship and making them
Canadian take over. When a person becomes a Canadian citizen
the process of him or her being an immigrant is over.
Immigration is a process that at some point stops and
citizenship takes over and we are all Canadian citizens. Our
origins may be different. I may have been born in Argentina of
Canadian parents. Yet I went through the same school system as
the children of hon. members today. We speak English or
French; maybe badly but none the less we speak it. We have
played hockey on the same streets. We have been in trouble for
throwing snowballs at our schoolmates. My cultural origin is
different. Am I a better Canadian than anybody else here?
Absolutely not. Am I any worse? The same answer.
Citizenship helps us with immigration. It also helps us with
immigration because in the offer to the standing committee to
help us shape a new Citizenship Act one thing I asked it to do
was to look into the responsibilities, obligations and values of
Canadian citizenship.
Why is that? There are two reasons. In the debate about
immigration we talk often about rights: the rights to make an
application, the rights of family class reunification, the right to
have rights defended under a refugee application, and the right
of an individual to receive humanitarian and compassionate
consideration on which I have had requests from members of the
Chamber on a daily basis. It is rights dominated and that is
legitimate. There is a place for rights to be defended and to be
respected.
When we talk about citizenship the debate should shift quite
properly and focus on the responsibilities and obligations of
new citizens in Canada to defend, promote and stand on guard
for Canada. What are the values of Canadianism that we want
our new immigrants to embrace, cherish and respect? While we
value the cultural identity that formulated my father's first 35
years, we are a mature country when we say: ``Mr. Marchi, we
are not asking you to leave your cultural vestiges at the door
because who you were for 30 years no one can remove''. Not
even the former Soviet Union with all its armies and tanks was
able to suppress that. The moment the Soviet Union came apart
we saw a flourishing of culturalism, ethnicity and religion.
Where was that during the time of the Soviet empire? It was still
alive because that is who people are.
(1215)
We are a mature country when we have embodied an official
policy of multiculturalism which was certainly there before it
was crystallized by Mr. Trudeau in 1971.
There is also a complementary feature. When one comes to
Canada one also needs to embrace that which is Canadian and
which has given essence to our life in Canada.
Why is it that in the oath that we ask our citizens to swear that
it speaks to beholding to the duties of citizenship and nowhere in
our Citizenship Act or anywhere else do we define duties,
nowhere do we define obligations, nowhere do we talk about
responsibilities. Some people wonder why certain things are not
done.
I would like to be in a position to move a bill in this Chamber
in the fall, after the committee has had its study and reported, to
talk about those things because those are unifying. It would not
only help the newcomer to understand what Canadian society is
about but it would also be a reassurance to all other Canadians
that people are coming here and becoming Canadians are
prepared as immigrants in the past to build, sacrifice, pay taxes,
bleed when they get hurt and to rejoice in Canadian victories
whatever those victories are.
I would like to be in a position as minister or those who may
follow me to be able not only to give out a citizenship certificate
or congratulations or for members of Parliament to do that when
they go to the citizenship ceremonies, but also to give out a
charter of responsibilities and obligations.
Let us strive to talk about that even though it is difficult. How
long of a charter are we going to have if we start talking about
responsibilities and obligations? We have to obviously capture
the essence. What are the values of Canadian citizenship or
Canadianism? It is pretty difficult and sometimes it can be a
divisive debate. I think on the whole it will be a unifying debate,
particularly at a time when our country in the next number of
months will be seeing and hearing a lot about the negatives of
this country and how federalism does not work and how people
are in a funk.
When we eliminate those day to day problems and talk about
Canadian citizenship as I have on radio shows, TV shows and in
forums with Canadians, it is an absolutely positive and uplifting
force. Nobody, despite the problems that we have in all of our
backyards, is prepared to give up on Canadian citizenship.
Everybody recognizes that it is the best passport in the world.
Everybody recognizes that one of the difficulties in immigration
is the fact that literally millions of people want to come to this
country.
5192
The biggest difficulty I have is dealing with members of
Parliament who come to me and say: ``Why has your department
turned this individual down?'', ``We have a point system'' or
``Why was he refused his visitor visa?'' The demand to come
here is a reflection of how much of a good thing we have got
going in this country and that we need to protect and promote it.
We cannot be home to everyone. That is why we need to be
selective in our immigration program. Being selective is a
natural part of the immigration program. We select to further the
interest of our country. We also need to have a sense of
compassion so that our immigration policy can be a lifeline to
our brothers and sisters who are deserving and in search of
simply a life that you and I have either adopted or that has come
automatically to us. The responsibilities of this new department
include immigration applications, level setting,
federal-provincial relations in terms of immigration programs,
visas, refugees, enforcement, settlement, citizenship
applications and citizenship promotion. We are changing how
we do citizenship in this country.
(1220)
No longer are we going to have citizenship court judges
because the system imposed on them was a financial and time
burden that simply was not worth it anymore. There were 10,000
people in the backlog every month who wanted to become
citizens.
In my area of metropolitan Toronto it took almost two and a
half years in some cases from the time they got an application
until the time they swore an oath. That simply was not good
enough. One court judge had to do a one on one. We were
approving 95 per cent of all applicants. I concluded that for
saying yes to 95 per cent it was simply taking too much time and
costing too much money. Therefore, we have moved to an
administrative process, a classroom style, a written test rather
than a one on one verbal. We are also adding standards and
consistency across the board.
We are not losing sight of the ceremony of citizenship which
all of us as members of Parliament have or hopefully will
participate in because it is such a moving tribute and it helps us
with immigration. Why? Because we are not going to hide
citizenship in a court. We are going to move it to a school
auditorium.
When I was in the riding of the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester, we did it in a school auditorium in front
of the kids, the parents, the rate payer groups, police
representatives and RCMP and the local media. Neighbours of
these citizens came out to see them.
The bogey persons as we now call them because we have to be
politically correct, and bogey persons is a name that people
sometimes attach to those who are the newcomers, who are
they? Are they like us? Who are these people? There they were
on a stage raising their right hand and swearing allegiance to our
country. What a beautiful testimony it was. It is our Prime
Minister and our government that is pushing those out to the
community not as the exception but as the rule.
Citizenship court judges for the most part did a wonderful job.
No one is blaming them personally at all. It was the system that
needed changing. Instead of citizenship court judges we are now
going to ask the Order of Canada recipients on a
non-remunerative basis to officiate. That adds greater elegance
and profile.
For instance on the opening day of Citizenship Week we held
a special court at the University of Toronto. We had three Order
of Canada recipients on stage with us: Knowlton Nash, June
Callwood and Maureen Forrester. Those three were better
known than the minister, never mind the citizenship court
judges. Everybody lived with Knowlton Nash for 30 or 40 years
in this country. For years the last thing people thought about
before they went to sleep was Knowlton Nash. All of a sudden
Knowlton Nash is there on the stage celebrating citizenship.
Does it not add greater testimony to the importance of
citizenship when we include Order of Canada recipients across
the country? I think it does.
On July 1 it will be the first such occasion in Halifax in
ceremonies on pier 21, our answer to Ellis Island, our Statue of
Liberty. Millions of immigrants came through pier 21. Second
and third generation sons and daughters go back when they visit
Nova Scotia. They go to see pier 21 that their dad or mom talked
about. That is our Statue of Liberty. There will be a citizenship
ceremony at pier 21. There will also be one in Toronto. For the
first time Order of Canada recipients will be officiating to let
people know that the changes we made are happening.
Citizenship and immigration go hand in hand. That is why the
new department will take a lead role in strengthening those
values, obligations and responsibilities that I talked about.
This month marks the 125th anniversary of our immigration
programming. Interestingly enough this is not the first time that
Parliament has engaged in a debate on the establishment of the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Almost 45 years
ago today Prime Minister St. Laurent constituted a Department
of Citizenship and Immigration. With today's legislation we are
in fact learning from our history and from our past where we
have to obtain lessons and inspiration from time to time.
(1225)
I would like to quote briefly what M. J. Coldwell said in the
House of Commons 45 years ago. He was not a Liberal, but he
was acknowledged as one of the great parliamentarians of his
day. On November 26, 1949 Mr. Coldwell said, and I quote: ``In
my view the placing of matters related to immigration and
citizenship under one Department of Citizenship and
Immigration is a wise move. It is essential that people who come
here as immigrants should be not only welcome, but also taught
to value
5193
the citizenship of this country and to have an appreciation of
what Canada means to them''.
Like Mr. Coldwell, I am a citizen of Canada and an immigrant
and I am deeply aware of the value and importance of the words
immigrant and citizen.
All members of Parliament recognize the need to overhaul our
immigration policies and to consider the long term role of
immigration in that nation building exercise. All of us recognize
the need to improve the immigration system. No one has the
virtue of a monopoly of concern. There are things that work very
well. There are other things that clearly need modification.
That is one of the reasons we are doing a 10-year policy
framework. I do not believe that immigration is done annually. I
do not believe that immigration is done on a short term basis.
Immigration to our country of Canada is a long term investment.
You do not do settlement in six months. You do not take an
individual and pretend that after six or 12 months that person is
integrated. We know that it is more generational. We know that
at the intake the country to a certain degree pays for the
integration of those individuals. As the individual goes on in
Canada, he repays that loan to the point that he is repaying more
than the initial loan. That is then the net benefit to our country
economically, socially and culturally.
That is why we are also doing a broader consultation. We
cannot do a 10-year policy without inviting Canadians into the
tent. The days when setting levels and not including
municipalities are over. Why should we include municipalities
in the business of immigration? We see mayors and reeves and
councillors complaining that they never knew the levels for the
next five years. They did not know the numbers more or less that
would be coming to their city or town and, therefore, they could
not plan a resource accordingly.
I went last week to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
meeting in Winnipeg. I delivered a strong commitment of this
Prime Minister and government that those days are over. No one
forced us to do this, but what makes sense is what is worth doing.
Why should boards of education be on the outside looking in
when they too complain that they never knew the number of kids
born of immigrants or refugees that came into the school
system. They could not plan. They could not resource. So we
have included boards of education in our consultations.
Unions and labour movements, the same thing, people who
have a concern with our unemployed membership. How many
people are you bringing in? What skills are you bringing in? Are
you looking for scales in construction or high tech or the new
economy? What is the mix?
For the first time in many years we are enlarging the tent and
giving a place for people to stand. We have opened up the
consultations in an unprecedented way since 1976, when
another minister of immigration offered the green paper and
basically built the amendments, very significant amendments,
as a result of consulting Canadians. We hope to do the same.
That process is under way.
We are also including the public. We have five town hall
meetings planned across the country. My first one tonight is in
Montreal. We have eight study circles on specific issues across
the country.
(1230 )
We have 10 working groups working with Canadians on 10
specific issues which 50 Canadians from all walks of life
identified as key issues.
All the members of Parliament in this Chamber were given
from my office a kit that would try to provide information and
direction on how members of Parliament could provide
leadership in their own ridings, touching base with Canadians,
NGO groups, lawyers and advocates. When we opened it up,
sure we took risks. Do you not think it is a risk opening anything
up? Of course it is because when you open yourself up you open
yourself up to a spectrum of issues and this is not a public
relations exercise.
If we are looking just for public relations then I am suicidal
because the consultations that took place in October are the
fullest that can be had, an election.
We have a majority government. We have a red book that we
are following so we could have said that we are on course. We
are not doing this for public relations gimmickry because no one
makes us do this. We want to do this because we believe it is the
right thing. If we allow things to fester on the outside and ignore
them, my attitude is that those festers grow and become bigger
and unmanageable, and we have a problem when things are left
unattended.
The objective of government is to provide good government,
leadership and inspiration and you do that by tackling problems
or concerns or fears that Canadians have and we work them out.
I believe by being open we can work them out. I have people
coming to me saying I should close the doors: ``Why are the
doors being kept open when my Johnny and my Susie cannot
find a job? What gives you the right to keep those doors open?''.
I do not want to ask Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones to get out of my
way-``I have my mind made up. It is a red book. We are a
majority government. Who are you?''. I am not going to be that
kind of a minister because we cannot afford that luxury. Mr.
Smith or Mrs. Smith, talking about Johnny or Susie, love Johnny
or Susie as much as we love our own kids. If we heard one thing
in the campaign it was that parents had it pretty good in Canada
but they were really concerned about their kids, their future,
their education, their career. If I heard one thing in my riding it
was: ``Mr. Marchi, we have had a pretty good shake but I am
5194
worried that my kids get the same kind of good shake I have and
I fear for them now, given the state of the economy''.
Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones has that concern out of love for their
kids. I love my Adrianna as much as they love their Johnny and
Susie and so I will never say to those parents ``get out of my
way''.
I also will not do something that some people are prepared to
do and embrace Mrs. Smith and say ``You are absolutely right. If
your Johnny or Susie does not have a job obviously I have to
close the doors''.
I am not going to be that minister either, as much as I care for
that Canadian. What I prefer to do as a minister, which speaks to
this consultation, is say: ``Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones, it is time that
you and I sit down. It is time that you and I looked at the facts. It
is time that you and I break some bread, look at the facts, ask
ourselves if immigrants will help Johnny and Susie or hurt them,
if economics is the discussion of the day''.
I can ask a Mrs. Smith and a Mr. Jones in Toronto if they think
immigrants cost us jobs or create jobs. Toronto has been in an
economic funk for a few years and I believe a lot of people
would say they would cost us jobs today because of how that
economy has dealt a fatal blow almost to the metropolitan area
and that we are now coming out of it.
I am realistic to note that the feeling would be immigrants can
cost us jobs. If I were to go to Vancouver, the part of the country
the Secretary of State for International Affairs comes from, and
ask a Canadian if they think immigrants create or cost us jobs,
they would say undoubtedly: ``Mr. Marchi, are you kidding me?
Look at Vancouver. Look at British Columbia''.
(1235 )
One of the reasons we do not know the r word, ``recession'' is
because of immigrants, of business investment from the
Asia-Pacific, for instance.
One Canadian in Vancouver, one Canadian in Toronto, they
cannot both be right. There has to be one general answer and I
know it depends on how many in a certain class we have, where
they go and what their skills are. That is why it is not only the
numbers game. Is it the 250,000 or is it the 150,000 the Reform
Party talks about? I would like to see where it is also going to be
prepared to cut. It does not tell me that.
However, let us put that argument to the side because the other
numbers game is within the categories: what is the number of
family versus independent versus refugee versus student visa
versus all the other categories?
Both those Canadians cannot be wrong or right generically. I
hope to sit down and find that common cause and common
ground with Mrs. Smith. I believe that on the whole, immigrants
create economic activity, whether it is because they buy a
product and lead a recovery through consumership which we
have not yet seen in this country-until we do we will not see a
full economic recovery-whether it is because of the dollars
they bring into this country through their savings, whether it is
the entrepreneurs who create a business.
I believe that at the end of the day, and most studies will
confirm this-we need to do more work on it-on the big picture
immigration creates economic activity. If we can break bread on
some common ground, maybe we will put to rest the popular
wisdom that every time one gets into an economic downturn one
needs to close the doors to immigration.
Maybe we can also do with that popular wisdom what they did
with those who suggested that the popular wisdom was that the
world was flat. If one thought it was round, they thought of
taking that person away somewhere. It was clear that it was flat
because one could look way out there and of course earth fell at
the end of the last apartment building at the end of the highway.
One can not even begin to think that the world is round when we
are walking nicely and smoothly on a flat piece of green carpet
in the House of Commons.
Popular wisdom was wrong there. We have a lot of popular
wisdoms that do not build countries. Popular wisdoms do not
build countries. They do not give momentums to countries. They
do not create values. We know that and that is the exercise.
I believe that if you sit down with Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones,
they are fair minded. They are tolerant. This country is not less
tolerant. Look over the course of 25 years where they measure
unemployment and immigration. Sure there are ups and downs.
Take the average. Do not point to me the worst case. Do not be
the media on the negative cases.
I will admit that tolerance is down during an economic
recession but then I will ask members to look where it is when
we are having an economic boom. If members want me to look at
one, they are going to have to look at the other. Then we will
have to take an average and then we will say where the tolerance
level is for Canadians.
I strongly believe that Canadians are fair minded and tolerant.
They want to be presented with the facts. They do not like abuse
nor should they. We should not be tolerant with people who have
no business being here but we should not take that out on the
entire policy. I believe in that tolerance.
I have speaking notes that my officials put together that I will
not read because I tried to cover the essence of this department.
5195
I will end on a very personal note. Maybe I should not do it but
I will do it anyway. I fought a nomination battle in 1984 that was
the toughest battle that some of us go through. We had it Monday
night at seven and we ended up on Tuesday morning at 3.30 a.m.
on the third ballot. We then went to our favourite Italian banquet
hall, Tony's ballroom, to celebrate until six in the morning. I
went home and showered and went looking for a campaign
office because Liberals were still fighting Liberals because their
Liberal candidate had decided three days into the campaign not
to seek office.
We were all in a tiff-the Conservatives that year as we
know-and some of us survived, but it was a tough campaign. I
felt so pumped up as we all do after a nomination that I went into
the toughest part of my riding, the Conservative end of town, in
the south end.
(1240 )
I took my wife and we went door knocking right after we
found a campaign office. I knocked on my very first door and a
60-year old gentleman came out and said: ``Yes, what can I do
for you?''. I said: ``Hi, I am Sergio Marchi and I am your Liberal
candidate. I just wanted to say hello and hopefully capture your
confidence in this election''. He said: ``What is your name?''. I
said: ``Sergio Marchi''. He said: ``What kind of a name is
that?''. I said: ``It is a Canadian name. My parents are Canadian
and I am a Canadian so I guess that makes it a Canadian name''.
He said: ``Don't give me that. What is the background of your
name?''. I said: ``I was born in Argentina. My parents are Italian
born and we came here in 1959''. He said: ``Kid, my parents
have been dead 25 years and if they thought I would vote for an
Italian MP they would turn over in their graves''.
I looked at my wife and my wife thought I was nuts, but we
both thought without saying it, ``this is our first door and this is
the response. We have to go through this for a campaign''.
Being a stubborn Canadian of Italian background, rather than
doing what each of our campaigns tells us to do-when you meet
someone like that keep moving, do not waste time-I stayed
there.
I stood there and said: ``Who are you going to vote for?''. He
said: ``None of your business''. I said: ``You are absolutely
right, but I have lost your vote so what does it matter?''. He said:
``I am going to vote Conservative''. I said: ``Do you know who
your Conservative candidate is?''. He said no. I said: ``Do you
want me to tell you?''. He said sure. I said: ``His name is Frank
DiGiorgio''. He looked at me and said: ``You think you're kind
of a smart ass, don't you?''. I said: ``No, sir, I am telling you the
truth''. He said: ``For the first time in my life I am voting
Socialist''. I said: ``Do you know who your Socialist NDP
candidate is?''. He said no. I said: ``I'll tell you''. He said ``I
don't want to know''. I said: ``I don't care, I am going to tell you
anyway. His name is Bruno Pasquantonio. Sir, you cannot get
any more Italian than that. So unless you want to vote
Communism or unless you don't want to vote give me five
minutes''.
He invited my wife and me in for tea and I made a second
mistake. Any campaign says not to have a tea or coffee or a glass
of wine, keep moving. I went inside and we spent 10 minutes at
our first door.
The beauty of this story was, and it is a true story, when we
moved on to the next door there was a sign on that gentleman's
lawn that said ``Elect Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West''. It
was not that he took a Liberal sign. The essence of that first door
for me is the story of our department today, that once he had seen
that I did not have thorns or horns in my head, that he felt I went
to the local school, that I spoke English, that I was capable of
mixing it with the best and not being any worse or any better,
that the boogie persons came down, he said: ``Put a sign on my
lawn''.
That is the debate and the discussion I want to have with Mrs.
Smith or Mr. Jones because if I would have went to the second
door I would have spoke ill of that first person who came out and
offended me. However, we stayed there and the two of us
chatted. He had up my lawn sign. That is the Canadian way. That
is tolerance. You would not have thought it initially, but it was.
That is the essence of doing the consultations the way we are
going to do them. Citizenship and immigration is a natural and it
has worked for the country. None of us believes that nation
building will stop at the end of this parliamentary day. Nation
building is an ongoing march and an ongoing exercise and
immigration is one of those tools to shape and mould a better
Canada for all of us. That is why it gives me great privilege and
honour this morning to move the acceptance of this bill at
second reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Speaker, I am rising
today to join the debate on Bill C-35, establishing a Department
of Citizenship and Immigration.
(1245)
This bill also amends a number of acts: The Access to
Information Act, the Department of Multiculturalism and
Citizenship Act, the Employment and Immigration Commission
Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Immigration Act, the
Department of National Health and Welfare Act, the Privacy
Act, the Public Service Compensation Act and the Salaries Act.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, it is a fairly complex piece of
administrative legislation. The minister has just told us that it
was his decision to transfer immigration from the former
Department of Public Security to the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration. The original switch was made arbitrarily by
the Conservative Party in June 1993. We in the Bloc attacked
that original Conservative decision, because it associated
immigration and immigrants with criminal acts probably
constitut-
5196
ing attacks on the security of the state. We strongly opposed the
decision by former Prime Minister Kim Campbell.
In light of the far-reaching re-organization by the new
Liberal government, and of the bill's complexity, we would have
preferred the government, and in particular the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, to provide us with a detailed
document explaining the Bill.
We will vote against the bill at second reading, because it
contains certain clauses that we cannot accept. For example,
clause 4 provides that ``the powers, duties and functions of the
Minister extend to and include all matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction relating''-and I want to stress that
word ``relating''-``to citizenship and immigration''.
This strikes us as too broad and too vague a provision. We
would like the Minister's area of jurisdiction to be defined
clearly and precisely. In any event, we want to avoid abuse of
these powers by the Minister, and duplication of work done by
other departments and government agencies.
Above all we want the minister to respect scrupulously the
scope of the provinces' jurisdiction over immigration. We have
already criticized the minister's intrusion into an area of Quebec
jurisdiction, the orientation and training centres for immigrants.
We will never permit the minister to interfere in education,
which is exclusively a provincial responsibility.
Another major objection to this bill is found in clause 5,
which specifies as follows: ``The Minister, with the approval of
the Governor in Council, may enter into agreements with any
province, group of provinces or any agency thereof''-and I
stress the word agency-`` or with any foreign government or
international organization, for the purpose of facilitating the
formulation, coordination and implementation of policies and
programs for which the Minister is responsible''.
We do not agree that the word ``agency'' should be included in
the Act. It is dangerous. The federal government must negotiate
and sign agreements with the provincial governments
responsible for these agencies. Using a word like that, the
federal government could short-circuit the authority of the
provinces, something we find unacceptable.
(1250)
Another clause we cannot accept in its present form is clause
10, amending section 4 of the Multiculturalism and Citizenship
Act; this clause reads as follows:
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to multiculturalism and
Canadian identity.
As well, clause 11 adds the function of promoting the
understanding of Canadian identity. This provision does not
exist in the legislation now in force. Why does the government
want to add it now, if not to block the rise of the sovereignist
movement in Quebec? Furthermore, the respective
responsibilities that the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration and the Department of Canadian Heritage will have
are not clearly delineated.
Madam Speaker, you are not unaware that Canadian unity is a
subject that profoundly divides Quebec and English Canada, the
government and the opposition. Why does the government want
to include this controversial provision in a bill whose sole
objective should be to provide a legal structure for the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
We shall vote against this bill on second reading, and we want
it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration for consideration.
I take this opportunity to criticize the minister, once again, for
launching his show on Canadian identity at a time when the Bloc
Quebecois has elected two-thirds of MPs from Quebec, on the
eve of a provincial election that the Parti québécois will win, and
on the eve of a referendum to be held in 1995.
It is clear that the government organized these hasty and
premature consultations on citizenship with the sole objective
of blocking the battle by the people of Quebec. The review of the
Citizenship Act was not in any sense a priority, either of the
government party or of the opposition parties. A resolution to
that effect and discussion at a recent convention of the Liberal
Party of Canada held in Ottawa in May 1994 raised no interest
among the delegates.
The minister should on the other hand concern himself with
the solution to concrete, more immediate and pressing problems
such as the backlog of more than 220,000 requests made by
permanent residents who often have to wait several years before
getting their citizenship and Canadian passport.
We also denounce the minister's intention to close the
Citizenship Office on Saint-Denis Street, at the corner of
Beaubien Street, in Montréal, and his decision to transfer and
centralize visa functions in Ontario and Alberta.
In addition to citizenship, the new department is also
responsible for immigration, a matter of shared jurisdiction
between the federal government and the provinces ever since
Confederation, in 1867, pursuant to section 95 of the British
North America Act.
(1255)
Canada, then a country of 3 million inhabitants, adopted its
first immigration act in 1869. On June 25, we will be
commemorating, as the minister said earlier, the 125th
anniversary of this first act and of the first Canadian programs in
this area.
I would like to pay tribute, here, to the 12 million newcomers
who have since arrived in Canada. Together with the First
Nations and the two founding nations, they have build this
country. They continue to arrive from all parts of the world to
5197
participate and contribute to Canada's and Québec's economic,
political, cultural and social development.
As an immigrant myself for the last 20 years and as critic for
the Bloc Quebecois in matters of citizenship and immigration, I
want them to know that my party and myself greatly value their
precious contribution to the building of this country.
We believe jurisdiction in immigration matters should belong
exclusively to Québec. Québec must be able to exercize all
powers in this area in order to maintain its demographic weight
and its survival as a distinct society and as the only
French-speaking state in North America. Québec has always
claimed this jurisdiction and you know, Madam Speaker, that
today it has its own department, the ministère des Relations
internationales, des Communautés culturelles et de
l'Immigration.
Québec has made progress, but insufficient progress
compared to what is at stake. Since 1971, Canada and Québec
have signed several agreements on immigration. In 1971, the
Cloutier-Lang agreements were signed; in 1975, the
Bienvenue-Andras agreements.
The third and most important is the Couture-Cullen
agreement which was signed in 1978 under the Parti québécois
government. The agreement signed in February 1991 by
ministers McDougall and Gagnon-Tremblay increases and
clarifies Québec's powers in the field of immigration.
According to that agreement, Québec has the right to select the
independent immigrants who wish to settle in the province.
Apart from selecting immigrants, Québec looks after their
integration and determines the immigration levels for the
province. The francization of immigrants is the responsibility of
the COFIs.
According to this agreement, Canada remains responsible for
national standards and objectives concerning immigration, the
admission of immigrants and the control of visitors related to
criminality, health and security as well as the administrative
handling of requests and the physical admission at the various
entry points.
Québec is therefore exclusively responsible for the selection,
reception and integration of immigrants destined for the
province. As for the immigration levels, the federal government
must, before April 30 of each year, inform Québec of the options
under study concerning future levels of immigration by category
of immigrants.
For its part, Québec must, before June 30 of each year, that is
in a couple of weeks, inform Canada of the number of
immigrants, also by category, which it expects to admit in the
year or years to come.
I might add that the Immigration Act requires the minister to
consult the provinces on demographic needs, labour-market
issues and regional distribution.
(1300)
One very important aspect of this agreement is the formal
commitment on the part of the federal government to withdraw
from reception services, linguistic and cultural integration,
counselling and placement programs for immigrants.
The Government of Canada provides fair compensation to
Quebec in respect of such services. The province was awarded
financial compensation as follows: $75 million for 1991-92;
$82 million for 1992-93; $85 million for 1993-94 and $90
million for 1994-95. Any subsequent compensation levels will
correspond to the basic amount of $90 million and will increase
to keep pace with overall federal expenditures.
Getting back to my historical narrative, with an eye to
industrializing the country and opening up the West, Canada
recruited a vast pool of foreign labourers, primarily Chinese
peasants. The Rockies were breached and East and West were
united by the railway. This migration movement which lasted
until World War II involved solely the Northern Hemisphere.
Immigrants were British, Americans, Finns, Italians, Russians,
Germans, Ukrainians, Jews, French and Polish.
However, following World War II, decolonization and
communication advances gave rise to new migratory flows, and
these are likely to increase in the coming years.
In 1990, the United Nations Population Fund warned that the
global population would increase by one billion during the
decade of the nineties.
Most of this increase would occur in developing countries
where the birth rates were highest. Many of those seeking to
immigrate favour the more prosperous, less populated
countries. Canada and Quebec rank high on their list because of
their resources and wide open spaces.
Canada and especially Quebec are interested in taking in a
considerable number of immigrants because of their low birth
rates. Moreover, we also lose a part of our population to
emigration. It is estimated that emigration levels represent one
quarter of immigration levels. For example, during the 1980s,
more people emigrated to Italy from Canada than vice versa.
Under the McDougall and Gagnon-Tremblay agreement,
Quebec can receive a number of immigrant proportional to its
demographic load, plus 5 per cent. This means that in theory,
Quebec could receive 30 per cent of all immigrants admitted to
Canada.
In fact, Quebec received 47,532 of the foreign nationals
admitted to Canada in 1992, that is to say approximately 19.2
per cent, which is roughly equivalent to the average observed
over the past five years, which was 19.1 per cent.
5198
This debate on Bill C-35 leads us to take a brief look at this
government service, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, which is seeking to legalize its organization but
has in fact already moved beyond the preliminary stage. And
what we have before us is not very encouraging.
(1305)
Because of timid, ambiguous and inconsistent policies, we
cannot find out where the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration is going. He favours never-ending consultations
and takes forever to make decisions. He enjoyed a period of
grace, but it is over. He had raised some hope after the
questionable, inefficient and at times inhuman management of
the Conservatives. Today, his inconsistent policies are widely
criticized, in particular by immigration lawyers, refugee
advocacy groups, ethnic groups, government officials, and so
on. You will probably find that out this evening in Montreal.
He has made public two reports he had commissioned
himself, namely the Hathaway report and the Davis-Waldman
report. Clear and specific recommendations were made, but the
minister does not know what to do with them. He suspends
deportations, but does not say what will happen to the 10,000
refugee status claimants whose applications were turned down
by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
My office has received numerous inquiries on this subject and
officials know as little as we do. Meanwhile, asylum seekers are
left in limbo. Which files will re reviewed? By whom? When?
Under what circumstances? No one knows.
Another example of inconsistency is this announcement made
by the minister to the effect that potential refugees may be
submitted to a lie detector test to prevent fraud, which is illegal
as far as we are concerned. What a ridiculous idea!
The minister and immigration authorities sometimes show
deep ignorance of the extremely dangerous political situation in
some countries that refugee claimants come from and
occasionally they show a lack of compassion as well. For
example, take this case of a pregnant young woman who was
deported on February 23, given sedatives without her consent
and returned to her country of origin, Zaire, which is devastated
by an insidious civil war. I said to the minister and I repeat:
``Such a serious case deserves an independent inquiry because
such behaviour is unworthy of a civilized society''. Why does
the minister refuse to order such an inquiry?
There is another area where mistrust is systematic. More and
more people who do not have passports are required to go to the
consulate or embassy of their country to get one, even though
they are already recognized as refugees. You know, if a refugee
has to go to the consulate or embassy of his home country, his
life could be in danger, and especially the lives and safety of his
family still in the home country.
Furthermore, I ask the minister to refer any new appointment
of IRB commissioners to the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration. So far, this committee has
reviewed no appointment, despite allegations of patronage in
some cases.
Finally, I wish to denounce the minister's decision to hold
consultations outside Parliament on immigration levels and
policies for the next five years, at a cost of over $1 million.
(1310)
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
should be responsible for these consultations, which are a
priority for the Official Opposition and for public opinion in
Canada and Quebec. All parties are represented on the
committee-the government party, the Official Opposition and
the Reform Party. This is not the case on the various working
groups set up by the minister, from which the Bloc Quebecois is
totally absent. It is not democratic to hold these consultations
without the opposition being present.
For all these reasons, we will vote against Bill C-35.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, let
me preface my remarks by saying I support the consolidation of
the functions of immigration and citizenship within the new
ministry of citizenship and immigration. It is a logical
combination and needed to be done. I am glad it has been done
with such expediency providing the hon. member from the Bloc
here a follow through, at least not with objections but rather
support.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my hon.
colleague, the soon-to-be official Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, the very best. This portfolio needs a lot of support
and I realize it is a difficult position. It requires extreme
wisdom, caution and concern. The department deals with more
than just dollars and cents. It deals with people's lives. At the
same time we must also realize that this department, along with
all other departments in the government, must examine their
financial commitment and the way money is spent.
As opposition members we must bring to the attention of the
department of immigration the requirement to examine all its
expenditures and do its share in reducing the massive debt and
deficit that the country faces. The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration is also required to balance the needs of Canada
with our international commitments, that portion of the
hundreds of millions or so of migrants in the world that are
seeking a place in Canada.
