TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 4, 1994
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3874
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3874
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3875
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3876
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3879
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3879
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3880
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3880
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3882
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3883
Bill C-26. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to 3885
Motion for concurrence in 20th report 3885
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3886
Motion for concurrence 3887
Bill C-24. Motion for second reading 3887
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 3895
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 3902
Bill C-12. Motion for second reading 3902
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee. 3911
Bill C-21. Motion for second reading 3912
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered incommittee,reported and concurred in.)
3913
Motion for third reading 3913
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3914
3873
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 4, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate today a gentleman from the riding of Oxford for
doing his part to protect mother earth.
Mr. Stu Shouldice from Woodstock was recently inducted into
the Recycling Council of Ontario's Waste Reduction Hall of
Fame. Mr. Shouldice and his family regularly recycle 95 per
cent of their household waste.
Mr. Shouldice was reported to have said that increased
recycling by all levels of government depends on the will of the
people and how badly we want a pollution free world for our
children.
I congratulate this gentleman on behalf of this House and on
behalf of all those who can learn from the example he has set.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, on April 6
last, Citizenship and Immigration Canada served the Garda
family with a departure notice taking effect in a few days.
Today, I learned from the office of the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration that the minister will not intervene in favour of
the Garda family. This is extremely disappointing. The minister
must spare the Garda family the humiliating torments suffered
by the Maraloï family. He must defer the notification of
deportation as long as it has not been proven that the Garda
family does not have to fear for its life, should it return to its
country.
Since the beginning of this whole process, several years have
gone by and the Garda family is now well integrated in my riding
of Châteauguay, and we will do everything we can to keep it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I recently received a
copy of a letter sent to Revenue Canada by Mr. Barrie Carter, a
constituent of mine from Smithers, British Columbia. It reads:
Please find enclosed two post-dated cheques to cover taxes owing. However, I
think it only reasonable that the minister of revenue assure me that my money will
not be spent on golfing trips by government officials on government jets.
Like all Canadians, I do not object to paying my share of taxes providing the
money is spent in a reasonable manner. Therefore the minister should have no
trouble making that assurance to me before the cheque dates become due.
This letter underlines the hostility that is generated when
Canadians see their hard earned tax dollars spent in a frivolous
or cavalier manner.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
as we head toward Victoria Day weekend and the beginning of
the traditional tourist season I would like to share with the
House public concern over Bill C-46, the Contraventions Act.
The Contraventions Act received royal assent October 15,
1992 but to the disappointment of many Canadians it has not yet
been proclaimed.
The act sets out a ticketing procedure for dealing with minor
federal offences. The act will allow enforcement officers to
properly police Canada's inland waterways and ensure that
residents and tourists can enjoy summer water activities in a
safe and secure manner.
The reason given for this delay has been the need to
co-ordinate the bill's implementation among the provinces. I
have been told that this process which has already taken 18
months will take at least another 12. This delay of two and a half
years means that more of my constituents will be at risk on the
waterways. It is unacceptable and I urge the Minister of Justice
to expedite the process.
3874
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of National Nursing Week, May 9-15,
1994.
The theme this year, ``Nurses Make the Difference'', catches
the essence of the great contribution that this profession makes
to the health care of all Canadians.
Since the time of the first nurse in Canada, Jeanne Mance,
nurses have remained the keystone of the Canadian health care
system.
I commend all nurses in Canada for their high levels of
commitment, skill, dedication and caring service to our people.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
address once again the horrific circumstances that children in
Bosnia live with day after terrible day. I have been asked by the
children in my riding of Provencher what we can do to help
them.
During World War II Canadians helped to evacuate children
from danger zones for their safekeeping. Currently a number of
European nations are actually helping to evacuate children of
the Balkans. Canada has yet to take this step.
This is indeed one way we can help the children of Bosnia. It
is my greatest hope the government will take the steps necessary
to help preserve those most innocent in the Balkans during this,
the year of the family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, on March 24 last, in Tunisia, Dr. Marzouki was
arrested and jailed after declaring that he would run for
president.
(1405)
His arrest can only be explained by the fact that he had
denounced certain undemocratic electoral rules and given
interviews to western newspapers.
Dr. Marzouki, who is a former president of the Tunisian
Human Rights League, is well known in Quebec for his many
conferences and publications on human rights and democratic
development. It is therefore extremely shocking to learn that his
fundamental freedoms have been violated.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal
government put immediate pressure on the Tunisian government
to free Dr. Marzouki.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): On Sunday,
May 1 in the Ottawa
Sun the Canadian Police Association
accused the Minister of Justice of using selective use of
statistics and disputed his claims that there was no law and order
crisis in Canada.
Statistics Canada figures show that in 1961 just before we
stopped imposing the death penalty, there were 233 murders for
a murder rate of 1.2 murders per 100,000 population. In 1992
there were 732 murders for a rate of 2.6 per 100,000.
Canadians know this is a massive increase in the number of
murders despite the justice minister's reassurances to the
contrary.
Over 90 per cent of my constituents are telling me they
believe in capital punishment. If Canada is a true democracy
then our laws should reflect what the majority of Canadians
want. I ask this government for a binding referendum on the
death penalty.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the constituents of Hamilton West for responding so
quickly and vigorously to the questionnaire in my spring
householder. In less than two weeks I have received nearly 2,000
responses and they are still coming in.
In addition to providing detailed comments and opinions on a
number of important issues such as doctor assisted suicide and
peacekeeping, many people seemed to appreciate the fact that
someone was actually listening and interested in what they had
to say. These are people like Norma who wrote: ``I just want to
say I appreciate your efforts at getting feedback from Canadians
and I feel like there is someone in Ottawa who is actually
listening to us''.
With all the chirping that is going on about direct democracy
from the members over there in the third party, and in this day
and age of laptop computers, voice mailboxes, megabehemoth
information superhighways, is it ever comforting to know that
so far good old-fashioned pen to paper seems to work best.
I would like to point out that this form of direct democracy is
available to each and every one of us. I encourage all members
of this House to use it.
3875
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to draw attention to a Tory legacy of
waste and gross excess in government publications.
We are all accumulating dozens of annual reports from crown
corporations and government agencies for the 1993 fiscal year.
Each attempts to outdo the other in flash, ostentation and wanton
waste.
One of many flagrant examples of excess is the 1993 report of
the Royal Canadian Mint. At only 26 pages it is over
one-quarter inch thick on glossy card stock with four colour
pictures of management and partial clear coating on select
sections. The cover is richly embossed in gold foil. It is
impossible to recycle and literally must have broken the mint to
produce.
CMHC whose purpose is to maximize housing assistance for
Canadians in need produced an annual report that is outrageous
with exotic half-page die cuts, expensive graphics and heavy
coloured stock.
We must denounce this type of waste. We must encourage
simple economical reports that set the tone of this new
government and reflect the frugality and practicality that all
Canadians are expecting of us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, this is
National Forest Week. The aim of this national event, which is
celebrated each year across Canada, is to heighten public
awareness of the importance of our forest resources.
Our forests are a key part of our country's economy. No one
knows the value of our forests better than the residents of
Quebec's rural areas. I am thinking here, of course, about the
residents of the Gaspé region. For generations, sawmill
operators, Canadian forestry workers and their families have
earned their living from our forests.
Throughout our history, an entire people has benefitted from
the use of this great Canadian natural resource. Efforts to
develop and regenerate our forests must continue.
(1410)
Therefore, I call on Canadians to reflect upon the importance
of our forests, Canada's treasured heritage.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal member for York South-Weston declared
yesterday that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
should investigate the activities of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Parti Quebecois.
Such a declaration is totally unacceptable. It seems the
requirements of democracy are too much of a burden for some
members who would like the federal government to illegally
interfere once again in the major decision Quebec is about to
make.
Quebecers remember. They remember the arrests without
warrants, the wiretapping, the break and enter searches which
occurred during the days when the federal government readily
mistook, some would say deliberately, legitimate and
democratic aspirations for illegal actions.
I truly hope that the member for York South-Weston is the
only one in this House to wish for Quebec and Canada to relive
such a dark period of their history.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are astonished that the Department of Canadian
Heritage is giving away 70,000 tax dollars for a study of riddles.
Student tuition fees are increasing steadily. Workers are
forced to take wage cuts. Someone with a brain tumour can wait
over a month just to get a CAT scan.
Why, when we face such serious problems, would any
government minister allow such a senseless waste of our tax
dollars? Is there not anyone in charge who cares that we are
losing ground on health care, education and financial stability?
This government seems to think that Canadians are cash cows
to be milked to fund every silly program that comes along.
The only riddle this government should study is why the
finance minister seems unable to understand that frivolous
spending hurts job creation and funding for health care and
education.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, as we
celebrate with South Africans the birth of a new democratic
South Africa, Canadians are proud of the role we played in
maintaining economic sanctions against the old South Africa.
3876
That pride is called into question by some of the things that
have been said recently by the Prime Minister and the Minister
for International Trade in which the linking of trade to human
and political rights has been seriously downplayed.
At the Marrakesh meeting to sign the new GATT agreement,
which brought the World Trade Organization into existence, the
minister was quoted in the Financial Post of April 9 as saying
that he was reluctant to follow the American proposal for an
international labour code.
Without such a code, the world's multinationals will be
allowed to prey even on the child labourers of the developing
world and the process of globalization will certainly continue on
its present race to the bottom.
I call on the Minister for International Trade to overcome his
conservative inhibitions, to see labour as a trade issue and to
take the lead in designing an effective social and labour code
under the World Trade Organization.
Globalization without global community and global standards
is nothing other than moral anarchy.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my
riding of Brant I had the privilege of announcing that the city of
Brantford would be the first Ontario municipality to receive
funding under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works
program.
With 15 per cent unemployment, one can imagine the open
arms with which the announcement that $12 million would be
spent locally in our community to restore our infrastructure and
get our people back to work was received.
Brantford is not the only municipality that feels so strongly
about this program. Fully 630 municipalities in our province
have made applications for funding.
I would like to congratulate our government for working so
expeditiously with the province and with the municipalities to
get this program up and running. I would like to say to the Prime
Minister how honoured I was to make the announcement,
effectively an announcement that makes good his promise to
help get Canadians back to work.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to report to this House that I have just returned
from South Africa where I was a member of the Canadian
observer mission to witness the election that took place last
week.
Our team was dispersed in different parts of the country. I
observed in seven areas of the eastern cape around East London,
Transkei and Ciskei, including the second largest black
township in the country. We visited polling stations in hospitals,
prisons, nursing homes, churches, schoolrooms, as well as city
halls. We witnessed voter registration and saw evidence of voter
education.
From our observations we determined the elections to be fair
and free of intimidation and violence. A majority of the
electorate was in a position to vote and did so. Logistical,
administrative and inadequate distribution of materials were
challenges which did not daunt the voters' enthusiasm to cast
their ballots.
(1415)
The South African people are to be congratulated for their
tremendous achievement toward the goal of democracy.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
millions of Canadians during the 1950s and 1960s watched the
television series ``The Andy Griffith Show''.
Just recently I had the pleasure to honour the retirement of
Carman Lemcke, police chief of Shelburne, a town in my riding.
During Mr. Lemcke's 37-year career he never wore a gun.