Canada has a long tradition of humanitarianism when it comes
to immigration. We have a legacy that is unique to just a few
nations on earth of being built almost entirely by succeeding
waves of immigrants. That legacy has become etched into
Canada's collective conscience. It has become part of our
self-image as Canadians.
5199
However, the present day manifestation of a legacy of
immigration in Canada is now in a precarious position. The
majority of Canadians, while being thankful for our immigrant
past and while still treasuring Canada's tolerance toward
newcomers, are mystified at the direction the immigration
policy has gone in the last 10 years or so.
They see present day immigration patterns no longer as a boon
but are concerned about what is happening. That is a problem to
which our new immigration and citizenship minister must pay
very careful attention. Any government that ignores the wishes
of the majority of the population for significant policy change is
staring grave political danger in the face.
While I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration on his post and on behalf of Canadians wish him
the best of luck I am saddened to report that some of the policies
of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have gone
awry. Canada had grave problems with immigration policy six
months ago and those problems are even greater today.
Six months ago concern was expressed that Canada was
accepting too many immigrants. That is a frank statement I
know. It is a statement that will send many stakeholders, as they
are called in modern bureaucratic parlance, into a tizzy. It is a
fact. Today there are but three major immigrant-accepting
countries in the world: Canada, Australia, and the United States.
(1315 )
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is fond of
talking about immigration targets in percentages, so let us do
that. The United States and Australia both take in yearly about .4
per cent of their population as immigrants. This year, as this
government frequently points out, Canada will accept 1 per cent
of its population as immigrants. That is .25 times the number of
immigrants per capita as the next closest immigrant accepting
nation on earth, 2.5 times as many immigrants yearly.
The Reform Party on the other hand thinks that Canada should
accept about 150,000 immigrants yearly. For this modest
proposal my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, accuses us of being inflammatory and
anti-immigrant. Getting back to percentages, 150,000
immigrants per year represents about .55 per cent of the
population.
Therefore, if the policies of the Reform Party were enacted
Canada would still be accepting by a wide margin more
immigrants than any other nation on earth, even with that
adjustment. For that we have sometimes been accused of being
anti-immigrant and inflammatory. Who is being inflammatory:
the Reform Party for suggesting that Canada continue to be the
leading immigrant-accepting nation on earth, or the minister for
suggesting that we are anti-immigrant or that we have an
anti-immigrant bias? The answer is more than clear.
The Canadian people have been told that immigration targets
were based on facts, that there was data which suggested the
necessity of accepting one-quarter of a million immigrants per
year. Well, we are still waiting. Where are those facts? They
have not been presented in this House and they have not been
presented to the Canadian people.
The closest the minister has come to presenting a factual basis
for his government's claim that Canada needs to accept the
equivalent of the population of Calgary in the next three years
has been to dredge up a 1991 report by the Economic Council of
Canada, despite the fact that on page 32 of the report in its
conclusion it calls this year for a target of about 175,000
immigrants. It also says that 250,000 immigrants per year or
more would not be advisable because Canada would have
difficulty integrating that level. Some facts, and that is all this
minister has been able to produce.
I am happy to say there are facts out there. If this minister is
short on empirical data, I would be more than happy to help him
with some of the numbers. Here are some facts: Since 1979 the
performance of immigrants in the economy has dropped
dramatically. It used to be that immigrants had a higher level of
education and higher levels of income than Canadians. Well, no
more. The sheer number of immigrants means that immigrants
are having more and more difficulty adapting socially and
economically than they ever did before.
The minister talks about the need to replenish an aging
population. The facts are these: Canada's population is not in
decline. In fact it is growing and will continue to grow even
without immigration until the year 2026, when our population
will top 30 million. That is without immigration. From then it
would go into a slow decline before levelling off some 100 years
from now at between 18 to 20 million. The fact is that even the
demographic review says if Canada really wants to increase its
population, the way to go about doing that is to create incentives
to fertility, in other words within and not through immigration.
The minister has spoken about an aging population and about
a demographic shift that can only be cured through immigration.
Again the facts are quite different. All the demographic research
to date makes it very clear that immigration will never solve the
aging of the population. Why? Because immigrants are getting
older too. Research has already clearly proven that the average
age of immigrants coming into our country is about four years
younger than the average age of the Canadian born or the
Canadian population.
5200
(1320)
Research indicates that trying to make the population younger
with immigrants will not solve the impending social security
crunch. The only way to do that is to raise the productivity of all
Canadians, to raise everyone's standard of living in order to
replenish and enrich the tax base. Right now, countries like the
United Kingdom and Sweden are where Canada will be in the
future in terms of an aging population. They have solved the
social security crunch not with immigrants but through sensible
economic measures.
Those are just some of the facts. Unfortunately, I do not
believe this minister has the facts to support the government's
contention that 250,000 immigrants are vital to Canada. Why
250,000? Why are these incredibly high immigration numbers
maintained? I do not know and I do not believe the Canadian
people know. Does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
have the answer? If he does, where is the data to support it?
When this year's immigration targets were released in
February the question remained about selection and the
selection process. The government said that of the 250,000
immigrants to Canada this year 44 per cent would be immigrants
from the independent class. Those are immigrants who have
been selected according to their skills, their education and their
ability to quickly adjust to Canada and to make a positive
contribution.
The government's own numbers reveal that there is not 44 per
cent from the independent class, not 40 per cent, not 30 per cent.
In fact only 15 per cent of a quarter of a million immigrants this
year will be from the independent class. The minister arrived at
this questionable 40 per cent figure by adding to the number of
independent immigrants their spouses, their children and their
parents, all brought in under the family reunification program.
That is not what we should expect from this department which
indicates the minister and the department wants to make the
immigration program more transparent for Canadians. Let us
lay it all out on the table the way it really should be.
The Reform Party wants to bring some sense back into the
refugee system. Canada should be proud of its record of
accepting immigrants. Over the past few years no other nation
on earth has accepted as many refugees as Canada on a
percentage basis of our population. However, our refugee
determination system is out of control. We are now accepting as
refugees about 70 per cent of all claimants who make it to our
shores. The world-wide average for refugee acceptance is 14 per
cent. We will accept about 30,000 refugees this year.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has
estimated that there are about 60,000 people in the world who
meet the description of a true or genuine refugee. That same
agency estimates that last year of those 60,000 refugees fully
35,000 did not find a safe refuge. In other words they had no
country that would accept them. How is it possible then that
Canada could accept 30,000 refugees while the UN estimates
that world-wide between all of the refugee receiving nations on
earth less than 30,000 refugees were accepted?
(1325 )
The truth is that only a small percentage of the people Canada
accepts as real refugees are real refugees. The hard truth is that
the majority of people who are granted refugee status in Canada
are not refugees at all but economic migrants. These are people
who see how attractive Canada is and want to start a new life
here. We certainly cannot fault them for that, but they are not
real refugees. They are not genuine refugees.
If they desire to start a new life in Canada then they should
have the opportunity to apply through regular channels like all
other immigrants. Let us leave the quota spots open for real
refugees, people who are languishing in camps and are displaced
overseas, people who the United Nations tell us are in the most
desperate of straits. Those are the truly needy. Those are the
most deserving: Rwandans, Bosnians.
The inland refugee determination process is an unbelievably
expensive mire. When the minister says that Canada is living up
to its humanitarian commitments, that just will not wash. We are
not. We could be doing far more with far less.
On page 337 of this year's estimates under the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration we read that the inland refugee
claims cost Canadian taxpayers anywhere from $30,000 to
$50,000 just to process their claims. Those are direct costs.
Multiply that out and the bill to Canadian taxpayers is
somewhere around $750 million to $1.25 billion, just to settle
16,000 people whose refugee claims are accepted inland. It is
easy to misunderstand big numbers like these until they are put
into the correct perspective. Allow me to put that billion dollar
number into perspective.
The entire budget last year for the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees was just over $1 billion. With that
amount of money the UN resettled or repatriated five million
refugees. With that amount of money Canada resettled 16,000.
There is something wrong.
The refugee determination system is an injustice of mammoth
proportions. Not only is it an injustice to Canadian taxpayers
who have to foot the bill, but also to those tens of thousands of
desperate genuine refugees overseas who are literally bumped
5201
off the list to make way for economic migrants who arrive,
along with some refugees, and claim refugee status in Canada.
The minister is aware of these facts. The minister is more than
aware of the outcry which has been issuing forth from Canadians
over some of the people the Immigration and Refugee Board is
either allowing into the country or allowing to stay when their
deportations are appealed.
Several weeks ago in this House the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration promised to get tough with the system. Those
are fine words but they do not correlate with his actions. This get
tough minister has to answer for the following record which he
has created in just six months on the job.
The number of refugees accepted through the inland
determination system has skyrocketed even from the
non-refugee producing nations.
This minister has appointed several dozen of the most
unrepresentative appointees to the IRB that have ever graced the
board. The vast majority of them have been immigration
lawyers or advocates. It is little wonder that the acceptance rate
has gone through the roof.
He has supervised the expanding of the definition of refugee
well beyond what it used to mean in Canada. It is well beyond
anything the UN which wrote the definition ever intended. He
intends to create a whole new layer for refugee determination,
making it easier for failed refugee claimants to stay in Canada
under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. All this is to
happen in six months.
(1330)
The minister says he wants to do what all Canadians want for
the refugee system. They want a fair, sensible system that is
humanitarian, which takes care of those who are genuine
refugees. We want to do our international share but we are not
doing that.
The minister says he wants to get tough. That is what we need
to do. We need to get tough with the inland refugee
determination system so that we can channel more of our
resources into helping people who we know need the most help.
That is not happening. Instead, the system is being fed this
massive immigration and refugee bureaucracy. It feeds this
massive industry of advocates and lawyers who are earning
more than a decent living at the expense of the taxpayer and real
refugees.
Some years ago Canada began the process of drafting a treaty
agreement with the United States relating to asylum. This treaty
would mutually recognize Canada and the U.S. as safe third
countries for the purpose of asylum. The effect of such a treaty
would be to stop people from asylum shopping between Canada
and the United States. It would prevent those with the economic
wherewithal to travel from passing through the United States
before entering Canada and declaring themselves to be refugees.
This is not a hard measure. This is not an inhumane measure.
It is common sense. This process should stop. Over 7,000 people
last year travelled through the United States before registering a
refugee claim in Canada. That caused an enormous drain on our
refugee determination system and has the effect, once again, of
limiting our ability to divert our resources to those refugees who
need our help the most.
There have been calls for the minister to sign the agreement
which has been in the drafting stage for some time now but he
refuses. The minister says that until the United States adopts a
refugee determination system similar to Canada's, he will not
enter into the treaty. I can assure the minister that will not
happen. The Americans will never adopt our system.
Canada has an international reputation for accepting almost
anyone as a refugee who manages to make it here. This year,
almost 70 per cent of all claimants have been accepted as
refugees. The U.S. would never agree to adopt our system. In
fact it is talking otherwise. Neither will Australia and neither
will Europe.
I believe the minister, before he left for the western European
nations really could not teach those European nations much
about immigration that would be acceptable to them. It is time
for Canada to sign the treaty with the United States. It should
have been signed a long time ago. It is not enough just to talk
tough. There has to be some action.
Since this department began its operation, the minister
promised he would consult Canadians to determine what the
future would hold in terms of immigration policy. The minister
is spending $1 million to set up town halls, to distribute
questionnaires around the country in order to determine what
Canadians think about immigration. At least that is what he
says.
In fact the concluding document of the Montebello meeting
where this consultation process was devised makes the
minister's real intention more than clear. In the document, we
read of the need to convince the majority of Canadians who
oppose current immigration levels that they are wrong and that
the government is right. We read of the need for public
education. We read of constructively engaging the press and
putting a positive spin on ultra high immigration levels. That is
called consulting when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
(1335)
The Reform Party stands for including the public in national
debates on vital issues. It is necessary. The minister knows that
Canadians want to be included, so this process was set up. Is it to
pacify Canadians? Is it to make them feel included when the real
goal is to shut them out by controlling the dialogue? It is a good
question to ask.
5202
Needless to say the Reform Party wants all Canadians to have
their voices heard in the immigration debate. In fact we want to
let Canadians decide the major immigration issues by way of
national referenda. Why could there not be a referendum on the
levels, the numbers and why should there not be one on the
selection process? It is quite easily arranged. However there will
be no immigration debate under this government. There will be
an immigration mandate. If Canadians do not like it, then they
can attend one of the education classes to learn how to properly
think about immigration.
The minister said that he wanted an expanded role for the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. What has
been done? The committee has derailed the important work and
a strawman issue has been developed instead. The minister has
decided that the Citizenship Act needs to be rewritten. He has
decided that the committee needs to spend its valuable time
looking at issues that no one thought needed review at this point
in time, certainly not a review that would cost the taxpayers tens
of thousands of dollars, a review that would take up weeks of the
committee's time, a review that will call on Pierre Trudeau and
Mr. Dressup to tell us what it means to be a Canadian.
What a waste of time. The committee ought to be spending its
time reviewing the very questionable appointments to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. It ought to be examining the
effect that the highest rate of immigration in the world is having
on Canada. It ought to be looking at ways to make the refugee
determination system more effective, more humanitarian.
Instead the minister insists that we redefine Canadian
citizenship. Is that reasonable?
It was revealed to the House that immigrants are not tested for
HIV before entering Canada. They are tested for TB. They are
screened for cancer or kidney disease. They are tested for
syphilis. But there is no testing for AIDS.
After this revelation the minister promised to look into the
issue and take the necessary steps to bring Canada's medical
testing requirement into the 20th century. That was a month ago.
What action has been taken? Nothing.
An hon. member: No committee?
Mr. Hanger: No improvement. At one time immigration was
a boon for Canada. It could be again. But in order for
immigration to play a positive role, in order to truly balance the
needs of Canada against our humanitarian role in the world, we
need to bring a little common sense into the debate. We need to
make tough decisions. Talking tough is not enough. Talking
about lie detector tests and opening the doors even wider to
inland refugee claimants and appointing people with vested
interests to the Immigration and Refugee Board is the height of
hypocrisy. It is pandering to the old style. Talk tough and then
take the opposite direction.
Canadians expected more from this government, much more,
but they have gotten the same old gang. Nothing has changed. It
is just getting worse. With the consolidation of the functions of
immigration and citizenship in one department came a mandate
to really do some good: to respond to Canadians, to make some
changes that would benefit newcomers to Canada and Canadians
born here. But we have nothing of the sort. Canadians are
demanding change. They want immigration levels to be tied to
economic cycles. They want immigration to have a positive net
effect on the economy. That is not too much to ask. The world's
other immigrant receiving nations tie immigration levels to the
state of the economy. Why do we not?
(1340)
In fact one of the provinces sets immigration levels to the
economic priorities of the province, the province of Quebec. I
believe that the government has something to learn from what
the province of Quebec is doing on immigration levels.
Canadians are telling me that the bulk of immigrants, not just
a tiny percentage, should be chosen by Canada as independent
immigrants. We need immigrants. We need immigrants with
education, high tech skills, an ability to quickly adapt and
contribute. Instead 85 per cent of immigrants are not chosen by
Canada. They chose us.
It is neither unreasonable nor uncompassionate for Canadians
to demand that those immigrants who come to Canada be chosen
by Canada. The minister knows that. He has had the time to react
or enact reform that would ensure that a higher percentage of
immigrants are hand picked but that has not been done. If
anything, the number of independent immigrants could actually
be falling.
We need this new ministry to fundamentally re-examine the
refugee determination system, a review that is more than just
window dressing and more than just adding new layers of
bureaucracy in an attempt to streamline. It is time to make the
refugee system answer to taxpayers and to answer to a
world-wide need for Canada to accept a higher percentage of
UN recognized overseas refugees.
Canadians want the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration to have the sort of review and reporting power the
government has promised. The committee should be choosing
its agenda rather than having an agenda handed down to them
from the minister in order that it be distracted from the real job
at hand. Immigration is in trouble in Canada. Never has a higher
percentage of Canadians expressed such opposition to the
current immigration policy.
The Financial Post over the weekend reported that even the
government's backbenchers are expressing outrage and
frustration in their communities over an immigration policy
which has gone wrong.
5203
Canadians recognize, rightly, that immigration is no longer
working for anyone. It is not working for Canada. It is not
working for immigrants. Most disappointing of all, the minister
in the past six months has not taken any substantial action to
solve the immigration problems. In fact he has exacerbated them
by increasing the levels, loosening the refugee system,
appointing the wrong people to the IRB, and trying to
manipulate the opinions of Canadians.
I would caution the minister. The Canadian people are not
easily manipulated. It is time to start listening. It is time to take
real action, action that is in line with the get tough promises that
the minister made in the past.
I wish the minister success for the sake of Canada and for the
future of immigration to Canada. I hope he does well but if the
past several months of the workings of the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration are any indication I am not
optimistic.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would advise the
House that we are now on 20 minutes for debate and 10 minutes
for questions and comments.
(1345)
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to rise and take part in this debate today. Although this
effectively is basically a piece of housekeeping legislation, it
nonetheless has quite significant meaning.
The previous government had moved the Department of
Immigration into the realm of public security as if perhaps there
was some danger to the security of Canada to be feared from
those who choose to come here or who come here to find refuge
from countries where law and order and justice and those values
that we treasure so dearly in Canada are not treasured quite as
dearly.
We on this side of the House do not feel we have anything to
fear from people who seek to come to this country for a variety
of reasons. We on this side of the House are proud that Canada is
one of only four countries in the world which receives people.
There is a certain amount of babbling going on across the way,
but I shall endeavour to rise above it. The hon. member from
Calgary tells me he is returning the favour. He should return it
slightly more sharply. I might appreciate it more.
In any case, there are a number of points that were raised by
the other hon. member from Calgary who is the third party critic
for immigration and citizenship. A couple of those I would like
to address because I was offended. I want to say that I was
offended.
I am offended that the hon. member does not think that
citizenship is important in this country. I am offended that here
in this wonderful and historic Chamber, the Chamber of Laurier
and Macdonald and Trudeau, that someone who represents the
people of Canada could think that citizenship is not important,
that someone could suggest that the people who have been
requested to give their opinions on the review of the Citizenship
Act are somehow not of importance.
I am surprised this would be the response. I am surprised
given the very hard work that has been put in over the last
number of weeks and the hard work that will be continued into
this review on citizenship. I am surprised and a little bit
disappointed. To be quite frank, I am a lot disappointed.
However, in the words of a former great cabinet minister in this
House, the late Angus L. Macdonald, when he was premier of
Nova Scotia, perhaps one should just consider the source.
I have a few other things that I would like to say. First of all, I
am absolutely astounded at the numbers that the hon. member
suggests are legitimate refugees. We know that the
displacements in the world, the horrors in the former
Yugoslavia, the problems in numerous African countries, and
the problems with totalitarian governments in other areas of this
world have created an unprecedented number of refugees.
To hear the hon. member speak, you would think this was not
even a ripple on the horizon. That is just not so. There are more
refugees than that in one refugee camp. The hon. member should
retract that statement. However, I leave that to his notable good
judgement.
I am also absolutely astounded at his percentages. There are
words that can be quoted, for example his very famous quotation
that even the devil can quote Scripture. With regard to his
statement that the percentages that we are allowing in are
somehow at an unprecedented high, if the hon. member would
like to look back just to two or three years ago, he would see that
the number of refugees accepted in this country was higher by, I
believe, 12 per cent than it is today. Where we are is definitely
within the normal realm of acceptance of refugees.
He talked about the 14 per cent that is the world average. Of
course that would be the world average if we add in all those
myriad countries that do not accept any at all. Either the hon.
member's logic or his mathematics tends to suffer. Of course it
would be unkind of me to say that, so I will not.
(1350 )
I also want to talk about something the hon. member raised
with regard to the fact that people coming into Canada are not
tested for HIV and that the minister promised to do something
about it four weeks ago. The hon. member should know-I
thought he knew; maybe he does not know-that the enabling
legislation and regulation on medical matters under this
department's aegis has remained unchanged for 40 years.
Perhaps the hon. member advocates a screaming leap into the
void by the government without a proper review before bringing
in legislation and amendments, but I want to make perfectly
clear that neither this minister nor the department has any
intention of bringing legislation before this House until it is
adequately prepared and until the situation is adequately
covered. That is the way good government works, to make sure
that when we bring in legislation to change things that definitely
need to be changed in this country, that we have covered all the
bases. In other words, going from A to B to C to D will probably
5204
prevent grief as opposed to jumping from A to D and probably
falling in a ditch, if I may mix my metaphors, on the way there.
Mr. McClelland: Careful the wheels don't fall off.
Ms. Clancy: Oh no, they will not fall off. The hon. member
for Edmonton knows very well that will not happen.
The figures and statistics quoted by the hon. member for
Calgary were most puzzling, given in particular that I know he
has received many of the briefings from the department. For
example, the $30,000 to $50,000 for the processing of a refugee
in Canada is far out of line. That is so incorrect as to almost be
ludicrous except for the fact that when the hon. member stands
in this House and makes this statement with his authority as a
member of Parliament, people out there might believe that he
was accurate if it was not corrected, if the facts were not brought
forward.
It reminds me of the old joke I know what I believe in, don't
confuse me with facts. The facts are that when a processing costs
that much-oh, they are getting upset, calm down, take a
Prozac-it occurs when all avenues of the system are being
exhausted. In other words, that includes an appeal to the Federal
Court of Canada. It includes all of the side venues that may be
taken by a refugee in dealing with the Immigration and Refugee
Board. It is not the average. It is not even close to the average.
What is particularly offensive is that the hon. member knows
that. If he does not know it, he should try and find out.
What we are talking about ostensibly today is the setting up of
the immigration and citizenship department. This is long
overdue. It is very important. What it does is streamline and
modernize government to give government the tools needed to
deal effectively with all of the complex citizenship and
immigration issues.
On that note, it is necessary to remind hon. members opposite
who sometimes look at the area of immigration with perhaps,
forgive me, a less than generous attitude of mind that these are
very complicated issues. We live in very complicated times.
In my travels around the country since I was honoured to be
appointed the parliamentary secretary to the minister, I have
talked to many, many people about the subject of immigration. I
am absolutely edified every time I come away from town hall
meetings, meetings with NGOs, meetings with people who live
and work on the front lines of day to day Canadian society
dealing with the settlement of new Canadians. I am edified at the
generosity, at the open hearts of communities across the
country, at the belief in the hearts of average Canadians that
immigration is something that built this country, that
immigration is good for this country and that continued and
expanding immigration can only improve this country. Every
one of us here is an immigrant. Whether we came here 50 years
ago, 200 years ago or whether, like my hon. colleague the
member for the Eastern Arctic, we came across the land bridge
from Asia 5,000 years ago, we are all immigrants.
(1355)
I look around on this side of the House right now. Just in front
of me I can see four different ethnocultural backgrounds. Over
here in this corner we have too many Irish people. However, that
is the glory and the wonder of this country, that we come here
together, that we represent all the aspects of Canada at its most
diverse and that we continue to do so. Immigration is what made
this country strong. Immigration is what made it diverse and
immigration is what will keep it strong, diverse and unified.
I think it is a little sad that some of our colleagues are not
prepared to understand just how important not just for Canada to
thrive but the survival of Canada the continued inter-weaving of
this mosaic is. We are not a white-red country. We are not a
country that is homogenized and ever so slightly dull.
Sometimes it can be a little too exciting living in this country,
fortunately not dangerously so but sometimes stressfully so.
I do not think that any one of us, certainly on this side of the
House, would change where we live. I do not think we really
want to change the conditions under which we live our day to
day lives in spite of some of the things we hear from day to day.
In spite of some of the things that are said I think we as
Canadians understand just how desperately important the peace
and security of this country is to our continued success.
Part and parcel of that is the way the government deals with
immigration. The government feels so strongly that on the day
the government was sworn in the Prime Minister stated that the
creation of a separate Department of Citizenship and
Immigration under its own minister which would bring together
all immigration policy and program activities currently in the
Public Security and Human Resources portfolios plus the
citizenship registration and promotion programs of the
Canadian heritage department would be established. This is
what this legislation is doing.
I might make a comment also on some remarks made by the
critic from the Official Opposition when he talked about the fact
that there was confusion because of overlap between
immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism. With the
greatest of respect to the hon. member, I beg to differ. I beg to
differ with the hon. member on a number of things but I beg to
differ, there is no confusion. Yes, there are overlapping areas.
This is only sensible and only to be expected because clearly
there are areas in all three that tend to come together.
I want to assure the hon. member that the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration along with the Department of
Multiculturalism are very clear where the complementary and
where the overlapping policies lie. This government has a very
strong commitment in each of the areas to ensure that policy and
program go forward in the best interests of all Canadians from
coast to coast.
5205
The hon. member needs to be reassured that we on this side
are not confused, just as the hon. member from Calgary needs to
be reassured and perhaps to a degree re-educated on the benefits
of immigration to Canada. I feel most strongly that the hon.
member is missing out both as a member of Parliament and as a
Canadian if he continues under this misapprehension with
regard to the benefits that immigration brings to this country. I
think he also misses out if he feels that somehow the number of
people who come to this country-
The Speaker: That was so good we will let you continue after
question period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
5205
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House
to pay tribute to a truly great Canadian, Ambassador Arthur
Andrew.
The late Mr. Andrew was a resident of Halifax and I am proud
to say my friend. He made a career out of promoting Canada and
Canadian values. He described himself as a professional
Canadian; a very accurate phrase indeed. He had a distinguished
32-year career with the Department of External Affairs serving
in various high ranking diplomatic posts across the globe,
including ambassador to Israel, Sweden and Greece. He was
assistant undersecretary of state for External Affairs for three
years.
After this major career with the Department of External
Affairs, Mr. Andrew became a professor at the University of
Kings College in Halifax. While teaching at Kings he continued
to be involved in Canadian diplomacy and foreign policy
publishing many articles on these issues. He also was one of
three founders of the Ethiopian airlift out of Halifax along with
our colleague the MP for Don Valley West and Peter Dalglish.
On behalf of the House of Commons I would like to extend my
most sincere condolences to Arthur's wife, Joyce; his daughters,
Stephanie and Victoria; and to the rest of the family. He was
truly a great Canadian.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian citizens are still allowed to own a very large
number of military and paramilitary weapons and they can also
own revolvers as long as they first obtain a free certificate. A
majority of Quebecers and Canadians favour a complete ban on
these weapons. I think that there should be a ban on the
possession of military-and paramilitary-type weapons and of
most semi-automatic weapons.
It is unacceptable that the Mini-Ruger 14 used in the
Polytechnic massacre is still a legal weapon in Canada. This and
other types of weapons cannot be tolerated in a free and
democratic society.
We can no longer hide from the reality that weapons are a
scourge in our society. And we can no longer ignore the
smuggling of military armaments and weapons of all kinds that
the Liberal government prefers not to see. The time to act is now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
want to apologize to all members of the House, aboriginals and
residents of the Atlantic provinces who have been offended by
remarks I made or was alleged to have made in the House
recently.
From the controversy over my remarks I have learned that it is
not wise in the political arena and in front of the media to use the
same techniques I have employed successfully during my long
career as a lecturer. In the future I will be very careful in the use
of strong analogies and illustrations to bring out crucial points
of analysis.
The main point of my remarks was that the policies of the
government toward those in need of support require a
fundamental re-examination because they have not worked.
These policies have created dependence and significant social
problems. New approaches to these problems are needed.
I am saddened that analogies taken out of context and the
misrepresentation of my basic points have distracted from an
open and frank discussion of problems which are of vital
importance for the well-being of all Canadians.
Judging from the messages I have received, very many
Canadians want to see such a discussion.
5206
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, from June 2 to June 5, the city of Verdun hosted the
second international kite festival. Fifteen countries were
represented and 54 special guests displayed their skills. A total
of 200 people participated. I myself had fun as both a spectator
and a participant.
At least 150,000 spectators came and all agreed that it was a
great show.
I commend Georges Bossé, the Mayor of Verdun, for his work
and Sandra Carmichael for organizing the event. I also want to
thank the team of 200 volunteers who showed unequalled
community spirit.
The atmosphere was fantastic and the festival was a success.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, today
at a press conference in Quebec City the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food together with other governments involved
announced that Canada and the province of Quebec, Quebec
City, and the Food and Agriculture Organization would host an
international symposium from October 11 to October 13, 1995
to commemorate the founding of the FAO in Quebec City 50
years ago.
Canada played a leading role in preparing the groundwork for
the FAO's founding through an interim commission chaired by
Lester B. Pearson. The organization has grown from 42 to 171
members since 1945 and has carried out field projects in more
than 140 countries around the world.
The 50th anniversary of the FAO will be October 16, 1995-
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Boniface.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all parliamentarians, I want to congratulate our high
school graduates across the country.
[English]
Congratulations to all our high school students. We wish them
well in the future, whatever path they choose to follow, whether
it is further education or entering the work force.
Graduation normally means parties, and we want to alert the
young people to be careful. Driving to and from parties can be
dangerous. Sometimes it is difficult to avoid drinking. If
possible it should be avoided. If that cannot be done there is a
program called Safegrad, managed almost totally by students.
Safegrad has a program to help increase travel safety and to
ensure that if drinking takes place it is done under safer
conditions.
[Translation]
On behalf of all those who love you a lot, I urge all graduates
to be careful.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the president of the Université du Québec à
Montréal, Mr. Claude Corbo, concluded to the failure of a
federal policy. Indeed, by stressing ethnical and cultural
features, the Canadian policy on multiculturalism leads
immigrants to the impasse resulting from a fragmented culture
and an extended marginalization.
According to Mr. Corbo, the efforts made by the federal
government for ethnic and cultural communities are suspicious.
Mr. Corbo added that the policy could increase the minorization
of the Quebec identity or to rob it of its originality.
We can only conclude that this policy, which dates back to the
Trudeau era, has failed in two ways. Indeed, on the one hand, it
has not helped integrate minority groups, while on the other
hand it has failed, in spite of the unspeakable objectives of its
architects, to rob the Quebec identity of its originality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the
importance of the Canadian family is beyond question. It is vital
to the well-being of our society. It is vital to the nurturing of our
children. It is vital to the preservation of our sense of justice, our
values and our convictions.
Given the significance of the family's role in society, state or
special interest agendas must not be allowed to diminish the role
of the family. The freedom of the family to raise its children
according to its own unique needs and convictions must be
5207
preserved. Government programs should encourage rather than
discourage parental responsibility for their family and any
trends that demean the role of the family must be challenged.
Canadian families have been lacking a clear, strong federal
voice. My colleagues and I intend to change that and provide
leadership by speaking for the family and developing policy
alternatives that would encourage, strengthen and protect the
fabric of this most basic unit of our society.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to speak about National Transportation Week which took
place last week, June 5 to June 11.
The importance of the transportation component to business
is fundamental. We are reminded of it almost every day.
Transportation plays an essential role in the competitive cycle.
In the business community where advantages are harder than
ever to come by, efficient, intermodal and competitively priced
transportation is essential to success.
With the emergence of a truly global economy, the ability to
forecast and adapt to international and national change is
essential for transportation.
Given the world-wide demand for effective intermodal
services, it is most appropriate the theme of the 25th National
Transportation Week was ``Intermodalism: The Perfect Fit''.
(1410)
We can also be proud of the dedication, professionalism and
hard work of the scores of men and women who keep our
transportation industries on the go year round.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind members of the House as well as all other
Canadians of the anniversary of the Department of the
Environment last Saturday, June 11.
In just 23 years Environment Canada has made significant
contributions to our understanding of the environment and the
consequences of our interaction with it. The department in
broadening its approach to environmental issues no longer
focuses on individual problems but treats the entire ecosystem
as a unit of interdependent elements.
In keeping with the department's quest for sustainable
development and the notion that everything we do affects the
environment, we as Canadians should continue to do what we
can to help preserve our planet for the future.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, those concerned about humanist values and religious
faith have lost a powerful voice and a champion with the passing
of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, spiritual leader of the
Lubavitch Hasidic community.
Rabbi Schneerson operated from Brooklyn but his was a
vision without boundaries and without borders. He was not a
parochial figure. He cared and spoke for people of all walks of
life and in all parts of the world.
He was a tireless supporter of prayer in schools, Christian as
well as Jewish. He built the movement which today has
representatives in every centre of Jewish life working to build a
better quality of life for Jews and non-Jews alike.
We are witnessing in his departure the end of an era. I am sure,
though, that it is not the end of the ideals of Jewish values and
Jewish internationalism which he championed.
I would ask all members of the House to join me in extending
our condolences to the Lubavitch community and our hope that
his inspiration will help them to continue his good work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday's issue of the daily
Le Droit mentions that a report
tabled in the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
reveals, once again, the true nature of Canadian federalism. The
Prime Minister refers to an idyllic country where one can freely
express himself or herself in French from coast to coast.
However, that vision does not reflect the daily reality in the
federal public service.
Indeed, some French-speaking civil servants feel they could
be severely penalized, by being isolated, excluded or by having
their career opportunities affected, if they express their right to
work in their mother tongue. The notion of a bilingual Canada
was probably a nice dream, but the fact is that the public service
is not bilingual: francophones are merely tolerated. Also,
Canada is not recognized as the union, based on equality, of two
founding nations, since Quebec is also merely tolerated in that
federation.
5208
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker,
Reform Party principles are designed to preserve and strengthen
the family of Canada.
Reforming our parliamentary system and putting the levers of
direct democracy into the hands of Canadians will ensure that
family values carry more weight with the federal government. It
will also ensure that national policies reflect the interests of all
Canadians and their families rather than the interests of a
politically connected elite.
Through fiscal and economic reforms the burden of taxation
would be reduced, sparing tomorrow's families the economic
consequences of still more borrowing and wasteful spending.
Reform's tax policies would ensure fair treatment for
families. Through our party's reforms to the justice system we
would place the rights of victims and protection of families
above the rights of criminals, making our schools and streets
safer places for our children to learn and play.
These are the common sense policies that families across the
nation want and need.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, it was my
intent to rise today to ask for an apology from the Reform
member for Capilano-Howe Sound for his insulting and
unacceptable comments to the people of Atlantic Canada.
The Speaker: I take it the member still wants to continue with
a statement. I would again remind all hon. members that we
should not be attacking each other personally. We should be
attacking, if need be, ideas. I would caution all of us not to attack
each other personally.
Mrs. Wayne: From the first days of Confederation, Atlantic
Canadians have worked to make a contribution to our country.
(1415 )
I would ask that all members of the House when they have
questions about what we contribute in Atlantic Canada to feel
free to come to any one of the Atlantic members of the House
and put their questions before they make any statements, such as
what was made in the House.
I am very pleased today to hear that the member has
apologized to our people. They are wonderful people, very
warm.
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to have this opportunity today to bring to the attention
of this House the results of a recent Angus Reid survey
conducted across the country a number of days ago.
Although it comes as no surprise that the federal Liberal Party
maintains considerable support from the vast majority of
Canadians, it is very interesting to note that for the first time in
decades the Liberal Party also tops the polls in my home
province of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loney: Due largely to the fact that the Prime Minister
and his cabinet have demonstrated their commitment to the
party's promises made in the red book, the Liberal Party enjoys
the support and confidence of 52 per cent of Albertans, up from
40 per cent in late April and 25 per cent on election day last
October.
I applaud the efforts of this government and encourage the
membership to maintain the course.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, this is the tenth year that I have had the pleasure of
welcoming young interns from Michigan to my staff in Ottawa.
Every year, for about six weeks, these American students
provide me and other hon. members from all parties with
invaluable assistance in our various parliamentary duties. It
must be said that their work is as impeccable as their behaviour
is exemplary.
[English]
I want to take this opportunity to praise the work of Professor
Helen Graves, the co-ordinator of this program. Many thanks to
this year's crop of interns: David Backus, Caroline Borhani,
Nancy Bortz, Thomas Corbin, Richard Frank, Matthew Hader,
Stacie Littlebury, Kathryn Lloyd, Kathey Majid-Smith, Janice
Smith-Scott, Craig Miller, David Mingus, Robin Mitchell,
Sandra Nader, Dayna Robinson, David Rowe, Jalil Saad,
Thomas Seely, Jonathan Shill, Susan Welsh, Christina Zini,
Robert Entin, Stuart Sandler and Elizabeth Krug. Thanks to all
these young-
The Speaker: I of course did not want to interrupt the hon.
member because all of those names are important. I would ask
all hon. members to please keep their statements within the
limits.
5209
5209
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this question is directed to the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Tension is mounting now that a state of emergency has been
declared by puppet president Jonassaint. The decision by the
military junta of Haiti follows the announcement that trade
sanctions will be stepped up, including the recent prohibition on
air travel which is to start on June 25.
I want to ask the government whether it will acknowledge that
prohibiting air communications is a sign that reinforcing
economic sanctions has failed?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to this question
from the opposition.
Canada has agreed to do its utmost to reinforce sanctions
against Haiti at this time, including the cessation of commercial
flights into Haiti. Commercial flights on the part of Air Canada
are to cease by June 25. We are doing what we can to make sure
that all Canadians who are in Haiti do leave Haiti. We have given
advice to Canadians in Haiti that they ought to leave.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in fact, we know that between 2,400 and 2,500
Canadian nationals are now in Haiti. I would ask the government
to tell the House what steps it intends to take to guarantee that all
Canadian nationals who wish to leave Haiti will be able to do so
before June 25.
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that 2,400 to 2,500 people
in Haiti are Canadians citizens, many of whom, however, have
dual Canadian-Haitian citizenship.
We are in day to day contact with Air Canada to make sure that
all those people who so desire will leave Haiti. Air Canada today
did not send a flight into Haiti as intended because of threats
against the airlines. Every effort is being made to make sure that
there are at least two additional flights to get Canadian citizens
out of Haiti.
(1420)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we know that seventeen different countries have
recently urged the United States to send a military intervention
force to Haiti.
Is the government prepared to indicate whether Canada still
rejects the option of military intervention in Haiti, an option that
is being mentioned more and more in Washington and that is
apparently the only option that will be sufficient to get rid of the
military junta and bring back President Aristide?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed as a I said
before to strenghthening existing sanctions against Haiti
including an increase to commercial sanctions in terms of the
freezing of bank accounts against Haiti. It is our view that
sanctions have to be given a full opportunity to be effective.
I just returned from a meeting of the Organization of
American States in Belem, Brazil last week and it was also the
view of the majority of the states of the hemisphere that
sanctions should be given as much support as possible at this
time in order that there could be a peaceful resolution to the
difficulties in Haiti and that President Aristide can be returned
to his rightful place as president of Haiti.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
in
Le Devoir on Saturday, Quebec's former legal adviser in
Washington, Mr. Elliott Feldman, said that trade interests were
not well defended in the softwood lumber question and that
federal negotiators were more concerned about presenting a
pan-Canadian position than about defending provinces whose
trade practices are above reproach.
My question is directed to the Minister for International
Trade. Would the minister agree that in the softwood lumber
question, the federal government should insist that Quebec
producers not be subject to countervail measures applied in
Canada, since Quebec does not subsidize its exports?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, as a general comment, the hon. member will know
that the matters discussed in the newspaper article to which he
refers occurred at a period when this government was not in
office. It is difficult for me to comment on the motives and the
reasons of the government that was in office at that time.
5210
On the specific issue of softwood lumber, the Government of
Canada did support the assertion that Quebec lumber exporters
should have a separate rate. Unfortunately, the free trade panel
which ruled that Canadian practices do not constitute a
countervailable subsidy upheld the decision of the U.S.
Commerce Department not to exempt Quebec from the national
duty deposit rate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister agree that if he were prepared to technically
treat Quebec as a country-in the meaning of U.S. trade
legislation, not in the political sense-he would have saved
Quebec lumber producers tens of millions of dollars in
countervail duty?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, no.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
World-wide and throughout history jurisprudence has
confirmed the common understanding of the family. Canadian
law also reflects a common understanding. To change the
definition of family would be to shift some of the most deeply
felt foundational values of our culture.
Could the minister on behalf of the government define family
for this House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I think I would refer the hon.
member to a much more reliable source of dictionary definition
than I can provide. I can tell her that those of us on this side of
the House share her sentiments about the importance of family.
It motivates what we do. It influences policies we develop.
Strengthening the family is a fundamental objective of the
government.
(1425)
Insofar as a definition is concerned, we are quite happy to go
with the commonly accepted definition. I commend the
dictionary to the hon. member if she wants more detail than that.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, the Dictionary of Canadian Law gives this definition:
``Family includes a man and a woman living together as husband
and wife, whether or not married, in a permanent relationship, or
the survivor of either, and includes the children of both or either,
natural or adopted-and any person lawfully related to any of
the aforementioned-''.
The Speaker: The Chair is having difficulty in that we are
asking for definitions and then giving definitions. The Chair
always waits for the final question to come, but I would ask the
hon. member to please couch her questions so that they deal with
the administrative responsibility of the minister in charge. If the
hon. member could please put her question.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us if he
agrees with the definition as found in the Canadian Dictionary of
Law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, if that is indeed what the
Canadian Dictionary of Law says I am sure that for the purposes
of that dictionary it is quite adequate.
I am sure also that, as the hon. member well knows, the
English language is a rich and beautiful one which can be used
and adapted to suit contexts as appropriate. I am sure the hon.
member will bear that in mind.
The Speaker: I am sure that we do have ministers who can
deal with the more precise English, but if the question is to be
put to a specific minister I would ask that it deal with his or her
administration responsibility in government
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, not long ago the minister floated a trial balloon
suggesting that the Liberal government is considering
redefining the family perhaps as households.
Given the historic gravity of such a redefinition, will the
minister commit to a broad formal process of consultations with
Canadians before undertaking such a monumental task?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can remember testifying
before the standing committee on human rights and persons with
disabilities, speaking in answer to a question about the prospect
of relationships being relevant for the purposes of government
programs. I did not deal with households but rather with
relationships, a term for which there is a precise definition
available.
At the same time I made it clear that we would be consulting,
discussing and listening to Canadians as we explore the best
possible ways to deliver essential government programs in
accordance with fairness and equity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday after visiting Canadian peacekeepers in Visoko in the
former Yugoslavia, the Prime Minister hinted that Canada could
withdraw its peacekeepers if, in his words, ``there is no progress
toward peace''.
5211
My question is directed either to the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the
Minister of Defence.
Can the government confirm whether it intends to pull its
peacekeepers out of the former Yugoslavia if no progress is
made in the peace talks or if the arms embargo is lifted?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it would be premature to take any such decision because, as the
hon. member implied in his question, there is still time for
discussions to be under way and we hope to have a positive
outcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, my
supplemental is for members of the government. Instead of
worrying, as it did last January, the civilian population which
has survived until now largely because of the presence and
assistance of Canadian peacekeepers, as the Prime Minister
himself remarked during his visit and as I myself have noted,
why does the government not reassure civilians by maintaining
its presence in the area and its participation in peace efforts,
thereby guarding against any further escalation in the violence
and killings?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the government has not announced any change in the present
position of the Canadian peacekeepers. I appreciate very much
the hon. member's support for the peacekeeping forces of a
strong and united Canada. We appreciate that very much.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. For
millions of parents the preferred method of caring for their
preschool children is to care for them at home. The Income Tax
Act only allows tax breaks for parents who send their children to
daycare, but not for those who forgo income in order to take care
of their kids at home.
Will the government adjust its tax policies to give equal
treatment to the majority of families who prefer to care for their
children in their own homes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which can be
properly and very effectively addressed during the course of the
major review we have under way on a wide range of social
programs. I advise the hon. member to submit his views in a
brief for consideration.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my brief was
duly submitted about two weeks ago. I hope the minister gets a
chance to read it.
An Angus Reid and CTV poll released today suggested that
most parents would rather care for their preschool children in
their own homes. This confirms much of what my colleagues
have been saying all along. The current federal tax rules make it
more expensive for parents to care for their children at home
than to send them to daycare. All parents should have the
freedom to choose what form of care is best for their children.
When will the government stop penalizing millions of parents
who choose to care for their preschool children at home?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is expressing a
strong concern about the strength and value of the Canadian
family. I am sure he also recognizes there is a wide variety and
diversity of family activities.
Many families are involved in the workplace these days. It has
become a very major change and a very positive change in our
society. It also creates certain pressures and certain kinds of
responsibilities which can best be handled if good child care is
available. We want to make sure there is a balance between the
interests of looking after children, whether the parents decide to
stay at home or whether they are in the workplace. In keeping
with the broad philosophy of our party we want to make sure
there is a balance of views and not simply one-sided views.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): My question is for the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women. In answer to a
question raised last Monday about grants to women's groups in
Canada and Quebec, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Human Resources Development said that delays in granting
the subsidy to the Quebec women's federation were due to their
evaluation reports being late.
A representative of the federation said this morning that all
women's groups in Canada are still waiting for their grants.
Can the Secretary of State for the Status of Women tell us
when the $9 million in grants will be paid to the organizations
that look after the interests of women in Canada and Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Thank you for the
question, Madam. According to my information, the money has
been allocated. It is nearly $10 million. If there is any delay in
this regard, I consider your question very important and I will
look into it with the minister responsible.
5212
(1435)
The Speaker: I would always like hon. members to remember
me both in their questions and in their answers. I am still here.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
ask a supplementary question. How can the Secretary of State
for the Status of Women claim to be helping groups when many
of them have to lay off their employees because of the
government's negligence on this issue?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
would be very pleased to know that at a time of very tight fiscal
restraints, where in the past budget certain requirements were
made to cut budgets across the board, we made the very
deliberate and important decision not to cut the funding for
women's programs but to have it stay the same.
I can further inform the hon. member that last week in the
time I had available, when I was not preparing my responses to
the questions from her hon. colleagues, I was very busy signing
off all the allocations for women's groups within the province of
Quebec and throughout Canada. I am sure they will all have their
funding in proper time. We so informed the representatives of
the national action committee this morning that those signatures
were already in place.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, on May
13 the Prime Minister made a statement in support of the
International Year of the Family. In this speech he affirmed that
his government supports a phrase which has been used in some
of the literature of the United Nations. It refers to the family as
the smallest democracy at the heart of society.
Could the Acting Prime Minister explain what he interprets
this definition of the family as a small democracy to mean?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is not for me to interpret the words of the Prime Minister. They
very much speak for themselves and frankly, they sound pretty
good to me.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, they
were not the words of the Prime Minister. He only recited the
words of the UN in referring to the family.
There are alternative ways of interpreting this term that are
much more alarming. It is important to know whether or not the
Acting Prime Minister agrees that parents should be able to
direct the behaviour of their children, prescribe teaching and
reasonable discipline, and impart their own values to the
children without interference from the state.
Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the state has no
place in the nurseries of the nation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this requires discussion and debate that we do not have the time
for in Question Period.
What about the role of the state in making sure our children
have enough food, clothing and education? What about the role
of the state in making sure that children in nurseries are not in
abusive situations? This matter cannot be sloughed aside the
way my hon. friend is attempting to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister,
the minister politically responsible for Quebec, the Minister of
Transport, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, the minister responsible for Quebec's economic
development and the Minister of Finance.
Quebec has already done more than its share to rationalize
Canadian shipyards and MIL Davie has also done its duty by
submitting a new business plan. Yet its order book remains
empty and the federal government is still slow to make clear its
intentions regarding the contract to build a new ferry for the
Magdalen Islands. The government is always talking about
putting Canadians back to work. We have here a concrete project
that is ready to start.
My question is this: When will the government finally make a
decision regarding the construction of a new ferry for the
Magdalen Islands, thus giving a little renewed hope to the
Quebec City region and the MIL Davie workers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows full well, we now have a business plan
for MIL Davie that has not yet been approved by the unions. A
real business plan that will be the basis for MIL Davie's future
must first be approved by the shareholders and the unions before
we can say what MIL Davie's future will be like.
5213
(1440)
However, it must be noted that, with respect to the ferry issue,
which my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has addressed on
several occasions, we first have to decide whether or not a new
ferry is really needed. After that decision is made, we will be in a
position to answer the other questions.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, although some questions may
be addressed to one, two or five ministers, it is not always
necessary to name them all; perhaps you could name just one.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect, I must tell you that William Shakespeare was not on
the list of ministers I addressed my questions to.
Can the minister tell us where his government stands on the
multifunctional smart ship project that could contribute to MIL
Davie's long-term recovery and maintain thousands of jobs in
the Quebec City region?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
again, the smart ship was proposed but there are other interests
involved and the Minister of Defence has still not decided
whether it is needed.
I am a little confused by the Bloc Quebecois's attitude. Let me
explain, Mr. Speaker. According to the Bloc member for
Richelieu, contracts should be awarded on the basis of free
competition and therefore on capitalism's basic principle of the
right to make offers.
I am not sure if the Bloc supports the position of the hon.
member for Richelieu or if they are asking the government to
award non-competitive contracts to MIL Davie. What is their
position?
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The 19th edition of the
Festival franco-ontarien will take place
from June 21 to 26. This festival attracts 600,000 visitors to the
National Capital Region and generates $12 million in local
economic benefits.
With the opening of this festival only eight days away, can the
heritage minister tell this House the amount of the federal
contribution to the Festival franco-ontarien?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
announce on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, that a grant of $300,000 will be awarded over two
years, that is, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Of this, $180,000 will go to
the Festival's basic activities and $120,000 will be to help make
the Festival financially self-sufficient.
I would remind my colleagues that the Festival
franco-ontarien will open on June 21, which more or less
coincides with the end of this session. It therefore offers an
excellent opportunity to celebrate the success of this session of
Parliament.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
In British Columbia the RCMP represents the largest portion
of police protection. Bill C-17 froze pay and movement within
the increment pay grid for two years. Last year the RCMP
worked over 600,000 hours of unpaid voluntary overtime
equalling $20 million. Fifteen hundred officers met to say quite
angrily that this overtime is over if the freeze continues.
Would the Solicitor General please tell this House how he
proposes to make up the 600,000 hours while still protecting the
community at the highest possible level?
(1445 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the commissioner and I are aware of the concerns of the
members of the RCMP. We are sensitive to them and we are
working to find solutions. In the meantime the commissioner
designate Mr. Murray has said that members of the RCMP are
quite responsible and will carry out their duties in due course. I
think we continue to have confidence in the professionalism of
the RCMP in British Columbia and throughout Canada.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, the minister previously promised to do something for
the RCMP and now he has let things boil over to the point of
rebellion in the ranks.
The broken promise of the pay grid may be the watershed for
officers to defy the law and form a union. Will the minister
admit that the RCMP is a special case and take the obvious
required action before there are resignations from the force?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the hon. member will join with me in saying that if
anybody is going to obey the rule of law it will be the RCMP and
that he will join with me in encouraging that to be the case while
we work together to find solutions to the concerns of some
members of the force.
5214
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for
regional development in Quebec.
While the federal government is multiplying programs-the
minister has to admit-federal action in the area of regional
development is uncoordinated. The activities of the Federal
Office of Regional Development in the various regions of
Quebec are not coordinated with the Department of Human
Resources Development, which is about to merge business
development centers and community futures committees,
another regional development stakeholder from the same level
of government.
Will the minister responsible for regional development not
agree that he has a duty to better coordinate the action of his
government in order to eliminate costly overlap within its own
administration?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we do agree that
duplication and overlap must be eliminated. That is why the
Prime Minister has asked the Minister responsible for Public
Service Renewal to thoroughly review each program and each
departmental administrative procedures, while I pursue
discussions with the human resources minister to achieve this
goal of coordinating our efforts in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister not agree also that jurisdiction
squabbles between the Minister of Industry and the Minister of
Human Resources Development in connection with regional
development make his government's action in that area
inefficient and result in millions of dollars being wasted for lack
of coordination?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that
there are no squabbles whatsoever between myself and the
Minister of Human Resources Development or myself and the
Minister of Industry. In fact, our actions are perfectly
coordinated and that is why we are so efficient.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
It would appear that the minister's proposal to legislate plain
packaging is in serious trouble. Health committee members
from her own party have told the Toronto Star they will not
support the proposal because there is no evidence that plain
packaging will reduce smoking.
The Minister of Health says she is concerned about the health
consequences of smoking. If the minister is really serious about
the health of Canadians why does she not put the taxes back on
tobacco?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are concerned with the health of Canadians. We know that
contraband cigarettes were really working against the health of
Canadians and cheap cigarettes were readily available for young
people to start up smoking. We had to take action and we did. We
have a very comprehensive program to battle smoking. It is a
wonderful program. One part of it is to look at the feasibility of
plain packaging.
For someone who has been working in the medical field, I am
appalled that he would not be willing to seriously consider all
items that might encourage young people not to take up
smoking.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, as a physician I have taken into consideration all of the
data that has been presented to us. There is no evidence so far
that plain packaging will reduce consumption. We know that if
costs go up consumption will go down. The minister appears to
have his priorities a little bit confused. If she wants to reduce
smoking, we need to put the taxes back where they were. We
keep on hearing about the commitment on the national forum on
health care before the end of June. This is June 13. For the fourth
time in this House I would ask the minister this: What are the
terms of reference for such a forum? What role will the
provinces play? When will it be held and where will this forum
be held?
(1450)
The Speaker: The Chair can readily accept one or two
questions, but surely not three or four. If the hon. minister would
perhaps address herself to one or two of the questions.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite happy to address any of the questions the hon. member
would ask.
On the question of cigarettes, obviously when the contraband
problem has been decimated we will certainly consider raising
taxes again. We have said that before. On the forum, we are
continuing to work with our counterparts at the provincial level.
When we are ready, we will release the terms of reference.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, a recent
Globe and Mail article painted a disturbing
picture of how Canadian taxpayer money is being mismanaged
in Thailand. The article alleged that private Thai investors were
5215
profiting greatly from CIDA loans and not repaying one red
cent.
This article implied that Canada has not been receiving a
satisfactory return on investment for many of CIDA's initiatives
in Thailand. What is the government doing to improve the
accountability of CIDA's operation in Thailand and other Third
World countries?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, this article contains a number of inaccuracies.
Quotes were taken out of context. For example, the investor
cited is repaying his loan on schedule.
Accountability is critical to CIDA's work in Thailand as in
other countries. CIDA regularly monitors its projects to make
sure that they are efficiently managed and that funds are
properly used.
More broadly, CIDA is taking action in response to the
Auditor General's report and recommendations. It is
implementing a series of matters to make its management more
effective and to improve its accountability.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime
Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to representatives of the Rwandan community in
Quebec, it appears that a Hutu immigrant, Léon Mugesera, who
arrived in Canada in August 1993 and who is currently a trainee
at the Université Laval, would be partly responsible for the
massacre in Rwanda.
Before his departure for Canada, Mr. Mugesera is said to have
urged his fellow Hutu citizens to go on the warpath and decimate
Tutsi families.
Given the serious allegations made by the Association des
immigrants rwandais du Québec, will the government inform us
of the findings of the Immigration inquiry regarding Mr.
Mugesera?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we have all been
horrified by the atrocities and the recent reports of these
atrocities in Rwanda.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to go into the specifics
of this case because of the ongoing investigation. I want to
assure this House that the serious allegations against this
individual are being investigated by immigration officials.
The situation in Rwanda being what it is at this moment, it is
very difficult to corroborate the allegations that have been
made. The individual in question also has to be given an
opportunity to explain his case.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the parliamentary secretary what is being done by Immigration
Canada to make sure that people who are responsible for such
slaughters will not be able to take refuge in Canada.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
has frequently stated his opposition and his deep concern over
situations like this.
The situation is ongoing right now and under investigation.
There will be, as the minister has promised, further legislation
coming into this House.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, we have heard
earlier today that flights into Haiti are being suspended. We
have heard that nationals are being asked to leave Haiti and we
have heard that many nations are now asking for military
intervention.
Will the minister please clearly state the Canadian position
regarding military intervention in Haiti.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what I said the
last time I was asked this question. Canada is committed to
trying to make sure that sanctions are enforced and that they
have their total possible effect before any other action is taken.
Canada is not contemplating or supporting at this time any other
action except the support of total sanctions. For that reason we
are cancelling our commercial flights into Haiti and
strengthening our commercial sanctions against Haitians at this
time.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem
is that the sanctions are just not working. In fact the abuses are
getting worse and worse.
I think the Canadian public is demanding more serious
answers to the questions that we are raising about decisions that
are being made. I think the big concern is what kind of clean-up
action might be necessary for Canadian peacekeepers if in fact
military intervention did occur.
We need to know the answers to these questions before we can
make that decision.
5216
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that up to now sanctions
have not been as effective as they might have been. But the fact
is also that we have not had the opportunity to enforce total
sanctions against Haiti. We believe that given that chance and
the co-operation of all members of the international community
that sanctions can have a positive effect and we will be able to
bring about peaceful change to democratic government in Haiti,
including the return of President Aristide to Haiti.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, last
February 21, the Official Opposition asked the Minister of
Indian Affairs what Mr. Jerry Peltier's responsibilities and
status in that department were during the Oka crisis, in the fall of
1990. The Minister of Indian Affairs was not able to provide an
answer. Can the minister now tell us what Mr. Peltier's mandate
was as a civil servant working for the Department of Indian
Affairs during the Oka crisis, in 1990?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, similar to what the other minister
has said I do not know if I could look into what the former
government's thought process was or what it was doing.
My friend makes mention of a response. I did give him a
response. I gave my friend the response in writing. It was to the
extent that there was, I forget the exact numbers because it has
been a couple of months now, about $200,000 paid to a group in
Oka. Of this I think $50,000 approximately-I will give him the
correct figure later, as a matter of fact he has it in his letter-was
paid to a numbered company. Beyond that I do not know the role
of Mr. Peltier in any shape or form. I know he was in there. I
know he was helping out. We would have to go back to what the
former government was doing in the circumstances.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the Minister of Government Services.
I understand that the Minister of Health is planning a new $55
million media campaign to urge people to quit smoking. I am
concerned that the present agency of record for the Department
of Health may automatically receive this lucrative advertising
contract in the same way that its contract was renewed without a
tendering process four months ago.
Will the minister give his assurance that all Canadian
advertising agencies will be able to bid on any and all new
contracts?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, no request has been made
by the Minister of Health to my department with regard to the
comments made by the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last week in Paris the minister stated that the government
would not cut old age security payments. He said: ``This helps to
protect the purchasing power of Canada's seniors and adds a
measure of stability to their income''. I am glad to hear that.
With the cuts in the last budget and the proposed cuts that the
Minister of Finance has indicated, can the minister explain why
the rationale for protecting seniors' pensions is not applicable to
younger Canadians who cannot find a job and who are trying to
feed and clothe their children? Why is not protecting their
purchasing power and adding a measure of security to their
incomes reason to protect them from cuts?
(1500)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member,
let me give him one example. Because of the changes we
brought about in unemployment insurance, a substantial
reduction is taking place in the premium rate.
As a result, beginning in July of this year the net addition into
the pockets of all workers covered by unemployment insurance
will be $230 each. That is a lot of purchasing power. It can buy a
lot of kids' clothes, a lot of furniture and a lot of extras.
That is the reason we need to reduce the premiums. Not only
will it bring about more employment but it will put more money
back in pockets so they can take it out and put it on the counter to
buy Canadian goods or services.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
in recent weeks there have been several concerns raised in the
media and by many responsible sports persons regarding gun
control.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister
reaffirm in the House today that he and his department have no
intention of further limiting the ownership and the use of
5217
qualified rifles and shotguns by responsible sports enthusiasts?
Will the minister tell the House if the required training courses
introduced by the previous administration will be maintained
and implemented in a cost efficient manner?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the primary focus of our
effort is safety in the community and attacking crimes of
violence. We will focus on illegal weapons being smuggled into
the country. We will focus on enforcing those laws already on
the books whereby people are punished for using guns in the
commission of criminal offences.
We will also look at other steps that can be developed with the
support of caucus for making this a safer society. We will, as the
hon. member has suggested, bear in mind the use which is made
for sporting and other purposes of rifles and shotguns in the
course of that work.
The Speaker: I have a request for a question of privilege by
the hon. member for Vancouver South.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of personal privilege.
On June 2 and June 3 when I was not present in the House, the
member for Simcoe Centre made some serious allegations,
allegations which I think damage my credibility and thus
impede my ability to function as a member of the House. The
member opposite has brought into question my compliance with
the conflict of interest code.
I would like to set the record straight. I am disappointed that
the member for Simcoe Centre made no effort to contact me or
the assistant deputy registrar general in advance to ask for
clarification. If he had taken the time to do some research he
would have found that he was incorrect in his allegations.
Within 30 days of my election as a member of Parliament, I
spoke to and clarified with the assistant deputy registrar general
what my requirements were to comply fully with the federal
conflict of interest code. I then proceeded to meet these
requirements by formally resigning as director and officer from
the management of Dynamic on December 1, 1993.
I would like to point out for the record that I was not
technically required to resign from Dynamic until April 5, 1994,
120 days after my appointment as parliamentary secretary. I did
so because of my desire to act responsibly as a member of the
House.
I received a letter from Mr. Howard Wilson dated March 31 of
this year in which he stated that he was satisfied that I had met
all the requirements of the federal conflict of interest code.
From this letter I quote: ``I am pleased to approve the
arrangements you have made to comply with the requirements
of the conflict of interest code''. With the unanimous consent of
the House I would like to table this letter.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the Chair of course never wants
to cut off debate, especially on something so important as a
point of privilege. I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver
South could please indicate to the Chair precisely which point of
privilege he is raising and how this has impacted on his ability to
serve in the House.
(1505 )
Could the hon. member please be a little more precise.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, my integrity is in question and I
will be getting to that in just two more statements.
The member for Simcoe Centre stated that on May 24 I was
still an officer of Dynamic. This statement is incorrect. The
member stated that I currently reside at the same address as my
father. This too is incorrect.
Let me state categorically for the record that my father does
not live with me and, for that matter, I would be very honoured
in my culture if my father did live with me. I would be happy to
have him stay there.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is this on the same point that the member is
bringing up now?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Yes it is.
The Speaker: With all respect to my colleagues, I am not
inclined at this point to see a point of privilege but perhaps if we
heard from the other member who is involved in this there might
be clarification.
At this point, always keeping in mind that I reserve the right to
come back to hear the wrapping up of the point of privilege, I
would like to hear from the member for Simcoe Centre.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Point of
order, Mr. Speaker.
I make these comments as government House leader with the
utmost respect to you and your position. I think if we search the
precedents of the House you will find many occasions when
members have risen to make a personal statement under the
guise of a statement of personal privilege to put on the record
their understanding of a situation involving themselves person-
5218
ally where things have been said about them that they do not
consider to be accurate.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to follow these
precedents and allow the hon. member for Vancouver South to
finish his statement before calling on anybody else.
The Speaker: With your permission, my colleagues, the
Chair will finish hearing a wrap-up from the member for
Vancouver South and then I will go to the member for Simcoe
Centre.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, this member has questioned my
integrity. He has not offered a shred of hard evidence. I ask the
member for Simcoe Centre to apologize for misleading the
House and for spreading misinformation.
The Speaker: I will hear from the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, on June 2 and
again on June 3 I raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest
with regard to an arm's length blind trust set up by the member
for Vancouver South for his company Dynamic Maintenance
Limited of which he is a 50 per cent owner. The company was
doing business with the government.
The issue was brought to the attention of the government
because of public information on file with the B.C. Ministry of
Finance and Corporate Relations regarding the officers and
directors of this company.
The public record from the last annual statement with an
accuracy date of May 24 showed the member as an officer of the
company and listed both his father and father-in-law as
directors.
The home address-
The Speaker: Order. I believe the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre has put that information on the record prior to this. I
wonder if the House would give the Speaker a chance to review
the statements made prior to today and to come back to the
House tomorrow with a ruling on this particular issue.
The hon. member, would you please finish.
(1510 )
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it appears that
someone agrees with the point we raised since on Monday, June
6, just three days after I raised the issue, the B.C. ministry
received a notice removing both the father and father-in-law as
directors of the company.
Rather than demanding a retraction, the member should be
offering answers to questions raised about arm's length
relationships.
The Speaker: My colleagues, any time we get into this type
of views in the House of Commons, by their very nature we are
going to have different opinions. The Chair will review
everything that has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver
South and the Chair will review what has been said by the hon.
member for Simcoe Centre.
I would prefer not to make a decision now but I will come
back to the House with a decision at the earliest possible time.
_____________________________________________
5218
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
Order in Council appointments which were made by the
government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these
appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing
committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
while I am on my feet, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to eight petitions.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition wherein the citizens ask the government to request the
CRTC to monitor different forms of abuse whether it be
inappropriate language, physical or other forms of violence.
They point out that it is not necessary to have abusive kinds of
relationships or language or behaviour portrayed on television
in order to entertain or inform.
5219
These petitioners believe that many of the efforts they make
to raise their families are counteracted by the abusive forms of
behaviour we see on television and other media.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents asking the government to
amend the Divorce Act to grant grandparents access to
grandchildren.