Carman is the longest serving police chief in the province of
Ontario and possibly Canada.
One humorous story is the tale of hands-up-Harry. Two bank
robbers tried to make a withdrawal while Carm was working in
his front yard. Mr. Lemcke went to the local hardware store,
borrowed a rifle and set out on foot to capture the two robbers.
The getaway car left early leaving hands-up-Harry to become a
story regularly told in Shelburne.
On behalf of myself and the people of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe I would like to wish
Carman and Rose a happy, healthy and long retirement.
_____________________________________________
3876
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This week, the
UN is to consider a draft resolution proposed by the U.S. to issue
a 15-day ultimatum to the Haitian military junta and reinforce
the trade embargo. At the same time, President Clinton took a
tougher stand by clearly evoking the possibility of armed
intervention to depose the military rulers he rightly accuses of
killing innocent civilians.
3877
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has
just arrived. Can the minister give an update on the negotiations
at the UN concerning the ultimatum proposed by the American
president and can he indicate whether Canada supports this
proposal?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, naturally, we hope that a solution will finally be found
to the long-lasting impasse in Haiti. We are making every effort
to support the elected president, Mr. Aristide; we think he
should return to his country. We think, as the American
president said, that General Cédras and the chief of police of the
city of Port-au-Prince must resign. We continue to believe that
a total embargo is the only effective way to subdue the military.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Canadian policy is to suggest and try
to convince the allies to impose a tougher military embargo. So
far, however, the American president had not clearly stated his
position, in particular on increasing the pressure he wants to
exert on Haiti, since he is now hinting at armed intervention.
I ask the minister whether the Canadian government endorses
the idea of armed intervention as proposed by President Clinton
in case the Haitian military rulers refuse to comply with the
proposed ultimatum.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, in response to questions, the U.S. president stated that
he was not ruling out any option, any alternative. I must say that
Canada did not contemplate the possibility of armed
intervention, whether multilateral or unilateral, as we are
convinced that stiffer economic sanctions would overcome the
military junta and that it is appropriate to impose effective
sanctions, which involves the participation and co-operation of
the Dominican Republic in particular. We think it is still
possible to make the military rulers resign without having to
resort to armed intervention.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, according to the dispatch I read, President Clinton
went further than what the minister said. He did not simply say
that he was not ruling out any option, he specifically said that he
was not ruling out the option of armed intervention, which is an
important distinction when a U.S. president makes statements
on such vital issues.
I therefore ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he can
tell us today if his government received assurances that the
proposed reinforcement of trade sanctions will not lead to an
increase in black-market activities controlled by the military
junta and the Haitian police.
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that Canada supports the return of
President Aristide to Haiti.
We believe that a total embargo could bring about the
withdrawal of the military people who are holding a suffering
population hostage.
If the Americans and a number of other countries through the
United Nations pass a resolution to bring a total embargo against
Haiti, it is possible the embargo will not be a very long one. It
will become very clear to the military people that they cannot
stay there and they will resign in the following hours.
It is time to show unequivocally the military people there that
they cannot perpetrate the denial of the vast majority of Haitians
who voted freely for President Aristide.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, in a
decision handed down yesterday, a court ruled that alimony
received for child support should not be taxable. In fiscal terms,
this is a decision with major financial implications. Yesterday in
the House, the Minister of Finance was rather vague as to what
his government intended to do about this decision, stating, and I
quote:
-our biggest concern is financial support for children and tax fairness.
Can the Minister of National Revenue clarify what the
Minister of Finance means by concern for tax fairness? Are we
to understand that the government plans on making child
support payments no longer taxable?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the member rightly points out, the
decision yesterday is perhaps one of the more important
decisions in the equation dealing with child support payments.
Under the Canadian judicial system we have 90 days to
consider the decision and what actions the Government of
Canada with the assistance of the Minister of National Revenue
and the Minister of Justice will take. The Minister of Finance
will be revealing that decision and will speak to the House at the
earliest possible convenience.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Will the minister undertake to review the Income Tax Act to
ensure, in real terms, greater fairness in the tax treatment of
families, with tax fairness being a central concern in the context
of the International Year of the Family?
3878
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, this issue is foremost in tax fairness. As
the House knows, it has in front of it motion M-14 from the
member for Nepean on the issue of child support. It is a votable
motion and the minister and the government look forward to
hearing the wishes of the House on this issue.
The minister and other members of the government are quite
happy to meet with members of the whole House to talk about
this issue. There is also a federal-provincial-territorial task
force on the question of child support. We consider this input to
be also very important in our consideration.
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister is aware there is increasing evidence
that Canada's health care system is in trouble: hospitals being
closed, long lines waiting for surgery, provinces rationing
services. At the root of the problems are inadequate
arrangements for financing health care.
Does the government acknowledge that health care financing
needs to be completely reformed and that Canadians are now
prepared to accept substantive amendments to the Canada
Health Act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Minister of Health and on behalf of the Government of Canada I
would like to commit the government to our full support for the
Canada Health Act. It is a very important instrument in ensuring
that every Canadian has access to health care, not because of the
size of their wallets but because of the size of their health
problems.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
gather that the government and the Deputy Prime Minister will
not concede that Canadians would rather have major changes in
health care financing than to suffer further cuts in services.
For example, a Compas opinion survey on this subject is
being released in Toronto today. It reveals that 58 per cent of
Canadians are prepared to accept health care financing
mechanisms not permitted by the Canada Health Act, even
including user fees, in order to save health care.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the Canada
Health Act should be amended to permit the provinces greater
flexibility in health care financing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the member is on
very dangerous ground when he chooses to pursue policies
because of polls.
I have a copy of another poll done by Insight Canada
Research. This poll is from last month and states that only 16 per
cent of Canadians support user fees.
I would suggest to the member that he take a look at the red
book commitments of the Liberal government. We will be
meeting with our provincial counterparts in June to examine the
whole issue of how we can better deliver health care, but we do
not see user fees as a solution to the problems of Canada's health
care system.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we could argue all day about the validity of polls.
I suggest to the ministers that if they contrast alternative
financing mechanisms with the alternative of losing the service,
a majority of Canadians favour the alternative financing
mechanism.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this simple question. If the
choice is between further cuts in health care service or changing
the financing provisions of the Canada Health Act, which
alternative does the government prefer?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is a false choice.
If we look at one area of health which is of great concern to
women, it is in the whole area of birthing. Anyone who has gone
through the process knows that birthing is a natural part of life.
It is not necessarily a medical problem. Provinces across the
country increasingly are looking to alternative birthing
methods, including the use of midwives. It has recently been
embraced by the province of Ontario, including les services de
sages-femmes dans la province de Québec.
It is a creative way of delivering a service to healthy women to
have babies in a healthy fashion. This creative way actually
saves money for the system.
That is what my counterpart, the Minister of Health, is going
to be examining with her provincial colleagues when she meets
with them in June.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I permitted the last question but I
would prefer in future if questions were not hypothetical and a
little more direct. If that could be the case we would do better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
3879
Yesterday at the annual meeting of the World Health
Organization in Geneva, the Minister of Health said that the
misuse of reproductive technologies like cloning and genetic
engineering to choose a child's sex must stop.
(1430)
Does the Minister of Justice agree with his colleague, the
Minister of Health, who at that prestigious forum emphasized
the importance of criminalizing some reproductive technologies
such as genetic engineering and cloning?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as I said as recently as last
week in this House, the Department of Justice is working with
the ministry of health examining the 300 recommendations that
came from the royal commission on reproductive technologies
in February. Very few of them actually deal with the justice
system to the extent to which they recommend changes, for
example, in the Criminal Code.
Representatives of justice and health are preparing
recommendations for cabinet arising from the royal commission
and touching upon all of the issues in relation to reproductive
technologies.
Rather than deal piecemeal with this or that part of the
proposals, my approach to date has been to await the completion
of the work of those officials and bring forward to cabinet
policies that we believe are in the public interest and that act
upon the recommendations of the commission which spent a
long time looking at these complex questions.
In response to the hon. member, I say that rather than
identifying policies a bit at a time we are looking at the
recommendations as a whole. We will be coming forward
through cabinet with the government policy probably in the fall
of this year.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that the government's slowness in acting to
regulate and control new reproductive technologies proves that
this issue is not a priority for the government, despite the
minister's statement in Geneva, and that its inaction will have a
major impact on ethics and research?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that
conclusion follows.
First, it is a matter of priority. For example, we have designed
topics and background materials for the meeting of deputy
ministers in mid-June. Deputy ministers of health across the
country will be meeting. We will be consulting them with
respect to their views and the provincial and territorial
perspective on some of these issues. We will be preparing
discussion papers over the summer to elicit the views of the
research community on some approaches we can take to the
recommendations of the royal commission.
It is a matter of priority. It is not something we are going to act
upon next week. We are going to consult. We take the issue very
seriously. We will come forward with policies probably late in
1994 to deal with these issues. They are matters of concern and
of substance, but we are going to deal with them methodically.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health I would like to
direct this question to the Prime Minister.
The Speaker: As was mentioned before in Question Periods,
it would be preferable if the matter of whether members are here
or not is not mentioned. Would the hon. member please put his
question.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, let us
talk about women's health.
A recent Halifax Chronicle-Herald article detailed the case
of Mary, a single mother who was waiting for orthopaedic
surgery. During this time she has been unable to work because of
severe pain. In Mary's words: ``They are all talking about
prevention but the fact that I have not had surgery is an example
of not using prevention''.
If this government is serious about prevention as a means of
solving our current health care crisis, why does it continue to
rely on rationing of essential health care with its huge cost in
human suffering to shackle Canadians to an obsolete Canada
Health Act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal
government is strongly committed to the establishment and
accessibility of health care across the country.
If we actually followed the member's advice and torpedoed
the Canada Health Act, the difficult situation that patients are
facing now across the country would be exacerbated because
what we would end up with would be one system where if people
had money they could get the operation and another system for
those people with no money. We will not support that system.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking about torpedoing any act. We just
want to make it better so that Canadians will have better health
care for always. The system is broken. To fix the system we need
innovative, cost effective and compassionate solutions.
3880
(1435)
We cannot do this under the current act. Does this government
care more about the Canada Health Act or the health of
Canadians? What solutions does this government offer today?
We want answers, not rhetoric.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, one of the principles of the
Canada Health Act is universality. One of the things that is
banned by the Canada Health Act is user fees.
When the member talks about rhetoric, he suggests that we
make the Canada Health Act better. The fact is that the five
principles upon which the Canada Health Act is based are the
very principles which have many countries around the world
looking to Canada as one place where you can get care no matter
what the size of your pocketbook.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In a letter to the Prime
Minister, dated April 26, 1994, the chairman of the Kanesatake
Chamber of Commerce blames the carelessness of the federal
government particularly for the collapse of native businesses
and for the alleged misappropriation of federal subsidies by the
band council, in an unstable situation where public security is
concerned.
Since the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce is accusing
the Kanesatake Band Council of misappropriating federal
subsidies, would the Prime Minister make public any
information he might have on these allegations?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, perhaps after Question Period my
good friend can show me the letter, we can talk quietly and I can
give him whatever information I have.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I hope I
have better luck with my next question, which deals with
business.