At this time I am receiving calls pretty well daily from across
the country from grandparents who are under stress because they
do not have access to grandchildren. I hope all sides of the
House will work hard to amend this injustice.
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, I want to table a petition signed by over 2,800 Verdun
residents who want their post office to remain open.
(1515)
That petition follows another one on the same issue, which
was tabled last March 17.
My constituents enjoy the professional service provided to
them at that post office, where the Canadian flag flies proudly.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present to the House three petitions calling on the
government to retain the existing laws that prohibit the aiding
and abetting of suicide and euthanasia.
A total of 75 constituents have signed these petitions which
state physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not
to end them.
I want my constituents to know that I concur in their view that
Parliament should keep and enforce the present laws regarding
doctor assisted suicide.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition of several hundred names signed
by residents of Pembroke, Petawawa, Chalk River, Deep River,
Stonecliffe and many other areas.
Mr. Frank Cirella, the store owner who sponsored this
petition, has been robbed three times, each time by young
offenders.
The petitioners want the law to provide for the release of
names of young offenders. They want the lowering of the age
limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
They feel that the law must be greatly tightened up in order to
provide for the proper punishment of young offenders.
Since this petition was signed the new legislation relating to
young offenders has been tabled in the House of Commons.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House and
introduce a petition on behalf of some members of my
constituency who are asking that this Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to
uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September
30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
I wholly concur with this petition and submit it to this House.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I would like to table a number of petitions
on behalf of my constituents.
The first one is asking Parliament to act immediately to
extend the protection to the unborn child by amending the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by the
born to unborn human beings.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is asking Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding and
abetting of suicide to achieve passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I present two
petitions, one with 849 signatures and the other with 236
signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human
rights code or 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.
On behalf of these citizens I present these petitions and I also
support their point of view.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of a
number of constituents of Parkdale-High Park.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government of
Canada to intervene immediately in the decade old national
ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The petitioners report that basic
human rights of the Tamil people are violated by Sri Lankan
security forces and that economic sanctions imposed on the
5220
northern province of Sri Lanka for the last three and half years
have led to severe shortages of essential items such as food,
medicine and fuel.
The petitioners therefore urge the Government of Canada to
bring about an unconditional ceasefire in Sri Lanka through the
good offices of the United Nations; second, to further bring the
parties to the conflict to the negotiating table; third, to suspend
forthwith all foreign aid to the Sri Lankan government and if
necessary impose sanctions until there is a cessation of
hostilities and human rights violations.
(1520)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition with 62
signatures. The Criminal Code of Canada, section 241, states:
``Anyone who counsels a person to commit suicide or aids or
abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding 14 years''.
The purpose of the petition is to request that the House of
Commons not change that particular section of the Criminal
Code. I would like my constituents to know that I concur with
this petition and I am proud to present it.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting three
petitions on behalf of some of my constituents.
One calls upon the government to amend the Criminal Code to
protect unborn children.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, my next petition requests the government to prohibit
assisted suicide.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition is one which opposes same sex
benefits.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I stand, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, to table a petition. I am pleased to present
this petition on behalf of 40 of my constituents, all from the
town of Three Hills, Alberta, who wish to draw the following to
the attention of members in this House. Whereas the majority of
Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and whereas human
life at the preborn stage is not protected in Canadian society, the
petitioners ask that Parliament act immediately 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. I support this petition.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. The first one contains approximately 250
signatures from people all across southern Ontario and draws to
the attention of the House the very great need for the protection
of witnesses and for the ability of the state to help to relocate
witnesses and people who are able to help in the prosecution of
crimes.
The petitioners go on to request that this House enact Bill
C-206, which I have had the honour to put before the House, at
the earliest opportunity so as to provide a statutory foundation
for a national witness relocation and protection program.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns violent crime and young offenders and
the petitioners request that Parliament recognize and address the
concerns raised in the petition, in particular to amend the
Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act and to
provide heavier penalties for those convicted of violent crime. I
am pleased to note that our government has moved in precisely
that direction.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, at the
request of a colleague I am presenting on behalf of some of the
citizens of Victoria, British Columbia a petition which prays and
requests that Parliament not amend 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, including amending the Human Rights Act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition:
``We, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol
for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol
industry in Canada''.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to present two petitions brought forward by
constituents in the riding of York South-Weston that asks the
Parliament of Canada to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit
the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer
5221
cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their
products, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5221
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-35, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1525 )
Ms Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have
three minutes but I would like to wind up, particularly since hon.
members of the third party were so anxious to hear more of my
speech before we broke for Question Period. I did not want to
disappoint them.
In conclusion, this bill is, as was stated by the minister and by
others earlier, basically a housekeeping bill but it is a very
important bill. It sets up the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration as a department standing on its own, not in the
realm of public security, but in the realm of nation building.
We are here in this government to fulfil our red book
promises. We believe that a great way to fulfil those promises is
through the method of immigration. We know that setting up this
department in the manner to which the minister has alluded and
in the manner the legislation sets up will be a good thing for
Canada. We are in the business of building this nation to make it
as strong and united from coast, to coast, to coast as we can.
I support this bill with great hopes for the future of our great
country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to get one item clarified on where the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration stands with regard to criminals
who are non-citizens in our country.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am honoured to be here
as an MP and an immigrant who received his citizenship not too
many years back. I consider it a privilege to have been selected
by my constituency to represent these people.
One thing that is quite concerning in the hearts of the
individuals in Wild Rose reverts to the case of Charles Ng in
which we kept this individual in the country for a number of
years, an extremely costly venture, millions of dollars I
understand. We also recently had a conviction in the city of
Calgary by another non-citizen who was considered to be here
illegally and was a corrupt policeman I believe in his country of
origin. He was convicted of murdering a policeman in my
riding.
Having visited the Kingston penitentiary recently I talked to a
number of inmates who are non-citizens. Drumheller, Bowden
in my riding, federal institutions, have a great number of
non-citizens. One of the inmates who was a non-citizen stated
that he purposely came to Canada because he found it easier to
operate his particular drug ring in this country than anywhere
else on this continent.
I hear these kinds of things. What I am concerned about is the
fact that we do have a number of non-citizens, serious criminals
who are now confined and others who are awaiting indictment.
Would the Department of Citizenship and Immigration support
the idea of deportation of non-citizens who are convicted of
serious crimes?
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Wild
rose for his intervention and his questions. I might add that we
too are delighted that he is here both as an immigrant and as an
MP and I hope that at a future time the hon. member as an
immigrant and as a member of Parliament will stand in this
House and talk about his own success story as a new Canadian
and the success stories of many other new Canadians as well.
As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration frequently
says, unfortunately it is too often the planes that crash that get
coverage and get notice even here in this House as opposed to
the planes that land. I look forward to the hon. member's
intervention in that area.
(1530 )
With regard to his comments about criminals and deportation,
certainly the hon. member should know that the minister has
said frequently, on more than one occasion both in the House
and outside, that he has zero tolerance for abusers of the system,
for people who commit crimes in this country or commit certain
acts that were they within this country would be considered
5222
crimes. We do not want to see or tolerate that kind of activity
within our policy levels.
I can assure the hon. member that the minister has promised
legislation addressing these concerns will be forthcoming very
soon in the House.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to follow up on the point raised by my hon. friend from Wild
Rose. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question
based on a statement he made which perhaps was not quite clear.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will comment.
If I understood the hon. member for Wild Rose correctly, he
was proposing that criminals upon conviction be deported. If
this is the suggestion in my respectful submission it does not
make much sense at all. We would then be saying that if
somebody who happens to be a non-citizen commits a murder
and is convicted his sole penalty would be deportation to his
country of origin, which does not make the slightest bit of sense.
If the hon. member is suggesting that upon completion of
serving any sentence imposed for the commission of a crime the
Government of Canada should consider deporting a criminal,
that is an entirely different matter.
Would the hon. parliamentary secretary agree that it does not
make much sense to deport criminals who have been convicted
immediately? In my view that would encourage more people to
come to Canada to commit crimes, knowing that their only
penalty would be deportation.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Scarborough West, my colleague both as a member of the House
and as a member of the bar. Of course the member is absolutely
right. The forthcoming legislation will respect all the principles
of due process.
If the hon. member for Wild Rose is suggesting that we would
be saving money-heaven forbid that I should anticipate the
hon. member's theories-the hon. member for Scarborough is
absolutely right that we would be opening ridiculous floodgates
for people who would come here and think they could do pretty
much as they please: walk into any place in Canada and rob a
bank and the only sanction would be deportation to the country
of origin because there is no real process for these people to be
tried, convicted and punished elsewhere.
The point we are concerned about is ensuring at the end of the
process that these people do not abuse the immigration and
citizenship system in our country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
should have clarified that a bit. I am talking specifically about
those people who come here, commit crimes and are desperately
wanted in their countries of origin.
I am thinking of Charles Ng particularly. Why did we house
him and spend millions of dollars for six years? We did not want
to send him back to California where he was wanted for 22
murders or something. Inmates from Drumheller, for example,
have expressed openly that even though they were caught the
penalties in this country were not very severe. They would
rather be caught here then go back and face the penalties they
would have to face in other parts of the world.
I think we should analyse the whole issue. If it is a bigger
benefit financially than punishment wise or whatever, we should
probably consider sending them back.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I understand and sympathize with
the sentiment of the hon. member. He and I have had this
discussion before on other matters.
One cannot legislate for individual cases such as Charles Ng.
One has to legislate in the broad spectrum for all people. We
cannot create a law that says this is what we will do here because
we would be omniscient. We cannot anticipate what every
situation will be.
(1535)
We have to pass laws within the context of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, within the context of our criminal law and
its precedents, and within the context of English common law
and its belief in justice and due process. We have to do the very
best we can within that context. The passage of law and the
philosophy behind the criminal law, the immigration law, et
cetera, is not entirely driven by financial exigency.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, today
we are debating Bill C-35 to formalize the department of
immigration and citizenship. I do not oppose the creation of the
department. However it is important for the House to consider
the mandate of the department and the way that mandate is
fulfilled. I would like to discuss one aspect in particular: the
department's processing of refugees.
Canada has undertaken, with the support of its citizens, to
offer safe haven to people the world over who are in danger of
death or serious harm in their countries of origin. It is help we
are proud to be able to offer.
I therefore want to talk not about whether we should continue
to accept refugees-I believe we can and should do that-but
about the process of how we determine to whom we should offer
assistance in this regard. More specifically I want to talk about
the acceptance of inland refugee applicants, those who are now
in Canada, and how it affects refugees who cannot afford to
come to Canada before applying.
There are literally millions of people from all over the world
who are in dire need of help. Even as we sit here safe and
comfortable, many of these people are experiencing starvation,
injury and even death. Most cannot afford or find a way to travel
5223
to safety in other countries and are instead forced to wait until
help reaches them where they are.
According to a report by the executive committee of the
United Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, in 1992 the world
refugee population rose to a staggering 19 million. Some of the
numbers mentioned in the same report were as follows: 420,000
Somali refugees in Kenya; 80,000 Bhutanese in Nepal; 250,000
refugees from Myanmar in Bangladesh; and 280,000 Togolese
in Benin and Ghana. These are only a few of the many people
around the world whose lives have been shattered and who are
often living on the edge of survival. Nor is there any end in sight.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, already
strained to the limit, has said in stark terms that ``the number of
refugees continues relentlessly to grow''.
In the face of this massive need for safe haven, Canada has
offered to take in approximately 30,000 refugees this year. Of
these, approximately half of the spaces are reserved for inland
refugees already in Canada. Many of these refugee applicants
are legitimate refugees who have overcome incredible odds to
arrive on our shores and ask for help.
We should also realize that a large number of inland refugee
applicants are not legitimate refugees and come to Canada
simply to find a better life. This is understandable and we should
continue to encourage the arrival of productive individuals
through immigration.
Under the present policy there are well over 200,000 spaces
available to people wishing to come to Canada as immigrants
but a very limited number of spaces for refugees. In view of this
it is important to take special precautions when deciding which
inland refugees are legitimate claimants and which ones are
simply seeking to skip immigration procedures, seeking to jump
the queue by claiming refugee status.
The United Nations has issued a warning to countries that
offer asylum to refugees. In the words of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees:
The line between the voluntary migrant and the refugee is a fine one. Yet it is
important for states to be able to make the distinction in a fair and consistent
manner so that people who genuinely need asylum are granted it, and so that the
protection system for refugees is not overwhelmed with economically
motivated migrants.
(1540)
I share the concern of the UNHCR that if we continue to
increase the numbers of inland refugee applicants accepted in
Canada we will take away spaces from those people who cannot
afford to come to Canada before applying for refugee status.
A confidential report recently leaked to the media from the
office of the minister of immigration brings to light some
troubling facts. First, the acceptance rate of inland refugees has
jumped under the minister's newly appointed board members. It
is not a small increase but rather in the words of the minister's
own staff it is: ``the first really significant quarterly increase
since the board's inception''.
The report shows that fully 67 per cent of all inland refugee
applicants are currently being accepted by the new board. This
has had the effect of allowing 4,855 refugee claimants to stay in
Canada or almost one-third of the total annual target of 15,000
in the first quarter of 1994 alone. At this rate the full annual
target of inland refugees will be met well before the year is up.
What happens then? Will the minister expand the total
available refugee spaces in Canada even though the services we
are able to provide to Canadians are already strained because of
our economic situation? Or, will the inland refugee category
alone expand and take away spaces from refugees who cannot
afford to come to Canada to apply for refugee status?
If all inland applicants for refugee status currently applying
were truly in fear of their lives it would be one thing, but the
increase in acceptance rate leads to the conclusion that the
immigration board is weakening the criteria in the case of inland
refugees. The new refugee board vice-chairman has offered two
alternative explanations for the increase but the facts tell a
different story.
One explanation is that a new streamlining process is in place.
Yet the leaked report states:
The proportion of claims completed in under four hours at traditional full
hearings declined from 60 per cent during 1993- to 53 per cent in the first
quarter of 1994.
The report goes on to state:
New CRDD member appointments may largely account for the general
decrease in the percentage of claims completed at the regular hearing in less
than four hours.
This can hardly be characterized as streamlining.
The second explanation is that a large number of Somalis and
Sri Lankans have finally had their claims heard. It is
understandable that the recent crises in these countries have
produced a large number of refugees. However, again according
to the report, the acceptance rate for inland applicants from nine
out of ten source countries mentioned has similarly shot up; the
most significant rates of acceptance being for refugee claimants
from China, Pakistan and Israel. This across the board increase
suggests that something other than recent outbreaks of violence
in the two countries mentioned or a streamlined review process
explains the increased rate of acceptance for inland refugees.
I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the millions of
legitimate refugees the world over not to apply sloppy
procedures or the lowering of standards to dictate who will fill
the limited number of refugees Canada can afford to help.
5224
We have already broadened the category of what constitutes a
legitimate refugee to be the most open in the developed world.
With increasing budgetary restraints in the country and with the
tenfold cost of processing refugee claimants here instead of
overseas, perhaps it is time we re-examined the criteria under
which we admit inland refugee claimants to Canada. At the very
least we have to stringently apply existing criteria.
The recent case of Pedro Hugo, an admitted terrorist, is a case
that exemplifies the current laxity of our refugee laws. After
being returned to Peru and living there for 18 months, Hugo was
returned at taxpayers' expense to Canada because it was alleged
that the board had ``erred'' in judgment. Only after Canadian
taxpayers, including hard working immigrants, had paid for
Hugo's plane flights, legal aid and housing did the board come
to the obvious conclusion for the second time that Hugo was not
a legitimate refugee.
(1545)
In the face of 19 million refugees world-wide the vast
majority of whom cannot afford to come to Canada to claim
refugee status, we have a moral duty to be very careful about
which inland refugee claimants we allow to stay in Canada. It is
imperative we do not let misplaced generosity interfere with
these decisions. Every person who comes here claiming refugee
status because they want to find a better opportunity or because
they simply do not like it in their own country is taking the place
of someone who is in desperate circumstances or truly in danger
for their lives.
The decisions to be made are not easy ones but they have to be
faced. In the words of Sadako Ogata the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees: ``Resettlement should be driven by need rather
than want''. Let us make sure we find and admit the real
refugees.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague from Calgary North for her
very fine remarks. I think we are all very much in agreement in
this House that the problem of refugees is a very delicate and
sensitive one. Although I do not agree in the case of the inland
refugee situation right now that there has been laxity on the part
of the government, it is certainly true those who are here have an
advantage over those who are not. We certainly should bear heed
to what she says. We must be very careful to try to be as fair and
just as we can.
My comment pertains to a little slip the hon. member made in
her speech. When she began she referred to the department as
the ministry of immigration and citizenship. I immediately took
note of that because of course in this bill we are talking about
combining citizenship and immigration in the ministry. If I may
say so it is citizenship and immigration rather than the other way
around.
The very important point I am about to make is that it struck
me as very wrong because there is one thing I would have
changed in the bill. I would have changed it to immigration and
citizenship instead of the other way around simply because
immigration is the body of this country. When immigrants come
here they come to be fed and to find shelter, heat and warmth and
to sustain their physical selves. I would say that citizenship is
the soul of this country. It is what the people of this country give
in terms of their minds and whole beings.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
remarks. I assure him that referring to the department with the
name reversed was not a Freudian slip. However, I do agree with
his remarks. I believe that immigration comes before
citizenship and if he would like to make an amendment to the
bill to change the name of the department I would be very happy
to second it.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member made a distinction between refugees who are outside
Canada and those who come here and apply for refugee status.
She expressed a number of reservations and apprehensions, but I
would like to tell her that we have a system in this country, the
Immigration and Refugee Board, whose commissioners are
asked to determine who is a bona fide refugee under the Geneva
convention and who is not.
I sometimes think such apprehensions are unfounded. I would
also like to inform the hon. member that in all countries, in the
United States as well as in Europe, refugees knock on the door to
ask for political asylum. This is not unique to Canada. This is
common throughout the world. That is why independent and
autonomous bodies are asked to determine who is a refugee and
who is not.
(1550)
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge my
colleague's expertise in this area. Having been an immigrant he
probably has greater knowledge in some areas than I do.
The concern is that one-third of the spaces available in our
inland refugee program were filled in the first quarter of the
year. That means either one of two things: Very few inland
refugees will be able to be admitted as the year progresses
because the quota has been filled so early; or that the quota for
inland refugees will displace some of the quota for refugees who
are in other countries and under severe stress. It was more a
word of caution that our system be very careful to make sure it
balances those two competing interests.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-35, to consolidate citizenship and immigration
functions, I believe is a laudable one to attempt to streamline
and reduce duplication. I can only applaud this manoeuvre and
hope
5225
that when the two ministries are brought together there can be a
streamlining of administration, increased efficiency and
significant savings to the taxpayer, particularly important in
these days of deficit spending. I have no real problems with the
bill, but I think this might be a superb opportunity to address
many of the unanswered questions on immigration and some of
the efforts the new department should undertake.
One of the greatest characteristics of our beautiful country
and one I am very proud of is our cultural mosaic. Very few
countries in this world of ours have been able to assimilate a
heterogeneous group of people from all over the world. In fact,
every country in the world is represented within our borders. We
have managed to create a melting pot with a minimal amount of
civil strife, prejudice and intolerance. As a result of this, we
have produced a rich culture that has benefited all individuals
who live within our borders.
The exposure to different cultures, ethnic groups and
religions is something that enriches us all and breeds tolerance.
It is perhaps this tolerance and understanding that we as
Canadians seem to have that sets us apart from almost every
other country in the world giving us our unique international
characteristics. It is this unique level of tolerance and
understanding that has given us such a high level of esteem in
international circles. There is no doubt in my mind that
immigration has proven to be a benefit to us.
Today in the 1990s much has been said about immigration.
Often passionate and divergent views are extolled about
immigrants from many quarters. The numbers of immigrants:
Are they too high? Are they too low? Their characteristics: Are
we allowing too many in with certain characteristics that would
not benefit the country? The country of origin: Are some
countries better suited to adapt to the Canadian way of life than
others? Are immigrants a boon or are they a loadstone to this
country?
Those questions are even more pertinent today. They have a
certain imperativeness about them in their response because of
our high unemployment levels, our uncertain economic future,
the rapidly shifting trends in the economy and our relatively
lower standard of living that plagues current generations more
so than others in the past.
The arguments also become more passionate and more
subjective as these pressures on Canadian society grow.
Immigrants are often taken as a scapegoat for some of these
problems in this country. In order to serve the Canadian public,
the country and the immigrant population better, I believe it is
imperative that these questions be addressed and that these
problems be met head on instead of trying to avoid them.
It does not pay to ignore life's realities. Thus there has never
been a better time to ask for the truth about immigration. What
immigration levels should we have? What type of immigrants
should we be selecting? The only way to get this is through cold,
hard data. Let us not hide from this.
First it would serve to have a brief overview of immigration in
Canada. As I have said before, immigrants no doubt have been a
tremendous boon to this country. I am an immigrant and I am
proud and very thankful at being allowed to come to this
country. In fact, I like to think of this country as a founding
country of many different races.
(1555)
Between 1967 and 1978 immigration policy favoured highly
qualified and skilled immigrants with high education. They
came to this country and got jobs. Their earnings grew and in
fact exceeded those of indigenous Canadians. They became a net
contributor to the treasury and there was minimal job
displacement.
After 1978 the immigration policy changed. The education of
immigrants fell and their earnings fell. There was more job
displacement, particularly by unskilled workers from third
world countries.
There is also less integration now than before. Immigrant
adaptation has also taken longer than before. This adaptation is
dependent upon a number of characteristics: the immigrants'
education, language, age and the nature of the receiving society,
the level of skills required by the country, the labour market and
the extent to which the country is receptive toward them.
In the last 10 to 15 years we have had a decreasing number in
the independent class of immigrants, those who were selected to
come to this country and went through a selection process and
had a very high chance of getting a job. An increase in the
number of family reunification class of individuals has
happened in Canada in the last 10 years. Those are people who
were allowed into the country purely on the basis of having a
relative here.
The immigration policy from 1967 to 1980 was undoubtedly
successful. That was due primarily to the selection process I
mentioned and the commitment of our country to minority
cultures, tolerance, equal rights and human rights for all.
However, recent trends in the labour market performance of
immigrants have been disquieting. Much has been stated by
various people on the level of criminality among immigrants
and whether or not they are a loadstone or a benefit to Canada in
terms of social services. I have not been able to see any data or
information on this subject, but I think it is high time we started
to look at the truth, not to create any scapegoats for this
country's problems but rather to better serve the immigrant
population and the citizens in Canada.
5226
If immigrants are having a difficult time and are going to the
social services in a disproportionate fashion, then we need to
determine what we can do to alleviate this problem. Perhaps the
solution is in having a better selection process for what Canada
needs in terms of its economy and also providing the immigrant
population with more targeted services.
It is also time that we looked at immigrant populations and
determined what they are doing at perhaps six months, one year
and two years after they come to Canada to determine whether or
not they are an economic benefit. In times of deficit spending
our country cannot tolerate a greater strain on social services.
As I have said in the past, Canada cannot help other countries
unless it itself has a vibrant and strong economy with low
unemployment and a reasonable level of growth. It is only by
providing this strong economy within our country that we can
extend our hands economically and technically to other less
advantaged countries.
Another question is as to how many immigrants run foul of the
law. This has been mentioned today. It would be prudent for us
to determine this if the statistics are there, but they are not. We
need to know what we should about it. Other issues which are
important are the individuals who commit indictable offences in
this country, after having their guilt or innocence proven, should
automatically be deported back to their country if they are
proven to be guilty. It is completely unfair for the Canadian
taxpayer to foot the bill in excess of $50,000 to $60,000 per year
per person for an individual who is incarcerated in a penal
institution. Currently 85 per cent of individuals who commit a
crime and are thought to be eligible for deportation stay in this
country. This must stop now.
Another aspect that is unfair is that we should not allow
visitors to come to this country with the express interest of
having babies on our soil so that their children will
automatically have the rights and privileges of Canadian
citizenship. In other words, Canadian citizenship should not be
automatic if a child is merely born in this country to a person
who is a visitor.
Immigrants and Canadian citizens will benefit from a well
thought out immigration policy.
(1600 )
I would implore the hon. minister to do the following: Tie
non-refugee groups of immigrants to the economic needs of the
country and make these rules colour blind with no bias in terms
of country of origin. We must also not forget our humanitarian
obligations under the 1951 Convention on the Status of
Refugees. Let us tighten up the definition of refugee class. It
does not serve the legitimate refugees in this country or the
independent class of refugees if they are queue jumped by
individuals who come to this country with fabricated reasons.
Let us also look at New Zealand and Australia as examples of
countries whose policies of family reunification classification
we should adopt. They are well thought out and they are fair to
all parties.
We also should do HIV testing for individuals who wish to
immigrate to this country. People are tested for other groups of
infectious diseases. There is no reason why HIV, a disease that
tragically has a 100 per cent fatality rate, is not tested for.
Also, amalgamating citizenship and immigration I would
lastly suggest that the ministry consult with a private group that
specializes in giving advice on streamlining the ministry. It may
serve the Canadian public and the minister as well to have this
expertise as it costs about $50,000 per year to have an immigrant
processed.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, just a
short question to clarify one portion of my hon. colleague's
speech and in particular in connection with what I believe I
heard him say, the automatic deportation of criminals who have
been convicted of crimes who are not Canadian citizens. I want
to be perfectly clear and I want to ask the member if he has
actually thought this through.
I want to give him an example and ask for his comments
specifically. Is the member saying that if a person who is not a
citizen is convicted of a crime in this country he should be
immediately deported or is he saying that he should be deported
after serving his sentence?
Let us suppose someone comes up from Washington state and
robs a bank using a handgun. If that person is apprehended and
convicted of armed robbery in British Columbia, is the position
of the hon. member that the only thing that should happen to that
person is that person be returned to Washington state or is the
hon. member in fact saying that after having served the
appropriate sentence for armed robbery then the person should
be returned?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the hon. member's question the person should go
through our courts, guilt or innocence should be determined and
if he or she is found to be guilty then they should be deported to
the country of origin with the understanding that the person
should be faced with serving a sentence appropriate to the crime
in the country of origin.
My constituents have told me they think it is grossly unfair
that the Canadian taxpayer has to foot the bill in the order of
$50,000 or $60,000 per year to have this person sit in a penal
institution for that period of time. It is a cost that I do not think
Canadian taxpayers should have to shoulder.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I too
am looking for some clarification. I do not hold any particular
brief for immigrants who commit especially serious crimes. If I
understood the hon. member correctly I think he indicated that
he would like to see the collection of some data on the criminal
5227
activity of immigrants here in this country. I really wonder
about that, where that would take this and what some people
might do with it.
My concern would be that if we were to compile data on the
criminal activity of immigrants it would be easy for some people
to strike an average for any group of immigrants, whether it is
Iran, Haiti or Scotland or wherever. If they were to be
committing crimes above average, any more of them would be
discouraged from coming to Canada. Those committing crimes
below average would be encouraged to come to Canada. I am not
too sure.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I do
understand what the hon. member is saying. The last thing I
want to do is institute any element of prejudice into this at all.
There has been much said by various people in the media and
groups in this country that certain immigrants are criminals and
they should not be allowed into the country.
(1605 )
I am looking for answers that have not been provided by the
minister of immigration. I think it is important for us to
determine whether there are individuals coming into this
country who are criminals or who commit criminal acts in this
country. If we can do a better job of determining who those
individuals are beforehand, in other words have some way of
predicting this behaviour in the future such as, for example, if
they have a criminal record in the country of origin, perhaps we
can use this data to protect the citizens of this country.
That is what I am driving at, not to institute any prejudice on
the country of origin. Rather, if there are characteristics of an
individual who comes to this country who has had criminal
behaviour in the past and is an incorrigible criminal, we should
know this information before they come here in order to protect
the citizens of this country and not allow them to enter into our
borders.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear that the member on the other side is an
immigrant and a new Canadian and that he will have some
sensitivity to other new Canadians. I also understand that the
member opposite is a physician. I was wondering if the member
was educated in Canada.
I would also like to ask the member, just as a bit of
clarification and edification on his earlier remark, whether we
should do an economic analysis of the benefits that immigrants
provide this country. If indeed the member on the other side was
educated as a medical doctor, which is an incredible cost to the
Canadian taxpayer, I was wondering if he has figured out his
economic benefit to this country.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
came to this country when I was eight years old from England. I
will clarify what I said. I was saying in my speech that we need
to find out whether or not individuals who come to this country
are going on social services or are not.
The only reason I say this is to dispel a lot of the myths that are
being thrown around. I am trying to get at the answers. I am not
making any prediction as to what immigrant groups are or are
not doing, but I think it is important for us to find out if
immigrants are or are not going on our social services. If they
are, then perhaps we are doing something wrong and perhaps we
can find ways of helping them to ensure that they do not go on
social services or perhaps integrate them into Canadian society
in a better way.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act
to implement a convention for the protection of migratory birds
in Canada and the United States, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
(1610)
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Manley (for the Minister of the Environment) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, in his book The Living Planet, David Attenborough, the
British zoologist, tells the story of an ecosystem off the coast of
Peru. Several decades ago, two islands, Chincha and San Gallan,
were home to about 5.5 million guanay, a type of cormorant. The
guanay lived within this very rich ecosystem, feeding on small
anchovies that were abundant in the area.
5228
The guanay produced guano, the accumulated excrement used
by Indians and others as fertilizer. Excrement fell into the sea
and fed the plankton which, in turn, fed the anchovies. It was a
perfectly balanced ecosystem.
When chemical fertilizers were developed, the Peruvians
decided it was easier to buy fertilizer at the store instead of
harvesting it on the islands. The birds were no longer needed.
And meanwhile, the Peruvians started harvesting more and more
of the small anchovies. In one year, they caught 14,000 tonnes!
As a result, hundreds of thousands of guanay died, and guano
production dropped to zero. The plankton were no longer
fertilized, and their numbers deteriorated to the point that the
anchovies practically disappeared.
The moral of this true story is that the ecosystem maintains an
almost perfect natural balance. However, when one link is
removed, the whole chain is destroyed.
[English]
I guess this is the reason for Bill C-23. We are trying to
preserve the ecosystem by doing our utmost to preserve our
species in Canada. Therefore I am glad to have this opportunity
to speak on the amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention
Act and to commend fellow members of Parliament for the
interest they have shown and for their tremendous contribution
in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development to strengthening this legislation which protects
these important species.
Bringing this bill before the House for third reading is an
appropriate follow-up to Environmental Week. Bill C-23 is part
of the current effort to improve federal wildlife and habitat
legislation, including amending the Canada Wildlife Act. These
amendments will lead to the proclamation of the wild animal
and plant protection, regulation of international and
interprovincial trade as well as consultations which will lead to
negotiations with the United States on amending the migratory
birds convention itself.
On April 25 Bill C-23 was introduced in the House of
Commons on behalf of the Minister of the Environment. It will
replace and repeal the current Migratory Birds Convention Act
which was enacted 77 years ago in 1917.
In the early 1900s, exploitation of birds led to the drastic
declines in their population, particularly in eastern North
America. The migratory birds convention was therefore signed
by Canada and the United States in 1916 committing each
country to protect migratory birds from indiscriminate slaughter
and to sustain their populations.
The Migratory Birds Convention Act was enacted in 1917 to
implement the terms of the convention in Canada by managing
the harvest of ducks, geese and of other game birds and by
protecting migratory non-game birds.
(1615 )
Provisions of the act are designed to regulate hunting, prevent
trafficking and commercialization, control the uses of migratory
birds through permits and allow for the creation of migratory
birds sanctuaries in order to control and manage areas important
for the protection of the birds. There are currently 101 migratory
bird sanctuaries in Canada which together protect
approximately 11.3 million hectares.
The act has remained relatively unchanged over the last 77
years with only minor additions and amendments. In the context
of the 1990s natural resource management must incorporate not
only the environmental objectives but also must meet social,
cultural and of course economic concerns.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-23 are designed to
ensure the sustainable life of migratory birds and their
enjoyment by Canadians. They also address our international
commitments to the wise management of an internationally
shared resource, and are consistent with the objectives of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Convention on Biological Diversity is one of the most
tangible and important results of the earth summit in Rio two
years ago. It was ratified by Canada in December 1992 and
requires that countries regulate or manage biological resources
to ensure their conservation and sustainable use and that
countries establish a system of protected areas to conserve
biodiversity.
A comprehensive review of Environment Canada's
regulations was conducted in 1993, including a review of the
regulations adopted pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention
Act. The consultation process involved a broad range of
stakeholders including hunters, aviculturists, taxidermists,
farmers, members of environmental and wildlife groups,
representatives of aboriginal peoples, researchers, provincial
and territorial wildlife agencies, outfitters and representatives
of industry. The findings of the review suggested improvement
to streamline the administration, to modernize procedures and
make the regulations more enforceable.
A process not related to this bill is currently under way to
amend the migratory birds convention in order to address
aboriginal and treaty rights, harvest birds during the closed
season as well as harvest eggs. That process involving extensive
consultations with aboriginal people's organizations will lead to
negotiations with the United States to amend the convention
itself. In the meantime, special measures that allow continued
pursuit of traditional harvesting in the spring and early summer
are in place to address the closed season harvest of migratory
birds.
5229
[Translation]
Preparing amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention
Act has required extensive consultation on the federal
regulations designed to protect these birds.
After second reading, there was another opportunity for
consultation on the proposed changes when the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
carried out a thorough study of the bill, with some excellent
comments by a wide range of witnesses. Several changes
proposed by the committee have been included, and I am
therefore confident that the bill now better reflects the interests
of all Canadians and will help us protect migratory birds
effectively, now and in the future.
Many of these amendments are so-called housekeeping
amendments to update and clarify existing provisions. Major
changes include much higher fines for offences, greater
flexibility in sentencing for the courts, better protection for
migratory birds and stricter and more efficient implementation
procedures.
In using its power to legislate on these issues, Parliament
reflects the values of Canadians and their interest in protecting
our wildlife heritage. These changes will be compatible with
other federal acts that regulate natural resources and the
environment. Implementation of this legislation will be
flexible, while acting as a major deterrent to unlawful activities.
(1620)
[English]
The poaching and smuggling of migratory birds is a lucrative
and growing business. Growing demand for Canadian species of
migratory birds and eggs is increasing their value and could put
some species at risk.
A serious offence under the act is one in which an illegal
activity is detrimental to the survival of a species, as such is the
case when the activity involves an endangered species or a large
quantity of specimens of a threatened or other species.
Based on these factors, the committee decided to increase
substantially the penalties for offences beyond what was
proposed in the original bill. It must be recalled that the original
bill, passed in 1917, is now 77 years old and what used to
constitute significant fines then are completely insignificant
today.
For serious offences, the maximum fine will be increased
from $300 in the existing bill to $100,000 for an individual or
$250,000 for a corporation with provisions for increasing fines
for a continuing or subsequent offence.
The courts will also have greater flexibility in imposing
sentences by providing court authority for special orders. Such
orders can be particularly effective in the case of environmental
legislation where those convicted can be ordered to remedy the
harm, pay for their remediation, avoid activity which could lead
to repeat offences, publish the facts relating to the case or
perform community service.
They allow the courts to take into account not only the nature
of the offence but also the particular circumstances of the person
convicted. Therefore it allows for constructive and creative
sentencing.
[Translation]
Amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act has given us
an opportunity to consider how, in the future, we can react to
activities that are a threat to migratory birds. In accordance with
the Biodiversity Convention, the sperm, embryos, and tissue
cultures of migratory birds will now be included under the act.
Eggs are already protected under the legislation. Although there
is no immediate threat to migratory birds in this respect, there
are constantly new developments in the use of biological
materials.
Instead of preventing such uses, the act, as amended, is
designed to ensure that these developments do not threaten the
conservation of migratory birds and the many benefits they
bring to Canadians. Activities associated with tissue cultures
and the use of sperm, eggs and embryos of migratory birds will
be regulated and managed through licensing programs.
[English]
As I mentioned previously, natural resource management
must incorporate not only environmental and economic
concerns but social and cultural values as well. Canada's
aboriginal people have lived in harmony with the land and its
wildlife for many centuries, for thousands of years as they say.
Their heritage and even their survival have been linked to the
sustainable use of wildlife resources.
Migratory birds have had a particular significance to
aboriginal peoples with a great tradition of knowledge
developed over many generations, engendering both respect for
the birds and an ability to ensure their sustainable use.
In response to testimony from several witnesses, the standing
committee amended the original bill to better reflect aboriginal
concerns by including a non-derogation clause in the bill. It
states: ``that nothing in this act shall be construed so as to
abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal treaty rights
of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982''.
This in itself is not sufficient to accommodate and respond to
the traditional practices of Canada's aboriginal peoples. For this
reason, a separate process is under way, as I mentioned earlier,
to address aboriginal and treaty rights to harvest migratory birds
during the closed season as well as the harvest of eggs.
5230
(1625 )
Consultations with aboriginal peoples have been intensive
over the past four years and will lead to negotiations with the
United States later this year to amend the migratory birds
convention. In the meantime special enforcement measures that
allow continued pursuit of traditional harvesting in the spring
and early summer are in place to address the closed season
harvest of migratory birds under the existing and amended act.
[Translation]
The standing committee believes that Parliament must be
given the opportunity to examine any changes to the convention
following these or any future negotiations. For this reason, the
committee added a provision to Bill C-23 which states that any
amendment to the convention shall be submitted to both houses
of Parliament and be debated here in the House of Commons.
A number of enforcement provisions have also been updated
and strengthened in Bill C-23. These include provisions relating
to inspections, searches, seizures, forfeiture and disposal of
property as well as others consistent with the Criminal Code, the
charter of rights and other federal enactments respecting the
environment and natural resources.
The Minister of the Environment may also designate any
person or class of persons to act as game officers. If these
persons are employed by the government of a province, the
appointment must be approved by that provincial government.
[English]
I mentioned the enforcement provisions at the end of my
summary of the more substantive changes to the act. The reason
for this is that it brings up an issue extremely important to the
conservation of wildlife. Neither the federal government nor a
provincial government, or for that matter the governments of
other countries, can hope to effectively conserve biodiversity in
isolation. Co-operation and partnership are the keys to
achieving this goal and other goals linked to sustainable
development.
From a point of view of both practicality and effectiveness the
issue of enforcement is one in which a co-ordinated
federal-provincial approach makes the most sense. There are
many other areas for which this approach generates benefits,
where the objectives and concerns are shared and where
building on each other's strengths through co-operative action
improves environmental results.
An excellent example of such a partnership is the
international North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The plan, originally signed in 1986 is an initiative to protect and
enhance wetland and upland habitat on a continental basis so as
to stem the decline of waterfowl. The NAWMP has evolved from
a plan focused on waterfowl conservation to one that
incorporates benefits toward biodiversity conservation.
The plan exemplifies sustainable development in action by
involving private land owners and resource sectors to integrate
wildlife conservation practices with sustainable economic
development, particularly through soil and water conservation
initiatives.
Partners include the United States federal and state
governments, NGOs and certainly all Canadian provinces. As
well Mexico is now a full partner, making the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan a truly continental conservation
plan.
On June 9 of this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment signed the update to the plan extending
Canada's commitment for another five years.
As the minister pointed out, the success of the plan in the last
six years has been to arrest the destruction and the loss of
wetland habitat for migratory birds. Our common goal for the
next five years is to set aside more breeding grounds and to see
our skies filled with an annual migration of 100 million birds.
[Translation]
This co-operative approach offers some advantages for
several other facets of wildlife conservation, some of which will
be dealt with on third reading of the Canada Wildlife Act.
Bill C-23 which amends the Migratory Birds Convention Act
represents a major step forward in the protection and
conservation of migratory birds and in the fulfilment of our
commitments under the Biodiversity Convention.
(1630)
[English]
This year, 1994, another three species of birds were added to
the endangered species list of Canada. In April 1994 the list was
made public and we learned that the bobwhite, the king rail and
the Acadian flycatcher were added to Canada's list of
endangered species.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada stated:
Again this year, we are finding that we are designating species particularly
from southern Ontario and the Okanagan area of British Columbia-
It stressed that the big problem for many species is that they
were running out of places to live. The Acadian flycatcher, for
example, is a songbird that needs large tracks of forest which are
increasingly scarce.
I quote from one member of the committee:
You can immediately see that as we cut up the forest into smaller and smaller
patches there have been smaller and smaller numbers of these birds, and now it's
down to a critical level of just a few dozen pairs.
5231
This is the story as we deplete habitats. I know some will say
this act is not important in itself, that it only concerns birds, and
what are birds at a time of economic downturn when people are
out of work and Canada faces a tremendous economic crisis. At
the same time I would suggest that birds are part of the whole.
We have to look at the broader context of our heritage as a
country and as a people. There can be no heritage without nature
and all its components. Can we imagine Canada without the
snow geese? Can we imagine Canada without its wildlife,
without all its birds? Our heritage has been bestowed on us; we
are blessed that way. We have to make a special effort to
conserve, to preserve or to maintain that heritage for future
generations.
There are good signs. The peregrine falcon had almost
disappeared, and due to the efforts of volunteers all across
Canada and a tremendous dedication by our wildlife services,
including the federal wildlife service, the peregrine falcon is
thriving again.
We must resolve ourselves to take very seriously matters that
touch environment, quality of life, our ecosystems and habitats
that preserve our birds and our wildlife. They are essential parts
of the fibre of our land, of the way we live and of our heritage. I
urge all members to join with me in supporting the bill
unanimously and reinforcing that resolve among us.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I take part in this debate on Bill C-23 this
afternoon, immediately after the parliamentary secretary, the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in Quebec. These past few
weeks, we have examined Bill C-23 to implement a convention
for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United
States.
(1635)
A great many witnesses have appeared before the committee
to help us better grasp the problem. These individuals and
organizations spokespersons were all experts from whom we
have learned a lot. It is now obvious to me that this legislation,
which was passed in 1917, really needed to be updated.
Knowing how important it is to protect migratory birds from
becoming an endangered species, we Bloc members have no
major problem with this bill, including the amendments
proposed by the committee. It is simply a matter of bringing an
outdated act into line with the realities of the 21st century. As
the saying goes where I come from, foresight is better than
hindsight. So, as soon as the act comes into effect, all birds
flying across Canada will be protected.
You can imagine what it would be like if only certain species
were to be protected. You can picture as well as me hunters
noticing from afar something flying, shooting and then pleading
rightly or wrongly that they thought it was a bird from another
species. More illogical yet would be to protect only endangered
species, letting other species be fired on at will until they too
become endangered.
Amendments to this act will also enable us to pull the rug
from under potential dealers in sperm, embryo and tissue
culture.
The Convention on Biodiversity ratified by Canada in
December 1992 unveiled what trading in such things could
represent. It would be possible to create hybrid species for
experimentation, or even conduct experiments directly on
tissue. The possession, purchase or sale of migratory birds are
also strictly prohibited. Indeed, it is now stipulated in this bill
that no person shall be in possession of a migratory bird or nest,
or buy, sell, exchange or give a migratory bird or nest or make it
the subject of a commercial transaction.
So, that will be it from now on in living rooms or summer
cottages where hunting trophies are displayed. In my part of the
country, it is not uncommon to see displayed in summer homes
stuffed specimens of these birds which are now so rare. The time
for this is now past.
As the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis noted
earlier, the fines-the maximum fines, of course-are very
high, so much so, in fact, that during our committee
deliberations, I often wondered out loud and said to myself that
``migratory birds will be better protected than our children''.
The new Act will also give the minister more power in the
designation of game officers. And I quote:
6. (1) The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as game
officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations-
I was somewhat intrigued by this provision, Mr. Speaker.
(1640)
I questioned witnesses in committee to find out whether the
minister could, for instance, designate all members of a hunting
and fishing association to act as game officers.
I was told yes, but that such associations might have restricted
powers. I find this provision a little scary. It would be difficult
for an ordinary citizen to go to a farmer's land to tell him that he
is breaking the law. He runs a great risk of simply being ejected
from a private property.
My fear is that some members of these associations may have
big arms and small heads. A member automatically designated
to act as game officer with little training but big arms could
decide to play policeman.
I will always remember a sentence I heard in my Grade 11
course on social, political and economic life: ``In Canada, a free
country, it is better to see 99 guilty persons go free than one
innocent person unjustly punished''. That made a big impres-
5232
sion on me. It is a minor concern, but we will still vote for Bill
C-23.
It is, however, a well-known fact that there are not enough
game officers to enforce the act. In that case, we should
recognize the need to designate civilian game officers
immediately but with really restricted powers, to ensure that our
laws are respected.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think it would be worthwhile to take
certain measures to ensure that the people collectively
designated as game officers have the skills required to maintain
credibility. That is why we suggested two amendments in
committee.
The purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the
people collectively designated by the minister have at least
received the training appropriate to their functions. That of the
second amendment is to make the designation of a class of
persons conditional on the approval of the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development.
As regularly happens when we vote here in the House of
Commons, our two amendments were defeated, but I am still
convinced that it would be important to exercise a little more
control over this kind of appointment; otherwise these
provisions could do more harm than good.
If you allow me, I would now like to draw your attention to a
presentation given to us by Daniel Jauvin, president of the
Quebec ornithologists' association. This Quebec association of
more than 30 bird-watching clubs or societies has produced
many briefs on the protection of birds and their habitats.
In particular, it does scientific research on birds and
especially on endangered species. This organization supports
the bill but has nevertheless carried out a very worthwhile
exercise. Its members checked the translation in the schedule to
Bill C-23, namely the Convention.
(1645)
According to these experts of the ornithological association,
the French terminology used to name the birds is obsolete. They
therefore suggested to the committee the terminology used by
the international commission on bird names in French as
published in Noms français des oiseaux du monde. This
terminology is the one recognized throughout the world. The
problems are of two kinds. First, an attempt was made to
translate directly from English to French. As a result, names of
genera were translated by names of species. Second, the
association believes that the names of many species which
should be there are still missing, unfortunately.
As an appendix to their brief, they presented to us a proper
translation of articles I to IV of the above-mentioned
Convention. This presentation showed that we should go further
than simply reading the legal terminology. Such translation
problems can seriously affect the enforcement of the law. Some
species might be in the English version but not the French one.
This would cause interpretation problems that would slow down
and complicate law enforcement.
The hon. member for Terrebonne and myself were also very
interested in the comments made by another speaker, Mr. Daniel
Lacombe, who is the secretary general for the Fédération
québécoise de la faune. That organization supports, of course,
the proposed legislative changes but deplores the fact that all the
regulations are left to the free will of officials from the Canadian
Wildlife Service and Environment Canada. Mr. Lacombe also
pointed out that it is unfortunate to see organizations such as the
one he represents not being really consulted when regulations
are drafted. It appears that the Canadian Wildlife Service merely
informs these groups of the new rules in effect. Since these
organizations use legislation such as Bill C-23, they should at
least be consulted on a regular, effective, honest, and serious
basis.
Mr. Lacombe gave us an example which illustrates the
inconsistencies of the current process. He told us that the
hunting season-this is something I still have a lot of trouble
understanding, but that is the way it is-opens one week earlier
in Ontario than in Quebec. The reason why it is later in Quebec is
to protect the various species of birds. The same birds are found
in Ontario and in Quebec, but the season opens earlier in Ontario
because there are sedentary species. In other words, there are
birds which remain in Ontario because they must have figured
out that there is an imaginary line between the two provinces and
they do not come to Quebec. However, Quebec birds do visit
their friends in Ontario, where they can get bombarded one week
earlier. This is the official reason which was given to our
committee.
According to Mr. Lacombe, migratory birds mingle with other
birds and the end result is the same for both groups.
Consequently, Mr. Lacombe deplores that, when meetings take
place with officials from the Canadian Wildlife Service, it is not
possible to solve such issues, since those meetings are designed
to provide information and not to consult organizations such as
the one represented by Mr. Lacombe.
(1650)
I want to make a comment regarding the Canadian Wildlife
Service. I received documents from the president of the
Association des sauvaginiers du Québec, Mr. Gaétan Fillion,
who is upset at the lack of communication between his
organization and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Mr. Speaker,
the Fédération québécoise de la faune is not the only one
suffering from this problem. It may be that this is a chronic
problem only in Quebec, but it does seem persistent.
In our review of Bill C-23, we should look at the issue of
regulations with those testimonies in mind. In that regard,
officials from the Department of the Environment should look at
two major issues. There are of course migratory birds which are
5233
endangered, but there are many others which pollute our
environment, including gulls.
At the Daishowa manufacturing plant, in Quebec City, it took
almost two years to get permission, not to kill such birds, but to
destroy their nests and their eggs. There were an estimated
170,000 pairs of adult gulls capable of reproducing on the site
and this situation was causing serious problems. When stringent
regulations exist and when we have problems, we resolve them.
When I was mayor, if I had taken two years to make such a minor
decision, I would not have remained in office very long. This is
one example. The process needs to be smoothed out so that
effective solutions can be adopted quickly.
Secondly, when we protect wildlife, we must protect their
habitat. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if a flock of geese decided to
descend on your home for three weeks and you were not allowed
to frighten them away. Believe me, I have tried. They merely
circle about and land on your property, as if they had decided
that it was their home. Imagine the condition of your lawn after
three weeks. Do you know who would be responsible for the
cleanup costs? You would. The legislation makes no provision
for any compensation. I raised this question and an official told
me that the farmer could rely on his crop insurance. I checked
this out and while it is true, what if the poor farmer does not have
crop insurance that covers this kind of damage? Then he would
have to pay for the damages out of his own pocket.
I am telling you this because I have received letters to the
effect that the snow geese were chased-I am not sure how-out
of the Montmagny region. The geese ended up in the
Rimouski-Témiscouata area. Snow geese are lovely creatures,
but when 40,000 or 50,000 of them descend all at once for a
three-week to one-month stay, well it is nice to see them arrive,
but it is equally nice to see them leave.
Mr. Rocheleau: Just like houseguests.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Just like houseguests, as the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières pointed out. It can be quite a burden,
and there is nothing in Bill C-23 to provide financial assistance
for individuals who have to accommodate these animals for
extended periods.
(1655)
I hope that our senior officials, under the instructions of the
Minister of the Environment, will look at regulatory measures
and other ways to reach agreements that will make this
legislation very effective.
The legislator should take advantage of the experience of
users to make these laws far more effective. It seems we will go
ahead with Bill C-23, which I think is a step in the right
direction towards protecting our migratory birds. However, as
was pointed out earlier, the agreements are with the United
States and Mexico. We should extend such agreements much
further south, because we have birds that migrate very far south,
and we could protect them so they are not killed in the south.
These agreements must be concluded with our neighbours on a
nation-to-nation basis.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Bloc Quebecois will fully
support the Liberal government on Bill C-23.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of Bill C-23 is to replace the existing Migratory Birds
Convention Act which was originally proclaimed in 1917. It has
essentially remained the same ever since.
The original act regulated hunting in the use of migratory
birds, prohibited traffic and commercialization, controlled the
use of migratory birds through permits, and provided for the
establishment of migratory bird sanctuaries in order to control
and manage areas important for the protection of migratory
birds.
The original act was designed to protect migratory birds from
indiscriminate slaughter and to sustain their populations.
The proposed migratory bird act now before the House would
modernize the language of the original Migratory Birds
Convention Act and clarify the extent of its application, the
prohibitions, the regulatory authorities, the administrative
provisions and the offences and punishment sections.
The highlights of this bill are the broadening of the legislation
to include all migratory birds, the broadening of the authority
under the act given to wildlife enforcement officers, and the
levels of fines to be increased.
The new act provides the legislative basis for managing the
harvest and other uses of ducks, geese and other game birds, as
well as for the protecting migratory birds, and provides for the
creation of migratory bird sanctuaries.
In conjunction with the Canada Wildlife Act the new
Migratory Birds Convention Act will provide a greater deterrent
to illegal activities such as poaching by providing a maximum
penalty of $25,000 or six months in jail or both for serious
offences.
The mandate of the federal environment department in
Canada is to manage and conserve migratory birds and in
co-operation with the provinces and territories other wildlife of
national and international concern. Canada as a member of the
international community has obligations to help preserve and
protect our wildlife and wildlife areas, including bird
populations and bird sanctuaries.
Protecting and conserving Canada's bird diverse populations
are an important part of our ecosystem. As the planet's human
population swells and spreads over once wild areas, some 70 per
cent of the world's 9,600 bird species are responding with
declines, and 1,000 species are threatened with extinction in the
near future according to a report by Birdlife International, a
5234
conservation group based in England that charts the loss of
habitats and species.
What is especially alarming beyond the direct losses that are
taking place is that bird populations are a particularly good
indicator of the health of the whole ecosystem. Canada must
take a leadership role in the push for conservation and protection
of bird species, and this leadership must begin with the changes
made to the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
(1700 )
Conserving and protecting our environment has become a
major political and economic issue in our country. Opinion polls
consistently show that over 90 per cent of Canadians are
concerned about the state of our environment. These same polls
also show that the Canadian people are split with regard to their
satisfaction with the federal government's handling of difficult
environmental issues.
Last week all across Canada, Canada Environment Week
activities were taking place and provided Canadians with a good
opportunity to think about ways they can help improve our
environment. Environmental citizenship, being informed and
taking action was the focus of this year's Environment Week.
Canada's policymakers should sit up and take notice.
Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the importance
of the environment to our society. We as politicians hold the
responsibility to act as prudently and effectively as possible in
order to protect our environment and our wildlife areas for
future generations.
Government legislation is just one aspect of this
environmentally conscious trend, albeit an important one.
The Reform Party is deeply concerned with Canada's
environment. In this regard one of the principles of the party is
that we believe Canada's identity and vision for the future
should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our
land and the supreme importance to our well-being of
exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our natural
resources and physical environment.
In general, the Reform Party supports the changes made in
this act after having had the opportunity to examine possible
amendments in committee. Many groups made representations
to the committee and some changes to the bill could be made.
One aspect of the bill with which my party is very pleased is
the stronger enforcement and punishment section. Although this
bill finally puts some teeth into the existing Migratory Birds
Convention Act that up to this point it has lacked, we believe
that the enforcement provisions for maximum penalties could
have been made even tougher by increasing the punishment
provisions as proposed at the committee stage.
One part of the amendments that is of great concern to our
party is the part that gives the minister more power to implement
changes to the convention without Parliament's approval.
During the committee meetings it was felt that this concern
was not adequately addressed. Under the existing act should
Canada and the United States agree to amend the convention
such amendments in order to come into force in Canada would
require an amendment to the act. Specifically, the schedule to
the act would have to be amended by legislation approved by
Parliament.
However, under Bill C-23 a different implementation process
would apply in which convention amendments would be
implemented by ministerial order and the approval of
Parliament would not be needed for such amendments to take
effect.
Since Canada is seeking to renegotiate the convention to
address aboriginal and treaty rights to harvest migratory birds
during the closed season and to harvest eggs, if Bill C-23 is
adopted any changes that were made under the convention in
this regard would accordingly be implemented by ministerial
order.
Parliament would have no role with respect to any changes
that might be made from time to time under the convention.
Although the implementation of convention amendments would
be expedited under the process proposed by the bill, the fact is
Parliament would not be involved in any way.
The Reform members believe that this is the wrong approach
and that the bill should be amended so as to provide that
amendments to the convention be laid before Parliament before
being added to the order on the schedule.
We do believe in protecting and conserving Canada's
environment and its wildlife. We believe that this legislation
does begin to address some of the concerns that Canadians have
in these areas.
There is one part of the amendments which I have some fairly
close knowledge of and which I would like to draw to the
attention of the House. I am hoping that there might be some
Liberal members following my presentation who will address
this question.
On May 6, I was approached, as the member responsible in my
party for the shepherding of Bill C-23 through the House of
Commons, by our House leader and was informed that there was
a representative of the environment minister who wished to
meet with me and wanted to push the bill through to third
reading at that particular time.
5235
(1705 )
I was only partially in favour of that. In other words, I felt as
though I was under pressure because I had not had an
opportunity to seriously consider it going through to third stage
but there was a tremendous amount of arm twisting. Perhaps the
parliamentary secretary to the environment minister may recall
and the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on the
Environment may recall.
We had meetings. There was this tremendous pressure to
bring it through to third reading. I resisted as a result of the fact
that there was advice that they wished to bring some small
amendments to the act. Not being a lawyer, I was concerned
about the fact that I would be letting something go over which I
did not have any control or knowledge. As a consequence I said,
no, I would not give unanimous consent to see the thing go
through to third reading. That was on May 6.
On May 26 Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come on behalf of
the Grand Council of the Crees appeared before our standing
committee. He drew to our attention information about the
James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and in part the
statement that he read into the record at that time said: ``The
agreement which we signed obligates the Government of
Canada and the province of Quebec in perpetuity to respect Cree
rights and carry out certain obligations.
Our treaty, then, forms the basis for the protection of our way
of life. Several principles were embodied in these regimes:
co-operative co-management of resources with government;
family based Cree hunting territories; the beaver preserve
system; the Crees as guardians of the land and animals;
recognition and training of Cree game wardens and finally the
paramount guiding principle of conservation''.
I am absolutely prepared to accept the representation by the
representative of the Cree totally at face value. I accept what he
said there completely without question. He goes on to say: ``In
light of this brief background on our treaty rights, you might be
able to understand our consternation at the provisions contained
in the legislation which has been tabled before the standing
committee''.
He adds: ``This bill purports to address through its substantive
and enabling provisions the management and harvesting of
migratory birds. Indeed, it is entitled an act to implement a
convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and
the United States''.
He underlines: ``For legislation emanating from the
Parliament of Canada in 1994 and in view of the solemn
commitments made in the James Bay and northern Quebec
agreement and in addressing issues so critical to the identity,
livelihood and culture of aboriginal people, how is it possible
that this legislation does not make the least mention of
aboriginal people, their dependence on the resource or their
rights to the resource? We find this, to say the least,
extraordinary''.
He goes on to say: ``We are not invoking simply a legal right
or an apparently failed treaty provision. Neither are we arguing
for the respect of our rights at any or all cost to the environment,
but how did this legislation come this far without any
consultation with us? How can the drafters of these acts be so
oblivious of Canada's constitutional and statutory duties to
protect aboriginal harvest rights? Bear in mind that the Crees
have hunted in our territory since time immemorial''.
He goes on to express a feeling of real distress about the fact
that he had not been consulted. I asked the legal counsel for the
Cree at that time to get back to me with the time at which it was
informed or brought into the picture and I was informed by the
legal council for the Cree that it was brought into the picture
May 16, a full 10 days after a representative of the environment
minister was trying to arm twist and get this through without any
provision for aboriginal concerns.
I am very sensitive to the fact that last week in particular we
had representations from a member of our party that raised a
tremendous amount of consternation and concern in the way that
he was speaking about aboriginal questions. I am very sensitive
to that issue. I wish to raise the issue without emotion. I am
hoping that there is someone in the House who will be prepared
to answer this question.
(1710 )
Section 5 of the proposed legislation reads:
Except as authorized by the regulations, no person shall, without lawful
excuse,
(a) be in possession of a migratory bird or nest; or
(b) buy, sell, exchange or give a migratory bird or nest or make it the subject of a
commercial transaction.
Further on in the legislation, section 12 reads:
The Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in
Council considers necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act
and the Convention, including regulations.
One of the regulations is for granting permits to kill, capture,
take, buy, sell, exchange, give or possess migratory birds or to
make migratory birds the subject of a commercial transaction.
The act calls for penalties, for example, in section 13:
``Every person who contravenes section 5, subsection 6(5) or
any regulation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, or both; or is guilty of an indictable
offence and is liable for $100,000 or imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years, or both''.
5236
In my constituency last year we had someone who received
the designation on a piece of plastic that said that he was now
recognized as being-I apologize, I am not familiar with the
terminology-an Indian or of Indian status. Upon receipt of that
recognition he then drove 200 miles, went to a feeding station
and blew away a world class ram and said that he had the right to
do that.
Any members in this House who takes my comment to be a
slam or a slur would be sadly mistaken. I am asking a very blunt,
open, honest question here. I would like to know, with the
inclusion in Bill C-23, if a person may be subject to up to
$100,000 fine because they are in possession of a migratory bird
or nest or they attempt to buy, sell, exchange or give a migratory
bird or nest or make it the subject of a commercial transaction.
Basing that on one's parentage because of clause 2(3): ``For
greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to
abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty
rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982''.
I am having some difficulty and some confusion in my mind
about that in terms of the long term picture. I believe that the
statements made by Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come in his
presentations to the standing committee have some merit. What
he was basically stating there, as I understood it, was that this
issue should be looked at as to how we are going to work it out.
He undoubtedly will be coming at it from a different
perspective than I am. I am coming at it from the perspective of
saying that if a person shoots a bird the bird is dead. If we
assume that there might be one or two people of the Cree nation
who are not prepared to obey the law under what law will they be
prosecuted, and would I or the secretary be prosecuted to the
extent of $100,000?
I guess that is the one final question. Understand that the
Reform Party supports the intent of Bill C-23. We wish to go
ahead with the protection of the migratory birds. That is not the
question. Also, we want to recognize that there are some long
standing historic rights that the Cree and other aboriginal people
have that have to be taken into account. What I am having
difficulty with is the inclusion of that one amendment. I am
having some difficulty understanding how we will be able to
bring about regulations that are fair and equitable to all people
in Canada.
With that, recognizing that the probability is that recognition
of aboriginal rights would nonetheless supersede Bill C-23, the
inclusion of it is simply a statement of what is a fact. I would
like, if possible, if someone is going to be following me,
particularly from the government side, if they could help me
understand how we are going to address this issue.
(1715 )
The Deputy Speaker: On the first round there is no right for
questions or comments as members will know, but with
unanimous consent since the member has posed obvious
questions and comments to the parliamentary secretary, perhaps
we could seek unanimous consent to allow the parliamentary
secretary to respond to the questions.
Is there unanimous consent to have the parliamentary
secretary reply to the comments made?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions that I
would like to answer.
The first one relates to the process. In fairness to the person
the hon. member is referring to, the representative of the
environment minister, who suggested that the law be passed on
that day, I can, knowing this person well, confirm that there was
no hidden agenda, no intention to steamroll the thing.
First of all, the person in charge of the legislative agenda for
the minister had been advised that the timetable for legislation
was getting much shorter and that it was very important to get
these two bills through before the session recessed.
More than that, the fact is that under a review of the powers of
regulation and the regulations of the Ministry of the
Environment in 1993 which I referred to in my speech, an
extensive consultation had been carried out on a very broad
basis of all the stakeholders, including a review of the migratory
birds convention, which included representatives from
aboriginal peoples, from the various stakeholders involved and
interested in this bill.
Further, amendments have been discussed for four years now
with regard to the convention itself involving representatives of
the aboriginal peoples. In complete objectivity it was felt by the
people who advised the legislative assistant to the minister that
we could proceed because consultation had been extensive all
along.
Seeing we did not have a consent, we recognize because we
found out there would be time that it was a better process to have
gone to the committee. I can assure the House that the person
concerned backs this up 100 per cent.
I can assure the member there was no hidden agenda there, no
need to sort of steamroll the House or anything like this. It was a
genuine attempt to complete the process, having taken into
account that consultations had been extensive in the past.
With regard to the second question, the aboriginal treaties and
rights under the Constitution, what we want to do in the act is
really confirm the position that exists today, that the aboriginal
people hunt and harvest during the closed season for other
hunters. That does not mean to say that they are not subject to all
the penalties of the law should they infringe any of the provi-
5237
sions of the act, except that the season is open as far as they are
concerned.
That has been the tradition for thousands of years. It is a fact
of life that we want to enshrine in the law. Even if it were not in
the law they would still have this right. What we wanted to do as
a very important symbolic gesture as required by Chief
Coon-Come to sort of enshrine it in the law here. Certain legal
advice obtained differed according to whether we did or did not
recognize the rights of aboriginal peoples. They must be
recognized anyway in actual practice. This is the position,
whether we do or do not recognize their rights. We felt it was
very important that we do.
(1720 )
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin I would like to thank all the members of the
environmental and sustainable development committee for their
hard work and commitment to this important piece of
legislation.
As a committee we listened to a number of witnesses
representing conservation groups, hunters and anglers, and
native groups who all have a stake in the outcome of what we
have to do today regarding this legislation.
While the state of migratory birds in Canada may seem to
some as less significant and less newsworthy than bills
pertaining to economic matters or crime and justice issues, it is
very significant.
As this legislation has remained relatively untouched since
1917 and if the future mirrors the past then it is possible that
changes to this new legislation may not occur for another 50, 60,
or 70 years.
More important, the health of our migratory birds, indeed the
health of all of our wildlife reflects the quality of human health.