What real measures does the Prime Minister intend to take in
order to alleviate the alarming financial difficulties Kanesatake
businesses are faced with, given the unstable public security
situation caused essentially by the carelessness the federal
government has shown in matters under its jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member
that it was not this government that brought the army out. It was
not this government that would not negotiate.
This government is bringing the Mohawk people here to
Ottawa and dealing with them. The government of Quebec is
bringing the Mohawk people to Quebec City and dealing with
them. We will deal with the reeves, we will deal with the mayors
and we will deal with the people. We do not create problems, we
solve them.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Yesterday the minister said that rank and file aboriginal
people in Manitoba want self-government. What I am hearing
from more and more aboriginal people is that they have serious
concerns about the accountability of self-government.
However, many of these people feel too intimidated to publicly
speak out.
Can the minister explain how he was able to determine the
view of rank and file aboriginal people and how they are directly
involved in the negotiation process?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, dealing with the specific question,
how do I know I am dealing with the rank and file? At the
meeting where this was discussed two weeks ago there were 60
chiefs all elected by the rank and file. There were 400 people, all
from Manitoba, all accountable to the rank and file. They almost
unanimously after getting their direction from the chiefs, from
the rank and file, want self-government. They have been
waiting 150 years for it and they are ready to move on it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, it
has been reported that many aboriginal people are afraid of
self-government because they do not know if or how their
individual rights will be protected.
With regard to the self-government agreement now being
negotiated in Manitoba, can the minister explain if and how
these individual rights will be protected and how aboriginal
leaders will be held accountable by the people they purport to
represent?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the
aboriginal people are not ready for self-government. Might I
remind the hon. member that they have been held under the
Indian Act in a situation of paternalism and assimilation since
1850, acts that we passed here in Canada.
3881
(1440)
It is our doing, incorrectly, in bringing in the Indian Act that
has caused this paternalism and this fear. We are trying to break
that because we have created it. In the four years that I hope we
are here and I am in this ministry that Indian Act that was passed
is going to be gone.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce
had a secret meeting with the federal ministers of Industry and
Transport. According to the daily Le Droit, the review of drug
patent legislation, the high-speed train issue and the
construction of the Magdalen Islands ferry were on the agenda.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us if, during that meeting,
he gave a positive reply to the Quebec Minister of Industry
regarding the awarding to MIL Davie of the contract for the
construction of the Magdalen Islands ferry and the multipurpose
smart ship?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
during the meeting with the Quebec Minister of Industry, we
discussed of course the need to provide an adequate ship for the
transport of people, goods, trucks and cars from Prince Edward
Island to the Magdalen Islands. We informed the Quebec
Minister of Industry that the government of Canada intends to
ensure the safety of people making that trip, and we hope to soon
be able to make a decision, in co-operation with the Quebec
government, as to how we can best help these people who
urgently need adequate and safe services.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, this
answer is exactly the one I was given last January 18.
Now that the Minister of Transport is in possession of MIL
Davie's business plan, as the Minister of Industry said Monday
in this House, will he recognize that the two contracts for the
``smart ship'' and the ferry are essential to MIL Davie's
survival, and when can we hope to get an answer regarding these
two issues?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first, the hon. member will certainly realize that the Department
of Transport is not responsible for the smart ship issue.
However, those who are familiar with MIL Davie's history
understand how important that industry is for workers.
As regards the ferry between Prince Edward Island and the
Magdalen Islands, the priority for the Department of Transport
and the government of Canada is to ensure the safety of
Magdalen Islanders and others who use the ferry.
Obviously, the decision as to whether MIL Davie's recovery
plan will work must be made by the Quebec government and the
company itself, which is trying its best to solve its problems.
There is no doubt that discussions will continue. I want to assure
the hon. member that the issue of safety for people who
currently travel on a ship which is causing enormous problems,
the Lucy Maud Montgomery, must be settled and this is
something we want to do as quickly as possible. The link with
the future of MIL Davie makes things more complicated, but we
try to be as understanding as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, as you
know it is increasingly difficult to remain indifferent to the
situation in Rwanda. Yesterday the UN Secretary-General,
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, asked the Security Council to
reconsider its decision to reduce UN forces in Rwanda.
My question which follows that of the hon. member for
Rosedale and other interested members in this House is this: Is
the minister willing to support the Secretary-General, take the
lead of the Security Council and ensure an adequate world
response to this immense tragedy?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want to
assure him that Canada is certainly actively pursuing various
avenues with other members of the UN to try to help the people
in Rwanda.
(1445 )
Brigadier General Dallaire, a Canadian, is in charge of the UN
forces there. He is certainly pursuing all avenues to try to bring
the factions to their senses and to stop them killing each other.
We do not belong to the security council. Therefore it would
be difficult for us to lead the discussion there. I take the
recommendation of the member in good spirit. Certainly
Canada, through some members of the security council, could
pursue initiatives to try to lead to a greater presence of UN
forces there.
More important, when the factions have stopped this terrible
slaughter, Canada will be ready to move in with humanitarian
assistance to help rebuild that country.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
3882
Yesterday the chairman of the National Parole Board
confirmed that the vice-chairman of the board's prairie region
was involved in five decisions to release convicts who, once
released, went on to murder seven people.
Given the minister's comments that his first priority is to
achieve safe homes and safe streets for Canadians, could he
please tell Canadians what action he is to take in this regard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the information in question is something that concerns me
greatly.
I am proceeding to get all the facts surrounding the
individual's participation in these decisions. Once I have these
facts I will be discussing the matter further with cabinet
colleagues.