It is with these thoughts in mind that the committee members
gave very serious consideration to Bill C-23 as drafted and the
subsequent committee amendments. The Migratory Birds
Convention Act implements the terms of the migratory birds
convention signed in 1916 by Canada and the United States.
The migratory birds convention will be undergoing
renegotiation in the fall of 1994 to better reflect realities of the
1990s. Bill C-23 will support these changes.
The original migratory birds convention signed in 1916 by
Canada and the United States was intended to curb blatant
overhunting practices which in some instances led to the
extinction of species of birds and of near extinction with other
species.
As one witness told us, we were able to create an incredible
success story on the northern part of this continent through the
migratory bird convention and other strategies to stem the
slaughter and near annihilation of certain bird species.
Conditions have changed since the turn of this century and as
we approach the next century we must design and implement
legislation that acknowledges and better reflects current
demands.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development reviewed Bill C-23, heard witnesses, received
briefs, and as a result decided Bill C-23 was supportable with a
few additional changes.
While a separate process to address First Nations aboriginal
or treaty rights is under way and will be included in negotiations
to the Canada-U.S. migratory bird convention it was decided by
the committee to include a non-derogation clause that clearly
acknowledges aboriginal or treaty rights.
For greater certainty nothing in this act shall be construed as
to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty
rights of the aboriginal people of Canada under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
For First Nations people migratory birds play a key role in
sustaining a way of life. Migratory birds and wildlife are central
to the preservation of not only First Nations culture but in some
communities their nutritional survival as well.
This is not to say that conservation and sustainability are at
risk. Matthew Coon-Come, Chief of the Grand Cree Council,
simply and eloquently stated: ``Geese first then Cree and third
sports hunting''.
Until negotiations to the migratory bird convention that
reflect aboriginal treaty rights are complete, special
enforcement measures exist that allow for traditional harvesting
in closed season of migratory birds and eggs.
Another amendment to Bill C-23 allows for game officers
who carry out duties or functions under the act to be exempt
from any of its provisions or regulations. This will greatly
facilitate the enforcement aspects of the act, as game officers
will be able to undertake undercover operations with suspected
offenders without fear of being charged. This should improve
their ability to gather clear and decisive evidence against
offenders.
Canadians value wildlife and the natural resources of this
country. While a great many Canadians hunt or fish over 75 per
cent enjoy wildlife through non-consumptive participation.
They spent $2.4 billion on primary non-consumptive wildlife
related trips and outings in 1991; $1.2 billion was spent on
hunting.
Preservation of migratory birds is very important to
Canadians and contributes in very positive ways to the economy.
(1725 )
Commercial poaching and smuggling of migratory birds pose
grave risks. With this in mind, the committee spent a long time
deliberating over the level of fines for offenders. After a great
deal of thoughtful consideration, it was decided to increase the
5238
fines for summary offences for individuals to a maximum of
$50,000 and for a corporation to a maximum of $100,000.
Maximum fines for indictable offences have been increased
for individuals to $100,000 and for corporations to $250,000. In
the case of subsequent offences, the subsequent fine may be
doubled from the previous offence, notwithstanding the
maximums already outlined.
Some may scoff that the value of a bird being $100,000 or
$250,000 is far too exorbitant. I would suggest that if they do,
they do so in ignorance. No monetary value can be placed on the
killing of a bird or other wildlife where that killing contributed
in a real way to the endangerment of the species.
This government is committed to strengthening the
participation of committees in the work of governing the
country. I applaud this initiative and see as a result of this new
attitude toward governing the substantial contributions made by
members of the environment and sustainable development
committee in proposing amendments to Bill C-23.
The final amendment I would like to address today arises
from suggestions made by witnesses appearing before the
committee. I believe the inclusion of this amendment
strengthens the democratic process by increasing participation
in that process. This amendment proposes that any amendment
to the migratory birds convention be tabled in both Houses and
debated in the House of Commons.
As we proceeded with the witnesses, it became quite evident
that a number of other issues beyond the scope of this legislation
must also be addressed if we are to truly protect and enhance the
health of migratory birds.
The committee examined both Bill C-23 and Bill C-24, a bill
to amend the Canada Wildlife Act. A number of concerns
articulated by witnesses pertain to the wider category of
wildlife, not only migratory birds.
Issues related to enforcement and habitat protection were
most often identified by witnesses. From my experience with
the two pieces of legislation, Bill C-23 and Bill C-24, I have
come to respect the dedication and commitment shown by
officials of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
However, in terms of enforcement they are in dire need of
support to increase the number of game officers. Witness after
witness spoke of real problems that existed because required
coverage was far too vast for the number of available game
officers.
As a result, it may be difficult to implement even the best
legislation. Habitat protection, another key concern of
witnesses, has many dimensions. Many strategies need to be
deployed in order to ensure sustainability and viability.
The migratory birds convention was originally intended to
deal with the severe overhunting problems that threatened many
species at that time. While commercial poaching and smuggling
are still significant threats, habitat protection is the number one
concern for the preservation of not only migratory birds but all
Canadian wildlife.
The amendment to the Canada Wildlife Act to expand the
scope of coverage of wildlife to include all living organisms is a
much needed change and provides not only a valuable starting
point but also a valuable rethinking of what species preservation
really means.
If we are really serious about preserving and protecting
wildlife in this country, we must first and foremost be very
serious about habitat protection. Wildlife have been called the
barometer of the landscape. The capacity of the land or habitat
to support fish, birds and mammals is a good indicator of its
capacity to meet human needs; wildlife habitat is human habitat.
As long as we have endangered spaces in this country we will
continue to have endangered species. There are a number of
strategies and programs designed to rehabilitate, preserve and
protect habitats.
We have entered into agreements with the United States and
now recently with the Mexican government through the North
American waterfowl management plan to ensure that migratory
waterfowl have safe and healthy areas for nesting and feeding.
As I stated earlier in my speech, even though we have
achieved a truly unique and wonderful success story in reversing
the trend toward endangerment and annihilation for some
species, I fear we are falling behind. Our precious wetlands, the
most biologically diverse ecosystems, are under attack. They
are being drained for agricultural uses and development
purposes.
(1730)
Toxic substances have entered our watersheds and
contaminated the fish the birds eat resulting in deformities, soft
eggshells that cannot withstand the pressure of parental
incubation, crossed bills, jaw defects and malformed feet and
joints. Forests that provided habitat protection for wildlife have
been lost due to clear-cutting.
These are for the most part beyond the scope of the legislation
before us. However, they are important considerations that we
must not forget if we are to truly preserve the sustainability and
health of migratory birds.
I urge the members of this House to support Bill C-23 and its
proposed amendments fully without delay.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, just like
my colleague from Frontenac, I too am pleased, as a member of
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, to speak on Bill C-23 today.
5239
This bill replaces the Migratory Birds Convention Act which
dates back to 1917. Needless to say that many things have
changed since 1917. That is why I consider essential that this act
which has remained basically unchanged over all those years be
reviewed.
To fully grasp the meaning of the federal legislation on the
subject, some background information is required concerning
the origins of this act. The act was passed in 1917 after an
international convention was entered into by Canada and the
United States in 1916. The purpose of the Migratory Bird
Convention was to protect migratory birds from the slaughter
they were facing at the time and save their population from often
senseless human action.
The 1917 enactment regulated the hunting of migratory birds
and prohibited trafficking and commercialization of them. The
goals of the act remain relevant today, but over the years the
means by which they were to be achieved have become outdated.
Lawmakers could certainly not be expected to foresee in 1917
the sharp scientific and technological expansion that lay ahead,
over the course of the 20th century. As we know, phenomenal
advances were made in science. Protection of embryos and
tissue cultures as well as the protection of endangered species
and prohibition of trafficking are the main considerations the
new legislation must be based on.
This new legislation, that is to say Bill C-23, is indeed
essential to protect migratory birds. Recent reports in the
Saskatoon Star Phoenix and La Presse indicated that 1,000 out
of 9,600 bird species, or 10 per cent of our bird population,
threaten to become extinct in the short term. This is quite
obviously a matter of urgency.
Also, one of the reasons stated by the American magazine
World Watch for the decline in the number of birds world-wide
and in Canada was as follows, and I quote: ``Most bird species
are in decline because the natural balance is upset by the global
expansion of mankind. We are entirely to blame for the problem
and must find ways to resolve it.''
For example, the problems caused by deforestation due to
urban spread or farmland expansion and exponential population
growth contribute to the degradation of wildlife habitat.
Industrial and domestic pollution are also among the new
concerns that must guide us in drafting legislation respecting the
protection of migratory birds and environmental protection in
general.
Let us now take a closer look at the proposals contained in Bill
C-23 to update the former act which dated back to 1917. Clause
2, the interpretation clause, was changed to broaden the scope of
the act. For example, the definition of the word conveyance will
now include any contrivance used to hunt birds.
(1735)
Moreover, the definition of ``migratory bird'' is amended so
as to include the sperm, eggs, embryo and tissue cultures. As I
said earlier, this change is essential for the survival of species in
this era of technological revolution.
Another important change, which consists in distinguishing
between to ``be in possession'' and to ``buy or sell'', will allow
the courts to treat the illegal marketing and trade of birds as a
more serious offence than mere possession.
Several technical changes reaffirm the power of game officers
to inspect and search. However, a provision is added to protect
people against abusive searches, in compliance with the charter
of rights and freedoms.
Moreover, regulations can be made under clause 12.(1)(f) to
ensure better control over the issuance of permits. Indeed,
problems can often be solved at the root. It is more than
desirable that the government makes such regulations soon, as
authorized by this legislation.
A major change which, in our opinion, will be welcome if it is
used properly, is the considerable increase regarding fines
imposed to offenders. Since the applicable provisions of the
1917 legislation have never been amended, the current act only
provides for fines of $10 to $300. This will no way deter a
modern-day offender.
The proposed amendments provide for fines of $50,000 to
$250,000, depending on the type of offence. In the case of a
repeat offender, the amounts can be doubled. This is a big
improvement. I do hope that the legislator will not wait another
77 years to update these amounts, and that in the future
parliamentarians will closely and regularly review this
legislation.
I want to conclude by reminding you of the importance of
protecting and preserving migratory birds in Canada. Think of
the loon on our dollar. Think of the snowy owl and other birds
which are symbols in our country. This is a good example of the
international scope of environmental problems. Indeed,
migratory birds, like pollution, cross borders, making it all the
more important to conclude international agreements, instead of
just passing national laws.
If Canada wants to ensure sustainable development, not only
will it have to pass effective legislation, but it will also have to
sign good international conventions, so as to adequately protect
itself from transborder environmental problems.
It might also be wise to reflect on the opportunity of having a
chart promoting the environment and sustainable development.
This would be a comprehensive and practical document, such as
the charter of rights and freedoms, which would ensure
individuals that, like them, the environment is well protected.
5240
Our future and especially our children's future depends on
what we do today to leave them with a country in which
resources will still be available. We must play an active role and
face current challenges.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, an act
to amend the Canada Wildlife Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1740 )
Mr. Manley moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, in introducing the debate on third reading of Bill C-24,
I would like to quote from Life in the Balance by David Rains
Wallace: ``Yet wildlife and wilderness are not the cause of
poverty. Humans would hardly be better off were the last forest
logged, grassland ploughed, mountain mined, desert irrigated,
tundra drilled, river dammed, wetland drained, ocean depleted
and islands stripped of native flora and fauna. Scientific
evidence and simple logic suggest that civilization cannot
deface the planet with impunity''.
I think this is at the basis of the wildlife act that we are trying
to pass today.
[Translation]
I am pleased to present the bill to amend the Canada Wildlife
Act at third reading. At a time when the health of the economy is
the number-one concern of many Canadians, some may ask why
we are looking at the issue of wildlife protection. My answer is
this: ``Protecting wildlife and the Canadian environment is
essential to our country's long-term prosperity in the broadest
sense of the word''.
For Canadians and for people around the world, our wildlife is
part of our country's identity and uniqueness. Wildlife remains
at the centre of Native Canadians' traditional way of life. It can
offer still undiscovered treasures; some species could be used in
various ways in the interest of human beings. Wildlife is an
essential evironmental, social and cultural resource.
Wildlife-related recreational activities are important in
Canada. They inject billions of dollars into the economy and
create tens of thousands of jobs. In fact, a vast majority of
Canadians want our wildlife to be protected so that future
generations can enjoy the same abundance. According to a
recent Statistics Canada survey, over 90 per cent of Canadians
say they have a sustained interest in wildlife conservation. They
are not motivated only by feelings but by a realistic
understanding.
They heard and they support the sustainable environment
message: that the health of the environment and economic
development are interdependent, that no economy is possible
without the environment and that we cannot have quality of life
if the economy is not built around the environment. Canadians
are willing to do their part for sustainable development and they
are asking the government to do its part.
[English]
In 1990 the Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada comprised
of federal and provincial ministers responsible for wildlife
wrote a wildlife policy for Canada. The Canada Wildlife Act was
enacted in 1973 to enable the federal government to carry out
wildlife research and in co-operation with the provinces to
undertake a wide range of wildlife conservation and
interpretation activities for wildlife and its habitat, including
the protection of endangered species. The act allows the
minister to acquire any lands for the purposes of research,
conservation, and interpretation in respect of migratory birds
and if international interests and with the support of the
provinces other species including endangered species.
(1745)
Areas of key significance to Canada's wildlife are protected
through regulations under this act. There are currently 45
national wildlife areas in Canada comprising 287,000 hectares.
Traditionally wildlife conservation has focused on particular
species or species groups and has generally been limited to the
higher orders of animals. It is now widely recognized that a
broader approach to conservation is needed, an ecosystemic
approach that considers all ecosystems, factions and values
including all animal and plant species and the full range of their
habitat requirements.
This is the approach recommended in the policy of the
provincial and federal ministers in wildlife policy for Canada to
which I just referred.
Conservation of wildlife often requires protection of habitat
critical to the survival of a species. Traditional habitat
protection has focused on terrestrial wildlife species and the
habitats. The marine ecosystem and its biodiversity remain
largely un-
5241
protected from the habitat perspective. At present application of
the act is limited to the territorial 12-mile limit.
Critical wildlife habitat, including areas with significant
concentration of seabirds and breeding and feeding grounds for
whales exist or extend beyond the territorial sea. Such areas
include polynyas, openings in the ice cover, and sea mounts,
upwellings of nutrients in the ocean and other areas associated
with Canada's continental shelf.
We therefore have a provision to allow for the establishment
of protected areas within the area bounded by the territorial sea
and the 200-nautical mile limit so that this would contribute to
sustaining the biodiversity and associated benefits of the marine
ecosystems.
In introducing this bill the federal government is meeting the
demand of Canadian citizens, reflected in the red book, that we
follow the path of sustainable development.
We appreciate the implications of that commitment. It means
adopting an ecosystemic approach, tackling problems in their
broad context. It means working in partnership with other
governments, with other sectors of activity, with individual
Canadians toward our common goals.
This is how we will make sustainable development happen
and this is how the federal government is now addressing the
issue of wildlife. Amending the Canada Wildlife Act is not an
isolated gesture, it is part of a co-ordinated strategy to give our
country effective wildlife legislation, reflecting the latest
science and meeting the needs of our times.
Other components of that strategy are the bill to amend the
Migratory Birds Convention Act which we just passed, Bill
C-23, the drafting of regulations for the Wild Animal and Plant
Protection and Regulation of Interprovincial and International
Trade Act, and the forthcoming negotiations with the United
States in amending the binational migratory birds convention.
The Canada Wildlife Act is a vital piece of legislation. It
provides a framework for the federal government's effort to
promote wildlife and habitat conservation programs. It enables
productive partnerships and implementation of wildlife
programs and policies with provincial governments and with the
private sector.
Since the act was passed in 1973 however we have come to
recognize certain limitations in its legislation. Bill C-24 has
been brought before Parliament to address these limitations.
Following second reading, the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development conducted a
thorough review of Bill C-24, including public hearings and
submission of briefs by a broad range of witnesses. This review
has lead to additional changes that reflect the concerns and
views expressed in the committee.
[Translation]
Bill C-24 will replace the definition of wildlife found in the
old act, which seems much too narrow. Instead of non-domestic
animals, the amendments will include all wild animals and
plants in the definition of ``wildlife''. This broader definition
will allow us to adopt an ecosystemic approach to wildlife
protection; in an endangered habitat, we can therefore work to
help all of the different species which, together, support life, and
not just the well-known birds and mammals.
(1750)
The new definition also brings the act into line with the
federal-provincial policy on wildlife in Canada, adopted in
1990, and the Biodiversity Convention, which Canada signed at
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
Another important change brought about by Bill C-24 is that
Canada will now be able to protect wildlife habitats in marine
areas. The bill presently before the House makes it possible to
establish protected marine areas anywhere within the
200-nautical-mile zone, outside the previous 12 nautical miles.
This zone includes vital breeding areas and feeding grounds
used by whales, sea birds and other species. The extended
coverage to these areas will make it possible to provide far more
complete protection to many species.
Another change will make the act more effective by
improving its administration and enforcement. The amendments
will give more teeth to the act by raising the penalties faced by
potential offenders, thus making the penalties real deterrents.
The maximum fines for serious offences would be $100,000 for
an individual and $250,000 for a corporation, with provisions
making it possible to increase fines for a second offence or for
continuing offences. At the same time, the amended act will give
enforcement officers and the courts more flexibility in respect
of offences and punishment. They will now be able to choose the
most appropriate punishment in response to an offence, even
community service or payment of the cost of damages caused to
a national wildlife area.
The amendments concerning provisions related to
punishment, powers and enforcement procedures and a clause
safeguarding ancestral and treaty rights are similar to those
described in the third reading of Bill C-23.
[English]
Therefore I will take this opportunity to discuss some of the
broad aspects of wildlife conservation which this legislation
supports.
Bill C-24 will enable Canada to meet its commitments and
international agreements. One such key agreement is the 1975
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
which Canada signed in 1981. This is one of the most widely
adopted conservation treaties in the world and over 80 nations
5242
have agreed to promote the conservation and wise use of
wetland habitat, particularly for waterfowl.
Wetlands are of special importance to Canada. They provide a
large proportion of our fresh water supply. They filter out
pollutants from the ecosystems. They protect against flooding.
They enhance water quality and they are essential wildlife
habitats. They also make a significant contribution to our
economy, estimated at over $10 billion a year. That figure
covers a wide range of recreational activities, both commercial
and non-commercial.
Canada's wetlands have a global importance as well. Within
our borders lie roughly 24 per cent of the world's total wetland
resource. This gives us a special responsibility for using our
share of the resource properly. Unfortunately we have not
always done so. Though we still have 127 million hectares of
wetland we have allowed over one seventh of our original
wetland area, most in southern Canada to be converted to other
land uses.
Since signing the Ramsar convention we have been working
to improve our record. Canada now has a total of 32 designated
wetlands of international importance, a network spanning all
our provinces and territories, and many of these are also national
wildlife areas established under the Canada Wildlife Act.
Canada's Ramsar wetlands cover 13 million hectares which is
over 30 per cent of all the wetland areas designated under the
convention. In addition since 1992 we have had a federal policy
on wetland conservation which fosters the conservation of
Canada's wetlands to sustain the ecological and socioeconomic
factions for both now and in the future. Many provinces have or
are developing complementary wetland policies and the private
sector and non-government organizations continue to play a
significant role in wetland conservation.
(1755)
Today wetland conservation in Canada is a co-operative
undertaking of different levels of government, different sectors
and individuals, with the federal government playing a key role.
The North American waterfowl management plan, which I
described during the third reading of Bill C-23, is an excellent
example of this co-operation. This is a sustainable way of
managing our wetlands.
Better wetland conservation will lead to many direct benefits
for Canadians, the most obvious, of course, improved wildlife
habitat and the higher population levels for waterfowl.
There are other benefits as well. Among them, reduced soil
erosion, improved ground water quality, less degradation of
farmland, less damage from flooding and storms, and extended
protection against the effects of drought and climate change.
[Translation]
The Biodiversity Convention is by far the most important
international wildlife agreement to come along in many years. It
is one of the major achievements of the 1992 Earth Summit in
Brazil. It was not an easy task to get such a large number of
parties to find an acceptable common ground and Canadians
should be proud of their efforts to obtain widespread approval
for the Convention.
We have also demonstrated our commitment to the
Convention by moving quickly to sign and ratify it.
Furthermore, the federal government has begun working with
the provinces and territories to formulate a Canadian
biodiversity strategy which will enable us to meet our
commitments under the convention.
Under the terms of the convention, countries are required to
regulate or manage biological resources in such a way as to
ensure their conservation and sustainable use and to establish a
system of refuges to preserve biodiversity. Moreover, as part of
the conservation process, all species of an ecosystem must be
taken into consideration and countries must draft legislative
provisions to protect species threatened with extinction.
Bill C-24 will help Canada fulfil the requirements of the
convention. The Biodiversity Convention and the other
international agreements I mentioned are important not for what
Canada brings to them, but for what they bring to Canada. They
establish a framework for our actions. They set global
objectives. They recognize the importance of fragile habitats in
Canada and in at least one case, that of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, they channel funds for habitat
protection. But above all, these agreements advance concepts on
which our actions aimed at protecting Canada's wildlife should
be based.
[English]
It is in this context that the federal government is proposing
amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act and to the Migratory
Birds Convention Act.
Times have changed since this legislation was enacted and we
must move with them. We must conform to higher
environmental standards domestically and globally. We must
integrate the latest scientific understanding into our programs.
We must deal with changing environmental priorities. Most of
all, we must respond to the demand and expectations of
Canadians, young and old.
Across the country Canadians have recognized the need for
sustainable wildlife policies and practices and they are calling
5243
on government, especially the federal government, to take the
lead on this issue. That is why we have brought forward the
amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act.
Today there was an article in the Gazette about the St.
Lawrence National Institute of Ecotoxicology. Dr. Pierre
Béland, who started the institute 11 years ago is somebody I
know well. For many years he has been recovering the belugas in
the St. Lawrence that die on our shores. He has carried out
autopsies on these belugas, 69 of them since 1983.
(1800 )
The Gazette article described the plight of the belugas. The St.
Lawrence institute scientifically dissected 69 belugas which
were found to have 100 parts per million of PCBs in them. The
industrial norm is 50 parts per million of PCBs. The norm is two
parts per million of PCBs for edible fish. Yet 69 of these belugas
were found to have 100 parts per million of PCBs in their bodies.
Dr. Pierre Béland joked, and I am sure it was a very bitter joke,
that the belugas in the St. Lawrence should have permits to swim
there because they are so toxified.
Among those 69 whales they have dissected since 1983 they
found: 28 had tumours, including malignant tumours; 37 had
very bad lesions in their digestive systems; and 31 of the
females had lesions on their mammary glands. This is a terrible
indictment on all of us for having neglected our heritage to the
point that we have allowed toxins to fester our lakes, our rivers,
our land and our air. It is to the point that today the animals, the
innocent residents of the ecosystem, suffer the ills of our guilt
and our fault.
We should reflect on what is happening to the belugas of the
St. Lawrence. What would Canada be without the polar bear in
the Arctic? What would Canada be without the black bear or the
grizzly in the Rockies? What would Canada be without the
belugas in the St. Lawrence or the northern seas? What would
Canada be without the snow geese and other birds? Would it be a
heritage of nature or would it be a dead heritage, a silent
heritage?
That is why we are so intent on seeing that Bill C-24, the
Canada Wildlife Act, as well as Bill C-23 which we just passed,
become essential legislation. It fortifies our resolve to preserve
habitats, the ecosystem and the environment which is at the base
of the quality of life and living for all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again today on an environmental bill, C-24. This bill amends the
1973 Canada Wildlife Act. According to the minister, the
purpose of this act is to permit the government to conduct
wildlife research and, in co-operation with the provinces, to
undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and
interpretation. The provinces are responsible for managing
wildlife, except for most species of migratory birds, fish and
mammals.
Like C-23, the bill updates an existing law. Basically, it
modernizes the law and includes some new features. It is
essential to watch out for environmental problems and to have
the tools required to avoid them, especially those affecting
biodiversity.
(1805)
Chapter 6 of the Brundtland report says: ``Conservation of
living natural resources-plants, animals and micro-organisms,
and the non-living elements of the environment on which they
depend-is crucial for development. Today, the conservation of
wild living resources is on the agenda of governments; nearly 4
per cent of the Earth's land area is managed explicitly to
conserve species and ecosystems, and all but a small handful of
countries have national parks. The challenge facing nations
today is no longer deciding whether conservation is a good idea,
but rather how it can be implemented in the national interest and
within the means available in each country''.
Like the leaders of other countries that signed the Brundtland
report, we in this House are all convinced, I am sure, of the
importance of protecting endangered species. The issue is
finding ways to achieve our goals. The old law essentially
protected wild animals, plants and other organisms. Replacing
the French word ``faune'' by ``espèces sauvages'' considerably
broadens the scope of the new law. We think that it is essential to
extend the law in this way in order to protect the natural habitats
of the wildlife that we want to protect. This amendment to the
law fills a gaping legal hole in the 1973 act.
Furthermore, the amendments to be made to the Act will
create protected marine areas within any fishing zone prescribed
in the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. It will be possible
to conduct research on marine wildlife and to undertake various
activities related to wildlife conservation and interpretation.
This very useful addition to the act will enhance the protection
of a larger number of marine wildlife species.
From now on, wildlife officers will have the powers of peace
officers. This means they will be able to apply the provisions of
the Criminal Code. In an emergency, they will also be
authorized to carry out inspections and searches without a
warrant. These special powers will make it easier for wildlife
officers to operate in an isolated forest areas, for instance.
Although, we in the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to see
some guarantee of federal co-operation with the provinces, but
it would have been difficult to obtain such guarantees in
committee. In the act, it says that provincial government
employees appointed by the minister require the agreement and
consent of the province to perform their duties in the province.
The act also says that the Minister of the Environment may, in
exceptional circumstances, give these officers special powers.
We said yes, the minister may give them special powers, but
since they were appointed with the agreement of the province,
5244
we felt that this was an amendment that would be hard to sell,
although it would reinforce the legislation.
Officers will be able to inspect any premises or vehicle for the
presence of wildlife. Everyone agrees that without this
provision, effective application of the act would be in jeopardy.
However, the bill observes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
with a provision to project the public against inspection without
just cause. That is a very important point.
As in Bill C-23, the legislation includes a provision to
recover any costs arising from the offence from the violators. It
is very important that such costs not be borne by the taxpayers.
Finally, a substantial increase in fines for violations of the act
will surely enhance the deterrent effect of this legislation. I hope
that the maximum fine of $250,000 will have that effect and that
the government will not hesitate to revise this amount if it
appears insufficient to achieve the aims of this legislation.
(1810)
Furthermore, the bill allows the court to order offenders to
remedy any harm they may have caused to the environment. The
inclusion of this provision surely increases the legislation's
desired deterrent effect.
In conclusion, the efforts made to achieve the goals of
environmental protection and sustainable development must be
followed up by the stringent enforcement of the act. Concrete,
ongoing action must be taken in the environmental field to
achieve sustainable development, the mark of a healthy
economy and a healthy, flourishing society.
Quebecers and Canadians have given us a clear mandate to
deal with environmental issues and we must do everything in our
power to fulfil the terms of our mandate. We must atone for past
mistakes and see that we do not repeat them. We can never say it
enough: the environment knows no borders or party affiliation.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of Bill C-24 is to amend and strengthen the existing Canada
Wildlife Act which was originally proclaimed in 1973 and has
essentially remained the same for the last 20 years.
Reform members in the House strongly believe that the
current wildlife protection legislation is inadequate. We believe
that it must be changed and updated to properly address the
environmental concerns Canadians have in the 1990s.
The Reform Party is a party that is deeply concerned with
Canada's environment. One of the principles of the party is that
we believe Canada's identity and vision for the future should be
rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our land and the
supreme importance to our well-being of exploring,
developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and
physical environment. This forms part of our party's
commitment to a clean healthy environment for all Canadians.
The proposed changes to the Canada Wildlife Act will expand
the definition of wildlife to include all wild organisms,
including plants, fungi, insects. It will thereby make it
consistent with the convention on biodiversity which was
ratified by Canada in 1993.
Some of the other amendments to the act will allow for
national wildlife areas to be established in marine ecosystems in
Canada's coastal waters out to the 200-mile limit to protect the
beluga whales in Isabella Bay, west coast salmon and seabirds.
The legislation will also enable the federal government to carry
out its responsibility for wildlife research and a wide range of
conservation and interpretation activities for wildlife and its
habitat.
The act will also provide a greater deterrent to illegal
activities such as poaching, by providing a maximum penalty of
$100,000 or five years in jail, or both for serious offences.
The mandate of the federal government environment
department in Canada is to manage and conserve migratory
birds and, in co-operation with the provinces and territories,
other wildlife of national and international concern. Canada as a
member of the international community has obligations to help
preserve and protect our wildlife and wildlife areas. However,
sustaining healthy, thriving populations of wild species
contributes to the economic, social and cultural well-being of
our nation as well.
The Canada Wildlife Act recognizes the benefits that wildlife
has and is a recognition that legislation and regulation should be
the essential tools in helping to preserve them for future
generations. It must be remembered that other things must also
be done to improve the current situation.
Canadians must educate themselves on the serious threat that
illegal activity such as poaching poses for our wildlife. This
information is currently available from a number of different
sources, including government organizations,
non-governmental organizations and hunting and angling clubs.
If you want to meet a group of dedicated environmentalists, then
turn up at your neighbourhood rod and gun club.
In economic terms the federal environment department has
estimated that expenditures associated with all types of fish and
wildlife related recreational activities have contributed
approximately $11.5 billion to our gross domestic product, $4.4
billion in tax revenue, and more than one-quarter million jobs
for Canadians. Clearly Canada's living natural resources are a
valued part of our social and economic well-being. I state again
that real environmentalists, those who value our wildlife most
highly, are the responsible hunters who pour their time and
money into the enhancement and maintenance of this resource.
5245
(1815)
It is very doubtful that anyone in the House needs to be
convinced that conserving and protecting our environment has
become a major political and economic issue in our country.
Opinion polls show that over 90 per cent of Canadians are
concerned about the state of our environment. The polls also
show that the people of Canada are split with regard to their
satisfaction with the ability of the federal government to handle
difficult environmental issues.
Responsible hunters work with game wardens and law
enforcement officers to protect wildlife from illegal harvesting
or killing; in other words poaching. Every year poaching, which
is the illegal taking of wildlife, results in millions of animals
being killed for personal use or profit. They are sold on the black
market in Canada and in other countries. It has often been
estimated that the illegal kill in Canada is approximately double
the legal kill. Poachers know that there is little risk involved in
their activities including the risk of being caught. As little as 1
per cent of poaching crimes are investigated. Even if they are
caught the fines are considered a cost of doing business.
The illegal trade in wildlife in Canada is a multi-million
dollar business. The combination of high profits, low risk and
the thrill of illegal activity makes poaching a very attractive
business enterprise.
Responsible hunters, the ones we see in hunting vehicles
carrying and wearing their hunting equipment in the fall, in
unison say that Canada's wildlife protection and conservation
legislation must be enforced to stop illegal activities such as
poaching.
However we must ask ourselves if the provisions of the bill
are tough enough. What about the enforcement of and
punishment for these crimes? Any new or improved existing
laws must also be strictly enforced if they are to protect
Canada's wildlife. There must also be recognition on behalf of
Canada's court system including prosecutors and judges that
wildlife offences are serious and should be treated in a serious
manner.
In general the Reform Party supports the changes made in the
act after having had an opportunity to examine possible
amendments in committee. Many groups made representations
to the committee and some changes to the bill could be made.
One aspect of the bill which my party is very pleased to see
receive almost total agreement is the stronger and improved
enforcement and punishment section. Although the bill finally
puts some teeth into the existing Canada Wildlife Act that up
until this point it has lacked, we believe the enforcement
provisions for maximum penalties could have been made even
tougher.
Also the section on the recovery of administration costs in the
act is to be improved. This is a development that the Reform
Party, as a party built on the premise that government should be
as fiscally prudent as possible and in light of Canada's current
fiscal financial situation, can easily agree to.
We believe it is the proper approach to recover costs related to
the management of public lands and protected marine areas. It
will mean reduced expenditures on government's behalf, a more
self-sufficient regulatory system, and will allow for greater
financial sustainability over the long term.
However, as I raised in the debate on Bill C-23, again I raise
the issue of aboriginal exclusion from the act and the problems
that generates. I cite four examples. First, there is a domestic
herd in northern Saskatchewan that from time to time is
bothered or pestered by a wild herd. The answer on the part of
the owner of the herd is to hire an aboriginal hunter who can
shoot the elk out of season.