I want to add, as I have informed members of the House, that it
is my intention on behalf of the government to bring forward
before too long legislation to create an accountability system for
members of the parole board.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear that. While we are waiting for that system of
accountability, while we are waiting for this amendment, and
since we obviously have parole board members presently
releasing dangerous offenders into the community, is the
minister prepared to put a moratorium on paroling dangerous
offenders before other innocent victims die?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the cases the hon. member has been referring to took place, if I
am not mistaken, three to five years ago. I am very concerned
about these cases. I want to work and I am working to try to
ensure that these kinds of cases are not repeated.
The parole board is an independent judicial tribunal,
something akin to a court, operating under legislation passed by
the House. I want to see what authority I have to make sure that
the parole board functions properly.
However I think the hon. member should rethink his
suggestion because it implies a course of action that may impede
the protection of the public in the long run rather than help it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The October 26,
1992 referendum was held in Quebec according to the Quebec
legislation on referendums and paid for solely by the Quebec
government. However, through its taxes, Quebec paid for part of
the federal government's expenses, and the previous
government had promised to reimburse this sum which amounts
to $26 million.
My question is this: In all fairness for Quebec, has the
minister decided to grant this request which has been presented
several times to the federal government, and more precisely in
this House, on January 28 last?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I know, the previous government had not come
to a final decision regarding the reimbursement of referendum
expenses incurred in Quebec, and neither have we.
* * *
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week, in response to a question on the future viability of
the Canada Pension Plan, the minister stated: ``It is certainly
actuarially sound and has sufficient contingency funds within
it''. Yet according to a recent OECD study on public pension
plans we in Canada would have to dramatically increase
contributions or increase the pensionable age by 16 years to age
81 to make our plan actuarially sound.
Could the minister explain the huge discrepancy between his
statement and the OECD report?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, when I made the statement last
week we were talking about a report that pertained to the
immediate situation of the fund which is actuarially sound. It is
in full reserve and there is no contemplated need for major
changes.
The OECD study he refers to is one that projects a substantial
change in the population of Canada over the next 20 years when
there will be a much larger proportion of people at retirement
age. It is for that reason the Minister of Finance announced in his
budget that we would be establishing a major white paper, green
paper or task force to look at a number of options that have to be
considered in relation to those changes in population.
I hope the hon. member will have something constructive to
offer when that paper is put forward.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, there are
two reports now including the one he referred to last week that
suggest we need big changes in the Canada pension plan if it is to
remain solvent.
3883
Certainly we will be participating in any discussions on the
future solvency of that plan and we would like to offer
something.
I would ask the minister to make it clear, first of all, that we
have a problem today with that. I would encourage him and his
government to show some leadership by bringing forward a
discussion on this matter as soon as possible so that Canadians
could be assured something is being done about the plan and
their future pensions will be safe.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat if I might
that in the budget of last February the Minister of Finance
clearly stated that we saw a need to look at the whole question of
security in retirement programs for Canadians because of
changes taking place in population and other factors.
The Department of Finance, the Department of Health, and
my department are presently preparing the kinds of facts and
figures so that Canadians can have an honest, rational and open
debate.
We would hope to table it in the fall, as soon as it is ready. At
that point in time I would welcome the participation of the hon.
member and all other members of the House because I think it is
an important issue.
It is important for the hon. member to recognize and not to
create any false sense that the system as it is presently
constructed is under any kind of threat. It is a very sound system
but we must prepare for the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Lately, some people have delighted in saying that relations
between the provinces and the federal government, and
specifically between Quebec and Ottawa, have broken down
completely.
Can the minister advise us today on the status of
federal-provincial relations and tell us what steps he intends to
take to co-operate with the provinces and to reassure Quebecers
that federalism is indeed alive and well?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it
gives me an opportunity to put a number of issues discussed over
the past few weeks into perspective. Within a federation, it is
natural for conflicts to arise between the federal government and
the provinces. I feel that this government has been relatively
successful in recent months at resolving conflicts.
For example, not only do we have the infrastructure program
which has been a success across the country, and particularly in
Quebec, but we also have a number of agreements such as the St.
Lawrence action plan which provided an additional $191
million to the $526 million infrastructure program. This extra
money will be spent in Quebec. We have also negotiated
agreements on the Sainte-Marguerite River, the Montreal
Botanical Garden and, most important, on equalization
payments.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, and it is not a
planted question. In June 1992, the Solicitor General mandated a
committee of experts to make recommendations on preventing
the spread of the AIDS virus in prisons. The main conclusion of
the report tabled a few days ago is that the most important thing
to protect inmates' health is a vigorous AIDS information
campaign.
Does the Solicitor General share this conclusion and what
directives does he intend to issue and what measures does he
intend to take to apply them in the actual prison environment?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
a few weeks ago, as the hon. member said, the expert committee
on AIDS in prisons tabled its final report. At that time
Correctional Service Canada published a detailed response. I
support the conclusions in that response which among other
things includes a vigorous program of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, since January 1992, condoms, rubber dams and
lubricant have been made available to prisoners. According to
the committee, the next step is to provide bleach and
instructions for cleaning syringes used in tattooing.
Does the minister share this forward looking approach to
prevention in a prison setting?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said, I support the response of Correctional Service
Canada which includes a pilot project in that direction.
3884
There are certain parts of the committee report which
Correctional Service has not accepted and I think for good
reason. This is all set out in detail in the response of
Correctional Service which, as I have said, the Minister of
Health and I support.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice who has been musing about banning private
ownership of handguns.
The 1,054,000 registered handguns in the country have a
value of at least $300 million. Is the hon. minister considering
compensation, or will big brother be going door to door and
confiscating what is now legally owned property of Canadian
citizens?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have made clear that I am
going to work with my colleagues in caucus and cabinet to bring
forward proposals to achieve stricter gun control in the country.
I think there is broad support for more effective control, and that
includes particularly handguns which are not used in hunting.