Second, in northern British Columbia a non-aboriginal group
put together the start of a full buffalo herd. They were going to
be setting it up as a venture wherein they could bring in hunters
from around the world. However they were thwarted in that
some people from the aboriginal population in northern B.C.
went in and wiped out the herd.
(1820)
Third, there are deer around Princeton, British Columbia,
about a three-hour drive east of Vancouver. It is well known and
documented that aboriginal hunters from the Cariboo, a
five-hour drive away, drive there and harvest out of season.
Fourth, in my constituency a person, upon receipt of
designation as a status Indian, drove two hours past a sheep
herd, went to a feeding station and shot a world class ram
because of the curl of his horns.
These are examples of what happens when a particular group
of people are taken out and given exclusion from bills like Bill
C-23. They are not by any means a constant example; they are
not by any means suggesting that all people of aboriginal
descent would involve themselves in this. As a matter of fact
those people would be a very rare exception. Nonetheless by
having them outside the act makes this a possibility. It creates a
serious concern and a lot of hostility on the part of people who
cannot take advantage of the exclusion.
Canadians have been telling us that they want governments at
all levels to protect and conserve our nation's wildlife. I believe
as part of that we must get together to somehow address the
aboriginal issue. We as policy makers and regulators must take
this responsibility very seriously and deliver on this
commitment for a healthier environment. If we are successful it
will be to the benefit of all Canadians.
5246
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of supporting Bill C-24
during third reading in the House today. While the legal text of
the legislation defines the scope of the act, the regulatory
authorities, penalties, enforcement powers and administrative
procedures, it is the overall intent of the act and its amendments
that makes it truly significant.
Sustainable development is a phrase commonly used today to
describe how we should approach decision making in matters of
the environment and the economy. Although there are many
interpretations of how this approach should be applied, it is
generally accepted that it involves adopting a forward looking
and broadly based approach which considers both the long term
economic and environmental consequences of any decision or
action.
Implicit in this is the understanding that sustaining or
enhancing the health of our economy intimately depends on the
health of our environment and the sustainability of its resources.
We have many situations where tough decisions have been made
to ensure sustainable use of our renewable resources. Atlantic
cod in the Pacific salmon fisheries is a recent example in which
drastic action is necessary.
Conservation has become a priority. To avoid these situations
we must ensure that we understand and anticipate problems and
that all sectors are able to work together and build on each
other's strengths to find the best means of managing and
integrating our economy and our environment.
Solutions must be based on good science, consultation,
co-operation and agreement. That is why I consider Bill C-24 so
significant. We cannot hope to achieve sustainable development
unless we have the tools. The Canada Wildlife Act is a tool for
sustainable development and the amendments will make it an
even more effective tool.
The act does not position the Government of Canada to act
alone. Some may criticize it for that very reason, but by now we
must have learned it is not possible to impose solutions for the
kinds of problems we are talking about here: problems of loss of
species and habitat conversion, problems of lack of information
or informed decision making and so on.
(1825 )
We must ensure that we come to an informed consensus of a
need to take action and we must in fact act together. That is why
the act is set up as enabling legislation. That is why it demands
that the government establish partnerships with the relevant
provincial and territorial agencies and with other
non-governmental partners.
The programs that have been and will be established under the
authority of the act are models for the way we need to
co-operate in Canada to deal with issues that cross
jurisdictional boundaries. We need to recognize the strengths
that various partners bring to the table and use those strengths,
not argue who should get credit for what, in support of our
commonly held objectives of habitat conservation, conservation
of threatened endangered species and making sure that citizens
know and appreciate the importance of wildlife to their
economic and social well-being; in short in support of
sustainable development.
Many examples of conservation programs, co-operative
research efforts and bilateral and multilateral conservation
agreements have resulted from the act's implementation. For
example, RENEW, an acronym for the recovery of nationally
endangered wildlife, is a co-operative program of the federal
and provincial governments and national conservation
organizations to develop and implement recovery plans for
Canada's endangered species.
The protection of habitat under the act also depends on
co-operation and partnership. There are currently 45 protected
areas, as we have already been told, covering 287,000 hectares
of Canada. If we include the areas protected under the Migratory
Birds Convention Act, the total area protected is more than
twice the size of Nova Scotia. These protected areas are
established in full consultation with local communities and the
provinces or territory involved. Once the conservation
objectives have been determined, agreement on the type of
protective measures that would be appropriate are decided. A
distinct management regime thus evolves reflecting the
concerns of all stakeholders.
An example of this process is the current work with the Inuit
of Clyde River to establish a marine national wildlife area at
Isabella Bay, Baffin Island. The Inuit originated the proposal
because of concerns for the endangered population of bowhead
whales which use this area as summer feeding grounds. The
national wildlife area will form the core of an international
biosphere reserve. Co-management of the area will focus on
protecting critical habitat, ensuring continued traditional
sustenance practices and promoting ecotourism and research on
whales.
Two provisions in Bill C-24 will significantly enhance the
potential scope for establishing protected areas. The first is the
expanded definition of wildlife which includes all wild species
of animals, plants and other organisms. Traditionally wildlife
conservation has focused on particular species or species groups
and has been limited to the higher orders of animals.
It is now widely recognized that a broader approach to
conservation is needed, an ecosystem approach that considers
all ecosystem functions and values including all animal and
plant species and a full range of their habitat requirements.
Expanding the definition of wildlife is consistent with the
recommendation of the wildlife policy for Canada which was
endorsed by the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Ministers Council
of Canada in 1990. It will allow for research and establishment
of protected areas based on an ecosystem approach and will
5247
respond to the recommendations of the convention on biological
diversity dealing with habit and ecosystem conservation.
The second change introduced in Bill C-24 which affects a
scope of protected areas is a provision allowing for the
establishment of protected areas beyond the territorial sea to the
200 nautical mile limit. Critical wildlife habitat, including areas
with significant concentrations of sea birds and breeding and
feeding grounds for whales, exists or extends beyond the
territorial sea. Such areas include seasonal or permanent
openings in the sea ice where birds, whales, polar bears and
other wildlife concentrate; underwater mountains, upwellings
of nutrients in the ocean and other areas associated with
Canada's continental shelf.
(1830)
Protecting these key areas contributes to sustaining the
biodiversity and associated economic benefits of marine
ecosystems, benefits such as improved recreational
opportunities.
As I have stated, the value of the Canada Wildlife Act is that it
provides a basis for research, partnership and co-operation. The
amendments included in Bill C-24 which I have just described
present a new challenge to Canadians to be successful in
understanding and protecting ecosystems and their biodiversity,
including moving into the area of marine protected areas, which
will require new and innovative partnerships involving a wider
range of interest groups and stakeholders than has been the case
in the past. Broad based strategies of a co-operative nature must
be developed to ensure both environmental and economic
objectives can be met.
I am convinced that Bill C-24 will help in achieving these
ends. I strongly encourage my fellow members in the House to
support it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Debate!
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I must
tell you that I am delighted to speak on Bill C-24 immediately
after my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan because both
of us have been sitting on the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development for several weeks
now and he is one of the members of the committee who have
made a very significant contribution to the committee by his
attendance and his comments.
In the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, we reviewed at the same time as Bill C-23, Bill
C-24 to amend the Canada Wildlife Act. This act was passed in
1973. The purpose of this act was to enable the government to
conduct wildlife research and in conjunction with the provinces,
undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and
interpretation as well as the protection of wildlife habitat and
endangered species.
Apparently, only minor changes have been made to this act
since its coming into force. As in the case of Bill C-23, we are
simply proposing amendments to ensure the act keeps up with
the times. That is why we, from the Bloc Quebecois, are jumping
on the government band wagon and supporting these measures
to protect our wildlife more effectively.
One of the most important changes in my view is that, as soon
as it comes into effect, the act will protect-and that is the
important part-not only any animal other than a domestic
animal, but also all living organisms, and that covers a lot.
Living organisms include not only animals, birds and fish, but
also those tiny unicellular microorganisms, you know, the kind
that you cannot see with the naked eye but play a major role in
the food chain.
(1835)
It covers plants like hay or clover, large trees like century-old
oak trees as well as the tiny, delicate flower which lives but a
short season. Bill C-24 will ensure that not only animals are
protected but plants as well, so that all living organisms will be
protected from now on.
Twenty years ago, people probably did not see the need to
protect animals and their habitats. But it is now crystal clear that
it would be illogical to protect the white-headed eagle, for
example, while destroying its environment. This new provision
will allow us to promote sustainable development, as my
colleague explained earlier.
I would now like to explain the life cycle in very simple terms.
Earth, the blue planet, is made up of two kinds of elements:
living and non-living. Living elements include the sun, which is
Earth's main source of energy. We find in the air non-living
gases including CO2 or carbonic gas. The soil and the minerals it
contains are other non-living elements. Finally, water is another
non-living natural resource which is very abundant in Quebec
and Canada.
The sun, water, carbonic gas and the mineral salts found in the
soil are four non-living elements which cost absolutely nothing.
These four elements sustain living organisms, which grow,
reproduce and die. These plants are called producers because
they produce their own food. These producers are eaten by
herbivores, which are in turn eaten by carnivores or omnivores.
These carnivores and omnivores are in turn eaten by more
powerful carnivores or omnivores. My colleague from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, you and I are at the top of the food
chain. We, of course, are at the top of the pyramid.
5248
From now on, Bill C-24 will protect all living organisms.
Water, earth, light and air are set aside. Let us hope that these
non-living elements will not be lacking in the future. It is all
profit since plants, including the clover that grows, cost
absolutely nothing.
I would like to take a few seconds to give you an example of a
food chain. Carbonic gas, water, minerals salts in the soil and
the sun make clover grow. The clover is eaten by grasshoppers;
the grasshoppers are eaten by a frog; the frog is eaten by a grass
snake; the grass snake is eaten by a racoon. Now what animal
could be eating the racoon? Perhaps a coyote or a wolf, and so on
and so forth.
(1840)
You see, the higher you go up the food chain, the bigger and
more powerful the animals are, but there are fewer of them,
fortunately. Mr. Speaker, imagine if there were more coyotes or
wolves than hares in a given territory or ecosystem. There would
be a short-term imbalance, that is for sure.
So I continue. Bill C-24 will also allow us to create national
wildlife reserves by regulation in the area going beyond the
territorial sea. At present, it is limited to the territorial sea,
which only extends 12 nautical miles from our shores. With this
bill, the limit would be extended to 200 nautical miles.
This extends the area in which we can act, since the marine
ecosystem and its biodiversity are now almost totally neglected,
as far as protecting their habitat is concerned. According to
Environment Canada experts, the potential of this area is huge.
Just take the areas with high concentrations of marine birds and
the places where whales reproduce and feed.
Just as in the bill that we adopted a few minutes ago, Bill
C-23, the minister could designate classes of persons as wildlife
officers with this bill that we will probably pass, since the Bloc
Quebecois will give its consent, of course. So I quote part of the
bill:
The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as wildlife
officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations.
I am pleased to note that in this bill, just as in Bill C-23, the
designation of provincial officers is subject to the agreement of
the provincial government concerned. Since this provision
whereby the minister can designate wildlife officers is the
counterpart of the one in Bill C-23, with respect to game
officers, the answer obtained in committee as to whether the
minister could appoint a hunting or fishing association, for
example, as wildlife officers is still valid.
I was told then that it could be done, but that such associations
could have limited powers. Still rather sceptical about the
benefits of this provision, I contacted the Quebec wildlife
conservation officers' union. The president of the union, Paul
Legault, told us about the situation in Quebec, since similar
powers have already been given by the Government of Quebec
under the Wildlife Conservation Act.
In 1978, when private clubs in Quebec were abolished, a
decision was made to appoint wildlife conservation assistants to
perform the duties of the wardens of the now defunct private
clubs. Originally, these assistants were supposed to be the eyes
and ears of the wildlife officers and had no title or function as
such. Over the years, expectations increased, but nothing was
done about improving the training and supervision of these
people.
The results are not encouraging. It seems these individuals
were not very productive and often had a conflict of interest,
since they had to enforce the regulations but were also earning a
living as hunting and fishing guides.
(1845)
Imagine, an outfitter who is your guide and at the same time
acts as a wildlife officer. If you give him $200 or $300 a day and
have nothing to show for it, I imagine you would fire him right
away so he has to deliver or else he will lose his customers. This
creates a very ambiguous situation.
Incidentally, less than one violation report is filed per
assistant annually. At this rate, some assistants do not file any
reports at all. Some file one or two, and if some assistants file
ten reports, there must be quite a few who do not file any at all.
So the Government of Quebec is reviewing this system.
There are also a number of shortcomings in the system itself,
and I will name three: the selection process suffers as a result of
criteria that are not strict enough; the training program is too
short and is not adapted to the needs of the assistants; finally,
there is no mechanism to follow up the work being done by the
assistants.
However, as in the case of game wardens, there are not enough
wildlife officers to enforce the legislation. That being said, we
might as well admit we have to appoint more staff to ensure
compliance.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, it would be useful to take
certain steps to avoid a situation where wildlife officers do not
have the required qualifications and thus lose their credibility.
That is why we suggested the same amendments to the Standing
Committee. As I explained earlier, and this happens regularly,
our amendments were defeated. We will not vote against Bill
C-24, but I think accepting our two amendments would have
benefited the legislation.
I will repeat them quickly. The purpose of the first
amendment was to ensure that individuals designated by the
minister have received appropriate training. This amendment is
particularly relevant since the Quebec experience has shown
this is an important part of the problem. The purpose of our
second amendment was to make the designation of this category
condi-
5249
tional on approval by the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development.
Both amendments were defeated, but I remain firmly
convinced of the importance of taking a closer look at this kind
of appointments. According to Mr. Legault, the rather careless
approach to appointing assistants has caused quite some friction
with the public, because some individuals ``play the enforcer''.
As I mentioned earlier, and I will repeat this for the benefit of
hon. members opposite, when you appoint a whole hunting
association as wildlife officers, there may be a couple of people
in the group with more brawn than brains, who use their brawn in
a way that may discredit all wildlife officers. That is what I
meant by playing the enforcer.
(1850)
The request to get new partners involved is more and more
pressing, but there must not be a shifting of responsibility onto
citizens' shoulders. Nevertheless, it is essential to do something
about the inadequate protection of wildlife, and I believe that
Bill C-24 does meet that objective. Good will and good laws are
not sufficient to adequately protect our environment. Those two
elements alone are like having good tools but no carpenter to use
them.
In conclusion, education is the best solution and the best tool
to protect wildlife, flora, habitats and ecosystems. The
government must understand that, instead of 2,000 or 3,000
wildlife officers, we need 27 million such officers in Canada.
Indeed, every one of us should be a wildlife officer, and when we
witness things which are damaging to our environment, we
should have the courage to confront those who are responsible
for such action.
Of course, we run the risk of being insulted, but this is the
price to pay if we want to do our share. In the long term, this
would be a welcome investment in publicity, particularly when
you think that every day the government and the Minister of
Finance must make new cuts to lower our national deficit. Let us
start in school by telling our young ones that they, and their
children, will inherit what is there now. Let us educate them and,
in two or three generations, the mentality will have completely
changed. It will be centred on sustainable development and
biodiversity.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, an act
to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales
to Young Persons Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-11, an act to
amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to
Young Persons Act.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion
No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 5, with the following:
``way furnish
(a) cigarettes except in packages containing at least 20 cigarettes per package;
or
(b) tobacco, other than cigarettes, in quantities of at least 20 grams.''
(b) by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 6, with the following:
``package
(a) cigarettes in a package containing fewer than 20 cigarettes; or
(b) tobacco, other than cigarettes, in quantities of at less than 20 grams.''
(1855 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request support from the
government and the Official Opposition for our proposed
amendment to Bill C -11.
We have received representation from both the Canadian
Cancer Society and the Action Committee on Smoking and
Health. They have expressed concerns about the increase in the
use of smokeless tobacco among young people.
Twenty-one per cent of grade seven students in Red Deer,
Alberta, had tried smokeless tobacco and up to 11 per cent
indicated they were currently using smokeless tobacco. It was
also reported that the use of smokeless tobacco has more than
doubled among males between the ages of 12 and 17 since 1987,
more than doubled.
5250
The main concern was again the smaller packaging targeted to
younger persons. Our amendment would amend clause 11 to
restrict the sale and packaging of tobacco other than cigarettes
in quantities of at least 20 grams. This would make small
packages of smokeless tobacco illegal, just like kiddie packs.
Smokeless tobacco includes oral moist snuff and chewing
tobacco. Nicotine is released from the product and absorbed
across the membranes of the mouth into the body. Long term use
of spitting tobacco leads to significant damage to soft and hard
tissues of the oral cavity. It causes leukopakia, white patches in
the mouth, some of which are premalignant. Between 3 per cent
and 6 per cent develop into cancer.
Oral snuff has high levels of cancer causing nitrosamines with
levels 10,000 times greater than allowed in regulated products
such as beer, 10,000 times greater. Other cancer-causing agents
are also present. Long term snuff users have a fifty-fold
increase in cancer of the gums and mouth. Spitting tobacco is
implicated in cancer of the larynx, esophagus, nasal cavity,
pancreas, kidney and bladder. Gum disease occurs in 60 per cent
of the users.
According to a health and welfare report the more immediate
effect of chewing tobacco and snuff is probably on the dental
health of youth as smokeless tobacco may contain sweeteners
such as sugar, honey, molasses, syrups and licorice.
In addition to the statistics I have provided for Red Deer,
Alberta, a 1991 Arkansas study found that 21 per cent of male
kindergarten students were regular users. Among male
school-age children in Ontario grades 7 to 13, 13 per cent
reported using smokeless tobacco and cigarettes.
The most disturbing finding was that many students felt the
use of smokeless tobacco was not as addictive as cigarettes, that
is what the students thought, and that using it was a good
alternative to help quit smoking.
In 1988 the World Health Organization issued an urgent call
on the part of all governments with no history of smokeless
tobacco use to ban the product before its use became
widespread. It is not manufactured in Canada. We have to import
these small little packs. I hope that the government and the
opposition will support us on this.
All the Reform Party is asking is that we take this one small
step to ensure that we do not make smokeless tobacco products
any easier for young people to obtain than a package of
cigarettes. I sincerely hope the members and the government
will support us in this amendment.
I believe it is common sense to include this amendment in our
legislation. That is why I propose it.
(1900 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, everything that the hon. member just said
is true. In fact, smokeless tobacco is extremely dangerous, and I
applaud his amendment.
However, it is inappropriate at this time for a few reasons.
Eighty-five per cent of the tobacco sold is in the form of
cigarettes in this country at the moment and, as he said, we do
import all of our smokeless tobacco. Of the smokeless tobacco
that we import, even of that small amount, only a very
minuscule amount is in fact imported in sizes under 20 grams.
What we have here is not a real marketplace problem. The act
deals with banning the sale of tobacco to anyone under 18
anyway, so no one should be selling any packages of anything to
people under 18.
However, we think it is inappropriate at this moment because
there are some trade implications because all of our smokeless
tobacco is imported and we need to analyze that. I would like us
not to stall what is in fact an extraordinarily important bill right
now in order to wait for that amendment to come through. You
can always amend this at another time and it is quite acceptable
to bring in an amendment later on. At this point while I applaud
the amendment, I think it is inappropriate to do so.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
responded a minute ago and said that this could be amended at
any time, am I to assume that the government would support
such an amendment at a future date?
Ms. Fry: Mr. speaker, yes, I think we would like to look at
some of the trade implications because of the fact that much of
the smokeless tobacco is an import. We think it is an excellent
amendment but inappropriate at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
(Motion negatived)
5251
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 30, on page 6, the
following:
``(3) Sections 7.1 and 7.2 shall come into force six months after the day this Act
is assented to.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the next few
minutes to explain the thrust of the Bloc Quebecois' proposed
amendment to Bill C-11.
Let me begin by saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports this
bill which is aimed, among other things, at amending the
Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act to prohibit tobacco
manufacturers from packaging cigarettes in packages
containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
The provisions of Bill C-11 make it illegal to sell the
packages containing 15 or 5 cigarettes which are currently on
the market, or to sell single cigarettes. We support this bill
because we care about people's health and in particular about the
health of young people who are encouraged to smoke because of
the availability of kiddie packs and single cigarettes.
(1905)
Once again, my party believes that it is not enough to prevent
young people from taking up smoking. A broad-based
awareness campaign is needed to discourage young people from
consuming products which are harmful to their health.
Despite the best legislation or the most stringent regulations,
we will always have to contend with unscrupulous retailers, just
as I did in my youth, who encourage young people to start
smoking by selling them single cigarettes. I started smoking
when I was just 11 or 12 years old because of an unscrupulous
store owner in the neighbourhood. He would hand out free
cigarettes to young people to get them hooked, and after that he
would charge them 10 cents, 15 cents and then 20 cents. There is
a profiteer, there is an unscrupulous store owner. You all know
cases like that. I have known a few myself in my time.
We have nothing against the bill per se, but rather against the
demand put on businesses, retailers, wholesalers and
distributors to adapt quickly to the new provisions contained in
Bill C-11 that provide that they take off the market almost
overnight small size packs of cigarettes or tobacco. They stand
to suffer substantial losses because of this, based on the
representations made by The Canadian Federation of
Independent Grocers, among others, which has testified before
the finance committee to point out this deficiency while
supporting government efforts to discourage smoking or
tobacco use from an early age among young people. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers asked whether it
would not be possible to defer the coming into force of that part
of the regulations for a while.
The intent of the motion the Bloc is tabling this evening is to
give distributors, retailers, anyone who is holding stocks of
packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes time to clear their
stocks without incurring excessive losses.
As you know, since 1990, retailers as well as wholesalers and
distributors have sustained substantial losses because of the
recession. And say what we may, we are still experiencing a
slack in the economy although some level of growth can be
expected in a near future.
I would call upon the leniency of the government and the
Reform Party to pass such an amendment. Without adulterating
or weakening in any way this bill, which we support, to
discourage young people from starting to smoke early, our
amendment nonetheless gives businesses a chance to adjust to
the new context. Let us bear in mind also that we have been
asking a lot from the tobacco industry and allied industries over
the past seven or eight years in terms of adjustment.
So, six short months to turn around would be welcome and
that is the motion I am putting to you on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can accept this
amendment. Tobacco is the single most preventable cause of
death and disease in the world today. There are 40,000
Canadians a year who die as a result of tobacco smoking.
It is a cost of $3 billion a year to the health care industry in
this country and directly to the Canadian government. When this
announcement was made that we would be banning kiddie
packs, it was made by the Prime Minister in this House on
February 8. That was a little over four months ago.
That has been enough notice, we believe, for the
manufacturers and for everyone who sells kiddie packs to take
notice that we were going to do this. Second, kiddie packs are
very accessible to young people. They like to buy them because
they are attractive, because they cost less money and because
they are easy to hide from parents and teachers.
(1910 )
It is very important that we take steps now to prevent this very
preventable cause of smoking among young people or this very
preventable adjunct to smoking in young people.
This is an addictive drug and I do not know how long we can
continue to keep saying it is worthwhile keeping it up and
allowing us to continue to propagate what in reality is a lethal
and addictive drug. I think we have given enough time to the
manufacturers and retailers to take this drug off the market.
5252
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to concur with what the hon. member has just said
and also to add a few remarks with regard to kiddie packs. The
ban will be implemented.
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council denies that
kiddie packs or 15s, as they are called, were designed for sale to
young people. It said this recently in a written communication to
the Minister of Health and again in its brief to the Standing
Committee on Finance on June 7.
It is very clear. The statistics provided to us show the largest
percentage of sales of kiddie packs were to young people. While
the tobacco manufacturers may not have designed the 15 packs
for kids, the end result is that the kids end up using them.
If the tobacco industry continues to make these kinds of
claims that they are not designed for kids I think it brings into
question its credibility and raises the whole issue of whether we
can believe it on other issues as well.
It claims that $2 million of existing packaging supplies for
kiddie packs will be wasted, resulting in a $2 million write-off
that will cost taxpayers about $1 million. It also believes that
selling existing stock effective September 12 is quite unfair and
will lead to further write-offs. I am sure this has already been
addressed and so I will not continue on that.
We have to balance the claims and the interests of the tobacco
manufacturers, distributors and retailers with the interest of
health of young people purchasing and smoking these kiddie
packs. The Reform Party finds no difficulty in siding with the
health of our young people.
Rather than support the Bloc motion which supports the
claims of the tobacco industry we would rather support the
claims of the Canadian Cancer Society and the committee for
action on smoking and health and move to stop the sale of kiddie
packs to young people as soon as possible.
If the tobacco industry claims that kiddie packs are designed
to be sold to adults, we have an alternative proposal. Bundle
them up in packs of two, put some cellophane or whatever
around them, and sell them only to adults, which I think the law
requires anyway, and we would no longer have kiddie packs. I
think the solution is so simple the industry does not have to take
this tremendous loss. We are saying simply sell them in packs of
two and your problem is solved. I think it is very simple and only
common sense.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion negatived.)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of National
Revenue) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1915 )
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the
Chair could ask when the bill will be read the third time.
The Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. deputy
government whip. When shall the bill be read the third time? At
the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-33, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid
land claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty the
Queen in right of Canada, the Government of the Yukon
Territory and certain First Nations in the Yukon Territory, to
provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other
land claims agreements entered into after this act comes into
force, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot, to
whom I might indicate he has five minutes left in debate.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief
as possible. I would like to cover three points in the time I have
left.
The intent of this bill is going in the right direction and we
support the intent of this bill. There is not anyone in Canada who
does not want to see the aboriginal people self-reliant and
self-governing, but we believe this bill fails to bring us closer to
that goal.
The first item I will deal with is the power this bill will grant
the new aboriginal communities to create citizenship. A
question that has not been answered in the bill or during the
debate is, if they have the power to create citizenship do they not
have the power to extinguish citizenship? How will that work? If
they have the power to determine who will be a citizen of their
new country or nation, then do they not also have the right to
5253
extinguish citizenship? If it comes to that, how will that work?
What kinds of problems will that create?
We have to look at their system of government that will be set
up. What will that system of government be? Nothing in the bill
indicates whether there will be an appeal process within their
government. For people who believe they need to question a
decision of their leaders, will there be an opportunity for them to
do so through an appeal system? That question ought to be
clarified in this bill so that members in this House and people
across this country who support this bill will be satisfied that we
are going to grant rights to these people equal to what we enjoy
as Canadian citizens.
My second point has been touched upon a number of times. If
this bill is going to be successful and acceptable, it must have
the answer to the extinguishment of the dependency the
aboriginal people have upon the taxpayers and the Government
of Canada. There is no indication that there is any light at the end
of the tunnel within this agreement. Contrary to that, it is very
clear these new aboriginal nations will be able to continue to
look to the federal government for funding. There is no
indication this dependency will stop.
My last point is the one of equality of citizenship. Certainly
the members of these new nations, the aboriginal people, will
continue to remain citizens of Canada. This bill has created
special rights and privileges in law based upon race and ethnic
origin. While the rest of the world, including South Africa, is
bringing barriers down between races and ethnic groups, we are
in the process of erecting them. We saw this same kind of
problem emerge within the Meech Lake accord and the
Charlottetown accord and we are seeing it again in this umbrella
agreement.
(1920)
People are being granted special rights and privileges based
upon race and ethnic origin. These rights and privileges are
being paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, even though they do
not know it, thanks to the speed at which this bill has emerged,
been debated and, I venture to guess, will pass all stages of
reading.
This formula of special rights cannot succeed in a
multicultural society such as Canada. We must ensure that all
Canadians stand equal before the law, regardless of race,
language, culture or religion. This bill violates that principle.
This may be the greatest failing of the Yukon First Nations
agreement. It grants special rights based upon race and ethnic
origin and destroys the principle of equality of citizenship in
Canada.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I find it
difficult to speak to Bill C-33 without some reference at least to
Bill C-34, since both bills have been tabled simultaneously and
will be dealt with simultaneously in committee.
Generally my concerns with the land claim settlement portion
of the two bills are the same as my concerns were with Bill
C-16, the Mackenzie Valley land claim agreement. The very
process the government has chosen to deal with these land claim
settlements is most objectionable, to put it simply.
Considering the importance of these bills, their
unprecedented nature, their open endedness, their implications
for the fundamental constitutional rights of all Canadians, and
the breakneck speed with which these bills are being rushed
through is nothing less than an abuse of the parliamentary
process. It is a reckless invitation for legal and social disaster.
Much of the confusion I feel and express is testimony to the
inadequate time we have been given to deal with this immensely
difficult and huge legislative package. There is much in this
package that we could agree with. The fact that we can only deal
with the bill itself and not the agreement as was the case with
Bill C-16 makes it difficult to impossible for our party as well as
other interest groups and individuals to discharge their
responsibility and rights to comment on, criticize or improve the
bill.
In view of these concerns, I have to ask why these bills are
being pushed through with such haste. The process thus far has
taken 23 years. Why does the government want to pass them
through Parliament without proper scrutiny? Could it be that
given time to analyze and examine these bills, an effective
public opposition to the content of these bills might come
forward? Could it be that there really is not the overwhelming
support for these bills, so we must rush them through without
public awareness or examination?
I must also ask, after negotiating for 23 years, why now, when
only four final agreements exist, are we being asked to abrogate
our responsibilities as an opposition party to examine the other
10 final agreements? Why did the government not finish the
negotiating process, instead of asking us to approve and pass
these agreements that do not now exist? That is the same process
which led to the failure of the Charlottetown accord.
The provision of the compensation package also raises some
concerns for me. When I enquired of the departmental officials
during our briefing what we were compensating for, I was told
that it really was not compensation and perhaps compensation
was a poor choice of words. That was the same answer to the
same question I received on Bill C-16.
There seems to me to be a very fundamental disagreement
between the aboriginal people and the Government of Canada
over where we are starting from and where we are going to. Are
we beginning a process to now buy or rent Canadian territory
from the aboriginal people, or does the crown in fact, hold title
to the Canadian land and we are only providing an amount of
money to help with economic development? The answer to this
question is vital to the future land claim settlements south of 60.
5254
(1925 )
The entrenchment of these agreements as modern day treaties
in the constitution should also be of concern to all Canadians.
There appears to be some difference of legal opinion as to what
this means, but it could mean that these rights gained through
these agreements are not amendable except by constitutional
amendments.
This would mean that these rights are beyond the reach of
future parliamentary amendments. This would give precedence
to the obligation of Canadian taxpayers to these agreements over
the obligation to provide to all Canadians health care, old age
security, or other social security which are provided by simple
acts of Parliament. I believe therefore these provisions to be an
arrogant and tragic mistake to lock in forever the government
policy regardless of what fiscal conditions might exist in this
country in the future.
The creation of 16 separate governments with 15 separate
territories each with separate laws, regulations, and
bureaucratic boards will create a bureaucratic nightmare for
anyone wanting to do business in Yukon, not to mention the cost
of all the new bureaucracies and government institutions.
In conclusion, my feeling about this land claim agreement is
the same as I stated in debate on Bill C-16. I believe and I am
supported by Supreme Court precedents that the crown holds
title to all Canadian territory outside privately held titled land.
I do support the provision of deeded land, the provision for
economic self-sufficiency in the form of a cash payment and
resource sharing. I also support the right of aboriginal peoples to
use the resources of their traditional territory for subsistence.
I do not support the never ending dependence of these
aboriginal people on the taxpayers of Canada. I believe having
been provided the above-mentioned benefits the financial
responsibility of the taxpayers must end. These people can once
again become proud self-sufficient Canadians with the same
economic and social benefits as all other Canadians, not
disillusioned, discouraged, dependent people trapped in a
segregated ethnic homeland dictated to by a dominating
paternalistic federal government.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the deputy government whip to defer the division until
tomorrow at 6.30 p.m.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) a division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until
tomorrow at 6.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
(1930 )
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, an act
to approve, give effect to and declare valid an agreement
between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene
of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope and Fort Norman and
the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells,
as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council, and to make related
amendments to another act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Irwin moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, it is
with mixed feelings that I rise today to speak to Bill C-16.
Certainly there are some positive developments in the bill.
Negotiations toward aboriginal self-government for instance
have been a long time in coming. Although the Reform Party
does not adhere to the concept of inherent self-government we
support self-government negotiations on a voluntary basis
where neither party is coerced to come to the table. To my
knowledge this is a voluntary agreement and that part of it is
good.
Our caucus is also pleased that the agreement has been put
before Parliament in the form of a bill so at least we get a chance
to discuss this particular agreement before Canadians and in
public.
5255
The presentation of this bill sets a precedent. Members on this
side of the House fully expect that every negotiated settlement
in the future will also come under the scrutiny of Parliament. We
only regret that the last bill, the one approving the Nunavut
agreement, received such a cursory examination by the House.
My remarks therefore will be confined to the understanding
that when agreements move aboriginals toward more
self-reliance they are positive agreements. In concept the land
claims settlement we are talking about tonight, a historic
reconciliation between the Sahtu Dene and Metis people and the
federal government could be and has the framework of a good
deal.
The Reform Party has long been on the record as wanting to
settle outstanding land claims issues. However, since this is the
first such agreement to come before this current Parliament and
the Reform Party of Canada, it must come under more careful
scrutiny than might otherwise be the case because it sets yet
another precedent that other groups will surely point to in the
future.
Reformers must do their utmost to lay down principles that
will guide lawmakers in this and future agreements because for
all its good points there are many deficiencies both in the
process of negotiation and in the bill itself that must be
corrected before it can become law.
Unfortunately the media and our intellectual establishment
have done the country a disservice by pressuring the government
to make sweeping agreements without regard to such minor
details as cost, political process, definition of self-government
or the wishes of non-aboriginal Canadians. It has been left to the
Reform Party of Canada to ask searching questions on this
subject and we are prepared to do just that.
Reformers feel that barriers to free thought on a number of
issues like this have been erected in the country. The political
forces that have run government for the last 15 or 20 years have
consistently confused reason and reasonable criticism with
radical thought.
For the media and our academics to do so much as question
some topics is to reveal some sort of subversive, dangerous
tendency. This is a sad commentary on the state of intellectual
life in this country. The one who questions First Nations' policy
in the minds of the media is quickly hounded to the wall as a
racist and a bigot.
This notion of the politically correct can occur in any country
and it becomes an oppressive straitjacket that is truly dangerous
to public policy.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tells an interesting story in his great
work The Gulag Achipelago in which a large number of people
gathered to hear a government official make a speech. In those
days it was customary to applaud a political speech after it was
done by clapping your hands over your head.
(1935)
After the speech the crowd began thunderous applause but no
one dared stop or even slow down because secret agents were
watching and the one who stopped clapping first might be seen
as disloyal. The room was crowded and hot. Everyone was
standing. There were no chairs and the clapping went on and on
and on.
Finally, after a few minutes, an old man fainted in the crowd
and then a brave fellow standing on the platform, tired of all the
foolishness, abruptly stopped clapping and sat down. Of course
the rest of the room immediately fell silent as well.
This somewhat comical example is sobered by the fact that
the man on the platform who stopped clapping was later done
away with by the communists.
In a very small way this situation finds a parallel in our
country today. The leaders of our country, the academics and
special interest groups, have all made the same speech. That
speech has been reiterated over and over again by them and then
taken up in turn by the media. Then the politicians, willing to do
just about anything to gain political victory, begin to include
these thoughts in their speeches until all of them are clapping in
unison.
The fact that a particular policy may not really be in the best
long term interest of the country is no longer addressed.
Everyone is clapping. It would be a sign of disloyalty for the
speech to somehow quit. The first one to do so much as stop this
enthusiastic clapping might lose his career or his money or his
power or prestige or face or tenure or something.
What does it take to correct this situation? It takes someone
on the platform with a little bit of spine and backbone to get tired
of this foolishness and stop clapping.
I am relieved to say that there is someone on Canada's
national platform today and that is the Reform Party of Canada.
It has the spine and the backbone it takes to stop this foolish
applause so that Canadians can hear finally the public interest.
Just like the Solzhenitsyn story where the room fell
immediately silent when one leader stopped clapping, perhaps
now for the first time intelligent, rational discussion can take
place on these so-called delicate issues.
Although everyone was afraid to question government policy
on these politically correct issues, as soon as someone stood up
tall and proud and said in front of the whole nation: ``I'm no
longer willing to agree to a policy that is not in the public
interest, a policy that people don't really want'', finally we are
getting down to the crux of some of these important issues that
have never been discussed in Parliament before. What we have
5256
done already to break this stranglehold of intellectual faddism is
a credit to our party and a great service to our country.
The first question with regard to Bill C-16 that must be asked
and answered is the question of fairness. The seeds for this
question were planted by our forefathers who negotiated treaties
with different Indian bands in the last century. They did it
piecemeal and so different bands negotiated different
agreements. Today the government is doing exactly the same
thing, sowing new seeds that may produce the fruits of division
and jealousy in the future.
This problem was recently addressed by the national chief of
the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, when he said:
Each First Nation in Canada that has a treaty must benefit equally from the
Liberal promises. There cannot be a selective approach by government as to what
region or what First Nation will be able to move ahead on treaties or
self-government or education.
Just a few weeks ago the
Star-Phoenix quoted Mr. Mercredi
as saying:
The inherent right of our people is not a pilot project. It cannot be implemented
as a model in one province or one region for all First Nations to copy-he said
chiefs throughout the country must accept self-government as a national policy.
Non-natives want to be fair to all aboriginals in Canada, but if
the government cannot be as generous to the Sto:lo Nation in my
riding as it is to the Sahtu under this agreement, what will stop
groups from returning to the table in 20 years and saying: ``We
still have an historic grievance. We were shortchanged in the
negotiations. Look what the Sahtu received in 1994. Now we
want a fair deal''.
How do we know that Bill C-16 is a fair settlement? Is this a
national standard, a benchmark by which we judge all other
agreements?
When we bring all these agreements together, and a couple of
the others have been discussed in Parliament tonight, and we
find out their total cost, we must ask the Canadian people
somewhere along the line if they are willing to pay this much to
establish this land claim settlement and self-government.
As the hon. member for Athabasca mentioned earlier, this bill
should be put on hold until national negotiations have been
completed and Canadians properly consulted. There is no rush.
It is a mistake to rush ahead with this. Otherwise we will be
renegotiating many of these deals well into the next century. By
that time standards will have changed completely. This type of
negotiation is irresponsible and the government is setting the
stage for continuing conflict over land claims and
self-government for decades to come.
(1940)
The next problem with the bill flows logically from the first
and that is the huge cost of this agreement. One thousand, seven
hundred and fifty-five people will benefit from this agreement.
Each adult will receive 285 square kilometres of land. Over 42
square kilometres of land will be given in fee simple to each
member. I should probably repeat that, 42 square kilometres for
each person.
For instance the land that is in the province of Ontario belongs
to all Canadians, but under the Sahtu agreement 74,000 square
kilometres of land will be owned by individual natives and they
will control four times that much.
Do Canadians realize how big this settlement is? Two hundred
and eighty thousand square kilometres of Canadian land, that is
one-third the size of my province, British Columbia, will be
removed permanently from the public domain. Together with
the last three agreements, including the ones I mentioned
earlier, soon there will be very little public land north of the 60th
parallel.
No legal precedent equates aboriginal title with land
ownership. The courts have always categorically rejected that
idea. Where does it come from then? It stems from the Liberal
Party of Canada, the party that has for the last 20 years nurtured
interest groups and catered to their every whim. The Liberal
government always gives first place to its political children and
second place, I believe, to the people of Canada. This latest
massive giveaway is a political present wrapped up in the
backrooms of the Liberal Party.
There is more. There is also a cash component of this
agreement. One hundred and thirty million dollars will be paid
out to just 1,700 people over 15 years which works out to
$100,000 each, plus a percentage of resource royalties, plus
fishing and hunting rights, plus a new complicated bureaucracy
paid for by the taxpayers, plus the benefit of programs already
available to natives elsewhere in Canada.
You or I might think this would be satisfactory, Mr. Speaker,
but not at all. Canadians who hope that this agreement at last
defines what self-government really means will be bitterly
disappointed. This agreement is not a self-government
agreement. It is simply a land claims agreement.
Self-government has yet to be negotiated. No doubt it will
confer many more benefits on the Sahtu, Dene and Metis. This is
not the end of the process. It is just the beginning.
I want to address another problem with this agreement. Many
of the aboriginal people in Canada are concerned about this
headlong rush into self-government and land claim settlements.
During the Charlottetown accord debate aboriginal women's
groups urged the rejection of that agreement on the grounds that
they had not been included in the negotiations and that they were
not secure in approving an agreement that could take away the
protection, privileges and freedoms they now enjoy.
5257
In my own constituency of Fraser Valley East many of the
grassroots aboriginals who try to live with these agreements
negotiated behind closed doors, things like the aboriginal
fishing strategy or the make-up of local government structures,
find themselves frustrated by decisions and a process that leaves
the power in the hands of a very powerful few in these
government structures.
Obviously the demands for honest leadership, fiscal
accountability and democratic principles transcend cultural
boundaries. Canadians of all backgrounds want an open
government and an open process.
I have been approached by two different aboriginal leaders
from my home town about this matter. There are 20 some bands
in my constituency. Some of them doubt whether the concept for
self-government is something whose time has come. Allow me
to quote from a letter I received from a native official who is
currently active in leadership. He says: ``The bands in my area
cannot agree on the manner in which lands should be held or how
control should be structured. The Chilliwack Area Indian
Council and Sto:Lo Nation Group do not seem to be able to agree
on the simplest matters. As far as funding is concerned
everything is chaotic. There are many instances of funding
abuses''.
He goes on to cite instances of mismanagement of
government funds, including federal money designated to create
new positions used instead by the bands to increase existing
salaries. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development has been notified of this problem.
If the bands demonstrate this type of behaviour now, it is no
wonder that they are questioning whether this behind closed
doors process is the proper process that will give them the type
of leadership and the type of control that they are hoping for in
the future. We need to take a close look at current band
management before we entrust these sorts of things to
legislative power equal to that of the provinces. Will the
majority of aboriginals benefit at the hands of their own
governments?
(1945)
Let me cite one more example that has been brought before
me, a personal experience. The aboriginal fishing strategy is an
agreement granting unprecedented authority to natives to catch
and sell salmon from B.C.'s Fraser River. The management
regime over this resource is controlled by natives but native
officials have approached me with allegations of surprising
proportions, the latest one being that a proper audit has not been
submitted on time, at the end of May as required in the original
agreement, causing further doubt as to whether these funds have
been used and allocated properly.
The department again is aware of all these problems and doing
nothing about it. One native leader wrote to me and said: ``It is
disappointing to realize our Indian government prefers to
impose authority on its membership rather than to be guided by
it''. The same man told me personally that in their case, in their
band, they are not ready for self-government.
A century and a half ago Canadians ruled by the British were
champing at the bit to have a little more say over their own lives.
Responsible government was finally granted by Britain but it
was a long time in coming. It was only given after Canadian
political leaders had demonstrated through action that they were
ready for it. Budget by budget, decision by decision, crisis by
crisis, the leadership of the colony built up a store of experience
and dedication that showed they could be trusted to act in the
public interest.
Should there not be a companion requirement for aboriginal
leaders? Is it not wise to require many small demonstrations of
responsibility, sound management, compassion and
trustworthiness so that we can ensure natives will act in the
interest of other natives in all of Canada? Power and money
alone cannot solve the problems of our aboriginal people. In fact
they may only make them worse.
Many aboriginal people want and need assurances that any
new agreements move them toward a better, more responsive
and responsible form of government. No one has the inherent
right to govern; the privilege of governance must be earned.
I want to draw on for a moment the process of this agreement.
The Meech Lake fiasco provoked a general outcry about
constitutional processes in Canada. No more were there to be
negotiations behind closed doors. Canadians from all walks of
life, except those in the old line parties, were quick to issue their
angry denunciations. The group which felt the most betrayed,
the ones who uttered the most embittered and angry
denunciations, was none other than aboriginal people
themselves. They condemned the deal and the deal makers alike.
Have the Liberals learned from the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown agreements? Not at all. Now that the Sahtu have a
125-page agreement, every word of which will be entrenched in
our own Constitution, what do we hear? A deafening silence.
When 200 Canadian municipalities want input into the process
they have to write a letter. Listen to a quote from their brief:
``Municipalities have felt excluded from a process that has so
far involved only aboriginal leaders and federal and provincial
governments''.
Even the provinces are in the dark. Even though negotiations
for instance with the Manitoba chiefs are ongoing right now to
dismantle Indian affairs in that province, the Toronto Star
quoted the premier of Manitoba as ``having absolutely no
information on which to build a provincial government policy''.
Where is the openness of the process? Where are the promises of
5258
the Liberals about candour and public trust? Let me quote from
page 91 of the vaunted Liberal red book:
The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that
disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of public business behind
closed doors.
The Liberals criticized the Conservatives about their lack of
openness but it is all just politics. They are the pot calling the
kettle black. Mr. Speaker, could you or I listen to the
dismantling negotiations in Manitoba? Will they be public?
Could you appear before the negotiators to make a presentation?
Not on your life.
I asked the minister a number of important questions about
the Manitoba process. I wrote to him on April 5 asking how I
might have input. I received a statement in return that ignored
the questions I asked, although it did reveal that the government
had given $400,000 to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs to help
them make their case against the Canadian people.
This process is worse than Meech Lake. It is shut tight.
Ordinary Canadians are totally excluded. Not even the media
has access to them. The Sahtu package is presented before
Parliament today as a fait accompli without the benefit of public
discussion beforehand. The Liberal government will use its
majority to ram it through the House, putting its trust in the
continuing silence of the silent majority.
(1950)
While aboriginals, the media and the academic community
exploded in anger over Meech Lake, they are all curiously silent
today. Who speaks for ordinary Canadians who have to pay for
this deal? They are the ones excluded from the process
established over a decade of constitutional struggle, a process
promised in the red book, a process ignored by the Liberals
today.
It makes a travesty of red book promises. It makes a mockery
of the constitutional process. It treats the people of Canada and
members of Parliament like children who cannot eat at the table
with the big folks. They have to sit at the card table in
Parliament and eat the leftovers thrown to them by the
negotiators. This is unacceptable.
There are principles of fairness and equality that every
agreement should contain, principles that should be acceptable
to the Canadian people. They would be. Let me enumerate them.
The first is an open, national negotiating process.
The second is definitive reasonable costs acceptable to
non-aboriginal people throughout the country.
The third is to ensure the supremacy of Parliament by
agreeing that the charter will apply to every person in Canada. It
disturbs me greatly to read in the May 12 edition of the Gazette
that Canada's criminal law and the charter will not necessarily
apply to aboriginal people. ``That is something that remains to
be determined'', the Minister of Justice says. All Canadians,
native and non-native, must be equal under the law.
The fourth principle is that the text of these agreements must
not be entrenched in the Constitution. Its complex details are too
difficult to change and the process for changing them is not
specified in the Constitution. Details need to be legitimized by
practice over a long period of time before, if ever, they are
entrenched.
Fifth, every agreement must contain the extinguishment of
aboriginal title. We want to know if the demands on Canada will
be finished by signing any one agreement. I want to add that the
Sahtu agreement does contain this necessary element. I am
pleased about that one part of it. Every agreement should require
aboriginals to be subject to some form of federal taxation. Every
agreement should reduce native dependency on government,
and finally no agreement should create parallel bureaucracies.
The creation of one bureaucracy must be accompanied by the
dissolution of another.
To sum up, I am worried today that our government is
recklessly making revolutionary changes in public land, public
authority and public institutions without public input. It is doing
so in the interests of a very few.
So that I am not misunderstood, allow me to repeat my
conviction once again. I do not oppose self-government. I do
not oppose an agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis people,
but I strenuously oppose the deal making process. On behalf of
all Canadians I oppose the overly generous terms of the
agreement.
The minister needs to take the process back to the people and
his legislation back to the drawingboard.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, after
listening carefully to my colleague, particularly to his
introduction and the early portion of his remarks, I must admit
that I would like to say something on the subject of loyalty. It is
my impression that I am being disloyal strictly to the Reform
Party this evening because, in fact, I think that the government
agrees with Bill C-16. We have already made it known that we
support the bill as it now stands.
I also tend to want to react to this type of argument; although I
respect it, I do not agree with it at all. I do not think the Bloc
Quebecois has been termed left-wing intellectuals in Canada or
in Quebec. Nor do I believe that we are disloyal to anyone in
saying that we share the views expressed in Bill C-16.
I will go over some of the points I raised previously during the
second reading of the bill-fairly quickly, because we are in the
final stage before passage. During second reading, I said that
one of the premises for this type of agreement, land claims, is
the importance of having confidence in both parties.
5259
Concerning the Dene, the Metis and the Sahtu Tribal Council,
we fully agree that these people were representative, and they
can rest assured that we have complete confidence in their
negotiations and the outcome of those negotiations.
(1955)
With respect to the agreement per se, Sahtu means ``great
bear'' and naturally, reference is made to Great Bear Lake in the
Northwest Territories. This vast territory is steeped in history,
much of which has to do with oil. As you will see, the financial
agreement which has been finalized is based on the price of oil,
particularly at Norman Wells.
There are five major communities within the territory covered
by the agreement. Colville Lake is home to a tribe of Slavey
Dene. The community was founded in 1962 on ancestral lands.
Colville Lake is the only community in the Northwest
Territories where all buildings are constructed entirely of logs. I
believe this is worth mentioning because these are features of
the landscape and communities covered by the agreement.
Colville Lake is a very rustic and very beautiful village, and I
felt that this was important to mention.
Déline was formerly known as Fort Franklin. In 1825, Sir
John Franklin made this community his winter headquarters.
When oil was discovered in Norman Wells during the 1920s,
Fort Franklin became a major trading post owing to its close
proximity to transportation routes.
Fort Norman has long been important to the Dene because of
the excellent sites for placing traps. Trapping is a seasonal
activity which is an important part of the traditional Dene
economy.
Fort Good Hope is the oldest trading post in the lower
Mackenzie Valley; although it is within the territory of the
northern Slave Dene, the Vuntut Gwich'in, as they are called,
the mountain people and Inuit of the Mackenzie Delta used to go
there regularly. But in Norman Wells, I think it is
known-besides, we will soon have Bill C-25, which will allow
more wells to be dug in Norman Wells and extracting oil from
existing wells using a new method such as water under pressure,
so that a well can produce in a much more healthy environment.
Norman Wells is important in the discussion and I will come
back to it soon. We shall see that the financial agreement is
based on the oil resources at Norman Wells, among other things.
The agreement before us was signed in 1993 at Fort Norman
and the Act will simply implement that agreement. It also has
constitutional protection. Some people think that is awful but
we do not think so. It is simply one of the new treaties covered
by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
My colleague raised a very important point about how
representative the process leading to the signing of that
agreement was. I think that the figures I will give will reassure
us on that point. More than 90 per cent of eligible voters
participated because that agreement was put to a vote and 90 per
cent of the people on a territory of 28,000 square kilometres
went out and voted.
This goes to show how important this agreement is to them
and, in my view, we cannot doubt the representativeness of the
people who have signed the agreement, not only because of this
90 per cent participation rate but also because 85 per cent of the
Dene and 99 per cent of the Metis are in favour of this
agreement. It think it is important to point out that in terms of
representativeness, a 90 per cent participation rate leaves no
doubt about the representativeness of the signatories; they were
backed by a democratic vote of the people they represented.
Turning to the development of this agreement at the political
level, it arises from land claims but does not put
self-government in issue. In fact, these are two entirely
different matters. A list of agreed subjects negotiators will have
to look into again, self-government being one of them, has been
appended to the agreement.
For now, it must be understood that this is simply a bill which
approves a land claim agreement.
I will move along quickly because I mentioned many of these
facts at second reading. The Dene and the Metis receive title to
41,437 square kilometres of land, 1,813 square kilometres of
which include mining and mineral rights. This is entirely
consistent with the European economic tradition of the day: the
subsoil teeming with precious metals and black gold,
representing a considerable amount of wealth in the territory as
such.
(2000)
Now about the settlement. The agreement does call for
compensation of $75 million over 15 years.
This settlement is based on the value of oil taken out of the
ground at Norman Wells. Statistics indicated that approximately
$75 million was extracted from the ground each year and shared
by Esso and the Government of Canada, which are partners in
the Norman Wells venture.
This agreement is based on this $75 million. It simply
acknowledges that it costs $75 million annually, that they
incurred a loss of income of $75 million annually, and it is being
conceded to them for a period of 15 years. The famous issue of
economic development is also considered. Economic
development is vital, in my opinion, for the aboriginal nations of
this country and, in particular, the Dene and the Metis; the
economic development that this $75 million will bring is
certainly not negligible.
It will be up to them to combine economic development and
development of their traditional resources. Based on what I have
seen in the agreement, they will surely succeed. This is a
successful example of economic development, and I think
congratulations are in order. I also want to draw an analogy with
the Cree and Naskapi in Quebec. As you know, the James Bay
5260
agreement also provided certain amounts of money to be
administered by a company headed by the Cree. I want to say
that what is happening with the Dene and the Metis is not a
precedent and that a precedent was definitely set in Quebec in
the eighties with the Cree and the Naskapi.
The agreement contains provisions on wildlife. As you know,
wildlife management is part of their tradition. They have an
inborn respect for the environment, so to them it is important to
preserve, both in the agreement and in this bill, this particular
aspect of their tradition, which includes hunting, trapping and
fishing rights. These are all included in the agreement and
reflect the traditional culture and the traditional hunting
grounds of the Dene and the Metis.
I would like to add that a number of interest groups were
consulted, not only the Dene and the Metis. These included the
Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines, which approved this
bill, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers, the Northwest Territories
Wildlife Federation, the Mount Mackenzie Outfitters and the
Lynn Graham Trail Association.
As far as outfitters are concerned, this is an interesting aspect
of the agreement. There are people already involved in trapping
and hunting activities in the territory who are not necessarily
Dene or Metis. What is interesting in the agreement is that these
people will be able to continue those activities. This is further
evidence of the philosophy of aboriginal people when the
Europeans arrived. To them, the land was something to be
shared. The Dene and the Metis, like all other aboriginal
peoples, have always agreed to share their land. What happened
is that the Europeans got a lot of money out of their land and
restricted them to reserves and certain territories.
(2005)
This agreement enables them to throw off at least partially the
yoke of the Indian Act because this will be in fact the first step
we will allow them to take toward financial autonomy and it is
something we should consider for a few minutes.
This financial autonomy is important to them because we
know that, in fact, the Indian Act maintains all Native nations
under trusteeship, where all decisions are made for them. The
statement that we are witnessing the birth of a new bureaucracy
must be toned down a bit.
I think that the time has come for us, the people of Quebec and
Canada, to end this trusteeship and allow these people to take
control of their own destiny. Given the financial agreement
before us and their eventual right to design and prepare special
programs for the regions and, at the end of the day, to administer
themselves, I do not think we are witnessing the birth of a new
bureaucracy.
We are simply giving them the power to take control of their
own future. Ottawa will no longer decide what programs are
good for them. They will decide for themselves what programs
they want. I think that, in this regard, the negotiators' efforts
were commendable. I see that, according to the agreement
provisions that are, of course, linked to the bill, this bureaucracy
or pseudo-bureaucracy will enable them to really administer
their lands with their own programs while respecting their
culture and promoting a new economic development.
Finally, I must salute them. These people venerate their elders
and often think in terms of the next seven generations. I am sure
that seven generations ago, native people were in possession of
their territory, but the situation changed drastically with the
arrival of Europeans. These people have always wanted to
regain control of what had been theirs as first occupants, and I
think that, in these negotiations, they had future generations in
mind.
In fact, negotiators and representatives from the territory in
question came to my office and told me that their elders had
always persevered, and that they were very pleased to have the
support of the Bloc Quebecois. Consequently, I am pleased to
say once again that our party will fully support Bill C-16 in third
reading.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, it is again a pleasure to rise in debate on Bill C-16, the
Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim agreement, this time in third
reading.
The terms, provisions and conditions have been well
canvassed on this side of the House and unfortunately our
concerns with Bill C-16 still apply. Our pleas, both in the House
and in committee, have fallen on deaf ears.
I want today only to make a few points beginning with a point
which is general in nature but strikes at the very heart of my
party's concern with federal land claims policy. The
government's policy is based on a false assumption. In March
1993 a document was published by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development entitled ``Federal Policy for
the Settlement of Native Land Claims''. Within that publication
there is a glowing observation which states the evolution and
development of the federal government's land claim policy has
been closely linked to court decisions.
The first claims policy statement in 1973 was initiated by a
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1973 Calder
decision which acknowledges the existence of aboriginal title in
Canadian law.
5261
(2010 )
Further in the document: ``The common law concept of
aboriginal rights was addressed in the 1973 decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Calder case. Six of the seven
Supreme Court justices who heard the case acknowledge the
existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law''.
With respect to those departmental drafters, I do not accept
these statements as properly reflecting historical fact. How can
you base your federal land claims policy on these
misinterpretations?
The Calder case was a claim by the Nishga people to
aboriginal title over the Nass Valley in B.C. It was a claim to
aboriginal title without precisely delineating what those words
meant. When the claim was brought to the Supreme Court of
British Columbia it was dismissed. It was then brought before
the Court of Appeal of B.C. in which a three man court again
dismissed the claim for aboriginal title.
Finally it was appealed before the Supreme Court of Canada
where it was once again dismissed, with three judges finding
that aboriginal title may have existed prior to colonial contact
but that it was extinguished at the time of colonial contact.
Three other judges ruminated and the seventh dismissed the
appeal on technical grounds.
In the final analysis the Calder case did not decide that
aboriginal title exists in Canada.
Even if the Calder had been ruled as aboriginal title it would
have been title that was far less than a fee simple title. It was not
ever proposed or put forward in the case that the aboriginal title
amounted to fee simple ownership, unlike the transfer that Bill
C-16 provides. Bill C-16 conveys 41,000 square kilometres in
fee simple ownership, about three quarters the size of Nova
Scotia, based on no court substantiation.
In the four agreements thus far, north of 60 degrees latitude, in
other words in what Canadians have collectively known as the
Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, the total fee
simple lands amount to 505,000 square kilometres or about half
the size of the province of Ontario. We should be very concerned
over land claim agreements that remove from the public domain
vast areas of public lands.
My party's other major concern with Bill C-16 is the
constitutional entrenchment provision. The bill states that the
agreement is constitutionalized. If our interpretation is correct
this means that it cannot be amended other than by virtue of the
amending formula to the Constitution which was agreed to in
1982. When we look at the 1982 amending formula it does not fit
very well to these kinds of land claim agreements. There are, as
the House knows, six amending formulae and none of them
seems to apply to situations created by bills such as Bill C-16.
I question the validity of section 3.1.26 of the act which says
amendments can be made because if the agreement can be so
readily amended by order in council of the federal government
and approval of the Sahtu Tribal Council, if it can be so easily
amended in that way then how can we say this agreement is
constitutionally entrenched? Those points fell on deaf ears in
committee but again I make them.
In this same vein we again state our concerns with locking in
such detailed and untried provisions as are in this document.
Hundreds of pages of clauses and provisions are locked in and
only time will tell if they are workable.
(2015 )
I would hope that in future these types of agreements that are
to be constitutionalized be kept to land claim rights only. These
are the ones that section 35 of the Constitution is really talking
about. Maybe a 10 year clause should accompany these locking
in provisions to allow for a shakedown of the agreement.
Bill C-16 allows for law making power and thus raises the
issue of the charter of rights. The question is will those laws be
subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know
the minister has said yes to the above, but with the greatest of
respect that cannot be achieved by degree or by fiat.
My understanding is that the only way this legislation that is
passed under self-government agreements can be subject to the
charter of rights is for the charter itself to be amended to make
certain that legislation passed by aboriginal governments is
subject to the charter. That is what was proposed in the
Charlottetown accord and that was and can be the only rationale.
In the absence of a specific provision in the charter of rights
itself it is most unlikely that the charter applies to legislation
passed by native self-government.
Finally, I am amazed by the layers of bureaucracy that this bill
creates from renewable resource boards to administration
panels, to planning and water boards, to an environmental
planning board. We have it all. I submit that these functions are
currently being performed by the department of Indian affairs or
by the territorial governments.
Our final litmus is does it provide for the self-sufficiency of
the Sahtu and the independence they seek? I fear as I do for the
Yukon agreement that this litmus test will fail in the long term
and even perhaps in the medium term. The intentions of both
parties to the agreement, the Sahtu and the federal government,
have been hijacked by bureaucratic solutions albeit with the best
intentions.
There are built in disincentives to business, once again
designed by bureaucrats. We have a precedent in the Indian Act
5262
with all the built in disincentives to business within the Indian
Act. Surely we could come up with a simpler design than this.
I have found my relationships with the Sahtu first class. I hope
that they feel the same way and I wish them the very best with
their challenge and their adventure. Much adversity can be
overcome with the correct spirit and attitude. I know how
important Norman Wells is to the area. I have talked to many of
the players. This enterprise will continue. It is new industry that
is the challenge. I certainly hope that I am proven wrong in my
major assumptions.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I spoke at
some length on this bill during second reading debate and during
committee. I have a few brief points that I want to make in
closing the debate.
This being another step into the process of the huge giveaway
of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory of Canada
and removing it from the ownership of the crown for the use and
enjoyment of all Canadians is a dangerous precedent to be
setting. Not only is that precedent a giveaway of that amount of
territory with no legal obligation to do so, there is another
precedent that I spoke of earlier, and I continue to go back to on
this particular agreement, the precedent that there is a valid
treaty in force covering this territory which provided for the
extinguishment of land claims and rights of aboriginal peoples
in that area.
(2020 )
We are now in the process of renegotiating, reopening that
agreement to again negotiate a broader package, a more
generous package and much more territory. I think that is a real
dangerous precedent to be setting and bodes poorly for the
future when we will again be negotiating treaties one through
eleven under the same circumstances that we are now
renegotiating this one.
The richness of this agreement I can only object to on the
grounds that it does not end the responsibility of the Canadian
taxpayer for these aboriginal people. Surely the $100,000 per
individual payout in the share of resource revenue from the
Norman Wells oil field and other resources is enough to provide
for self-sufficiency and for self-determination for this group of
people to allow them economic development to participate in all
the things that all Canadians enjoy and take for granted in this
country.
Having given that opportunity we should then end the
responsibility of the Canadian taxpayer to continue to support
these aboriginal people. The Bloc spoke on this bill, both in
second reading and now in third reading, in support of the bill. It
is quite easy to understand the Bloc's position on this particular
bill.
It goes a long way to reinforcing the proposal of the
recognition of sovereignty for a particular ethnic group and
plays to its own cause. It certainly does not have to be concerned
with the financial cost or the financial responsibility for
ongoing generations of Canadians because clearly it does not
want to be part of Canada and part of that obligation to future
generations.
When we talk about the large amount of oil and the large
amount of money that was taken out of the Norman Wells oil
field, certainly there have been great amounts of oil and wealth
taken out, but I have worked in the Norman Wells oil field and it
is a hugely expensive part of Canada to develop that resource in
and to extract that resource.
When we talk about those kinds of things, we have to consider
the cost of developing not only the oil field but the technology
that goes with it. Let us talk about the net value of the resource
that was taken out.
Let us, at the same time, consider the huge amounts of tax
dollars that have been returned to the area in social spending to
cover all kinds of things from housing to economic
development, to schools, to all those other things. I think a good
share of that resource is being returned and continues to be
returned to that area.
The other thing that I would like to speak briefly on is the
process of this legislation as it went through the House and the
fact that we, as an opposition party, were not allowed any
provision to make our views heard or make our views known in
the final report on the bill when it was returned to the House in
report stage simply because we were not allowed to recommend
or to discuss changes in the agreement. We were only allowed to
discuss the bill itself, which was very small and did not really
address the terms of the agreement.
In spite of the fact that in committee we heard a number of
witnesses from the region, the aboriginal people from the area,
and some of them clearly neither understood nor desired the
terms of this settlement, their views were not taken into
consideration.
There has been no discussion on report stage of those people
who opposed this. I want to make sure that I and my party go on
record opposing this process and this agreement simply because
I think it is a huge mistake to be moving Canada toward a system
that South Africa is celebrating leaving behind.
We are imposing ethnic homelands on these people and
trapping them in these agreements. That is a terrible precedent
to be setting. We should be moving at some point to the equal
treatment of all Canadians no matter where they live or what
their ethnic or racial background is.
In closing, when the record is written the Reform Party
opposed the agreement and the Liberals pushed it through in
spite of the objections of our party and a number of the people
involved.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
5263
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the assistant government whip has asked me to
defer the division until later.
[English]
Accordingly pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) a division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until
tomorrow at 6.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, given the progress today perhaps I
could ask for unanimous consent to see it ten o'clock.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to see it as
ten o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being ten o'clock the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 8.27 p.m.)