Dealing more specifically with the question the hon. member
has asked on compensation, that is one of the issues we have to
look at. This party and this government are coming to these
questions with an open mind. We are going to be sensitive to the
ownership rights the hon. member has referred to and
compensation is a matter we are going to be dealing with.
I am aware of the issue. I do not have a response today because
caucus has not dealt with it, nor has cabinet. However, I can
assure the hon. member that the process is going to be
undertaken and that we are going to develop a position on this
very important issue.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, for 20 years I had an
occupational permit to carry a handgun as a field geologist in the
mountains of British Columbia. I rarely used it. I rarely carried
it but as a free man, as a Canadian, I had the right to make that
personal decision myself.
There are legitimate reasons for civilians to own these
weapons. To some working people, including timber cruisers,
prospectors, trappers, bank messengers and the like, they are
tools, not toys.
Will the minister listen to the advice of his own backbenchers
and thoughtfully reconsider his position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have three points very
briefly.
First there is no right in the country to bear arms. The
ownership of firearms is a privilege which is accorded by
government under certain strict circumstances.
(1500 )
I do not wish to make light of the point made by the hon.
member but the fact is we are not after those persons. Let me put
it this way. The object of any such measures would not be to
make life more difficult for those who have legitimate reasons
connected with their occupation to carry firearms. Rather, it is in
recognition of the fact that the use of firearms, handguns in
particular, in the commission of homicides has risen from 33 per
cent to 52 per cent in the last four years.
We will be thoughtful in the development of our policies
through caucus, which is going to discuss these matters, and
cabinet, which will form the policies that we will bring forward
to the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday,
Lebanese Canadians demonstrated on Parliament Hill against
actions in Lebanon that they consider oppressive and contrary to
human rights and freedoms. I would like to ask the minister what
the Canadian government's position is regarding these
accusations?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, we have read the Amnesty International report and
asked our ambassador to raise this issue with the Lebanese
officials. When I receive further information, I will gladly pass
it on to this House and to the hon. member in particular.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Anne Edwards, Minister of
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the province of
British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
on the same point of order I raised yesterday.
After making the request of the Speaker of the House, I
consulted the recorder for Hansard who sits in the House during
Question Period and I was assured that person heard the remark
made and noted the remark on her paper. Yet it does not appear in
Hansard. In my opinion that raises questions about the
procedures of the House.
3885
Again, I find the remarks offensive and insulting, particularly
coming from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I would
ask the Speaker again to have that member apologise and
withdraw the remarks.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member makes
reference to the fact that the comments did not appear in
Hansard and somehow draws some references to the staff of the
House of Commons.
Certainly from the perspective of the government staff of the
House of Commons, in particular those people who record
comments, they are doing a terrific job and should in no way be
under any kind of a cloud because of this kind of comment.
That being said, what I said yesterday which I will withdraw if
the Speaker finds it offensive, when there were questions raised
and insinuations made about the status of the role of Indian
chiefs in certain provinces, accusing them of everything ranging
from assault to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I think I heard the hon. Deputy Prime
Minister say at the beginning that if the statements were made
she would withdraw the statements. Is that correct?
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the questions
involved were racist. If the Speaker finds offence at my
characterization of a question I will so withdraw any comment.
The Speaker: The withdrawal of course is accepted
categorically as it was said.
I wish to assure the hon. member that the procedures of the
House were followed to a T. I informed myself of this. I would
like to go to the next matter.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the parliamentary librarian for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1993.
_____________________________________________
3885
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs relating to the list of
members of committees.
With leave of the House I intend to move for concurrence in
this 20th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act to amend the
National Library Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
believe I am moving with the unanimous consent of the House,
seconded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General, that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition that
has been signed by over 100 residents of Saint John.
The petitioners pray and call upon the House to consider an
inquiry into the time it is taking to process the applications of
immediate family members who have been deported. Under the
1994 immigration plan the time required to process applications
involving immediate family members has been reduced to less
than six months.
3886
Mrs. Lovella Szezendor-Grey from Saint John has
undertaken the sponsorship of her husband, Antonio Grey, who
was deported to Guatemala on April 21, 1993. Over a year has
passed since Mrs. Szezendor-Grey started the proceedings with
immigration for the return of her husband. I urge the House to
look into this matter to expedite Mr. Grey's application.
This petition is presented with my concurrence.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition signed by many people from the constituency of Beaver
River.
The undersigned residents of the province of Alberta draw the
attention of the House of Commons to that whereas under
section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted
murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of
parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after only 15
years, and whereas the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most
reprehensible crime, therefore your petitioners request that
Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada as
soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to submit a petition on behalf of citizens of
Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha! who want cuts in postal services to
stop. These petitioners ask that postal services be restored to
past levels.
(1510)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour of submitting a petition signed by more than
600 residents from my riding of Québec-Est and the
surrounding region.
The petitioners want to draw the attention of Parliament to the
plight of the elderly in Quebec: 53 per cent of men and 82 per
cent of women who reach the age of 65 need government
assistance to make ends meet; 40 per cent of seniors aged 65 and
over are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, which
merely keeps them at the poverty level. Moreover, only 5 per
cent of people aged 65 and over have an annual income
exceeding $50,000.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain
from taking any measure to reduce any benefit, pension, social
program, assistance or existing advantage for seniors, or to
impose any tax or other levy having the effect of reducing their
income.
I fully support this petition and I urge the government to act
upon it.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number
of petitions from several of my constituents. These petitioners
call on the House to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards
and to advise producers of killer cards that their products if
destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present a petition, approved by the Clerk of
Petitions, from my riding of Carleton-Charlotte.
This petition, presented to me on Friday afternoon past,
states: ``We the undersigned, being residents of the province of
New Brunswick, draw the attention of the House to the
following: That the Minister of Health is proposing legislation
requiring plain packaging of tobacco products consumed in
Canada, action which we feel is ill-considered and likely to
have detrimental effects on ourselves and our community
without demonstrable benefits to Canadians. Therefore, your
petitioners request that Parliament refuse to enact any
legislation requiring plain packaging of tobacco products to be
consumed in Canada''.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present
petitions of several hundred names from my riding of Kent
requesting the continued exemption of the excise tax on ethanol
fuels.
The petitioners cannot understand why the government is
delaying this when in opposition it demanded the banning of
MMT and the withdrawal of the excise tax on ethanol.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36 it is my honour to present a petition bearing 494 signatures. I
understand that these signatures were collected at one point in
the space of two days.
The petition states: ``Whereas there is no statistical evidence
that existing gun control laws have any negative effect on
criminal activity; whereas existing and publicly proposed gun
controls carry the potential for confiscation of lawfully owned
property by law-abiding citizens; wherefore the undersigned,
your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to turn
its attention with respect to firearms control away from
law-abiding citizens to the criminal element and allow the
holder of a valid firearms acquisition certificate, whether or not
a course or test was taken to obtain it, to renew the said
certificate without the necessity of a course or test''.
3887
I concur with this petition.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions which I
wish to present today from the residents of the hamlet of
Kenilworth and area.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to change the Young
Offenders Act to ensure that transfers for violent offenders to
adult court be improved and to increase the penalties for those
convicted.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition calls for improved witness and informant
protection through the formation of a separate government
agency.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition deals with the issue of serial killer cards.
(1515 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table petitions signed by 480 people pursuant
to Standing Order 36. These petitioners call upon Parliament to
ban the importation into Canada of the serial killer board game.
This brings the grand total of signatures I have so far tabled in
this House on this issue to 109,940.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)) moved that a ways and means motion
to amend the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations
Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and
certain related acts laid upon the table Friday, April 29, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
3887
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Wildlife Act
and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
and honour to be introducing today for second reading,
legislation to conserve and protect Canada's wildlife, in
particular amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act.
Of all the responsibilities of Environment Canada one of the
most important is the stewardship of wildlife.
Canadians care very deeply about wildlife. One of the most
powerful values that all Canadians share is our tremendous pride
in Canada's environment and magnificent natural heritage.
Canadians everywhere have a strong desire to protect and
restore the various ecosystems that make up our environment.
No component of our natural heritage is more precious than
Canada's wildlife.
The beauty of wild plants and animals, the idea of free
creatures living in nature are very appealing to all of us. We
value wildlife for many other reasons as well, for example, as a
source of recreation, as an important social economic resource,
as an integral aspect of the lives of native people, even as a
potential source of medicines as yet unknown.
This government and Environment Canada take the
responsibility for wildlife very seriously. We are taking action
to fulfil those responsibilities on a number of fronts.
We are modernizing and strengthening federal wildlife
legislation. At this very moment the government is drafting
regulations which will enable it to proclaim the wild animal and
plant protection and regulation of interprovincial and
international trade act. These regulations are very important and
will significantly strengthen Canada's ability to protect its wild
plants and
3888
animals from poaching and smuggling and are now being
developed under a consultative process that includes all
stakeholders which is the way this government functions.
As members will recall, on Monday we debated amendments
to strengthen the Migratory Bird Conventions Act, one of the
cornerstones of wildlife protection in Canada.
In addition Canada and the United States are on convergent
tracks in preparation for formal negotiation of amendments to
the migratory bird convention.
(1520 )
Let me now turn to the Canada Wildlife Act. The Canada
Wildlife Act was passed in 1973. It authorized the federal
government to undertake research studies on wildlife and in
collaboration with the provinces carry out a vast array of
conservation activities to help wildlife, including the protection
of species threatened with extinction.
While the act adequately responded to our needs back then,
amendments are certainly required in order to reflect our needs
today. To date wildlife conservation has focused on certain
species or specific groups of species.
[Translation]
Today, we generally agree that we need a more comprehensive
approach to conservation, an ecosystem approach, which takes
into consideration all roles and values of ecosystems, including
all animal and plant species and their needs in terms of habitat.
This is indeed the recommended approach in the document ``A
Wildlife Policy for Canada'' approved by federal and provincial
ministers responsible for wildlife in 1990.
This kind of approach is the basis for the amendments
proposed to strengthen and update the Canada Wildlife Act.
[English]
For example, the current Canada Wildlife Act defines wildlife
as all non-domestic animals. The updated act will expand the
definition of wildlife to include all wild organisms. The new
definition is consistent with wildlife policy for Canada. It will
better enable a shift in research and conservation efforts toward
a true ecosystem approach. It also puts the act in line with the
convention on biological diversity which was ratified by Canada
in 1992.
The modernized Canada Wildlife Act will provide an
extended framework to help protect all species in our
ecosystem. It is important to note that with provincial
agreement the new act will help preserve habitat. We found out
through hard experience that it is almost impossible to save a
single species of plant or animal in the wild without first
preserving its habitat.
Close to my own riding of Moncton we have seen this borne
out. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve has been
established at Marys Point. A sister reserve in South America
has been established to protect the habitat of semipalmated
sandpipers among other migratory species of birds.
It is a healthy habitat that permits the survival of species. That
is what the ecosystem approach is all about. You cannot talk
about saving the eagle without also talking about water quality,
about fish population and other habitat.
This applies to Canada's marine environment as well.
Traditional wildlife protection has focused on terrestrial
wildlife species and their habitats. The marine application of the
present act is set out at the 12-mile territorial sea limit. Critical
wildlife habitat, however, including areas important to seabirds
and breeding and feeding grounds for whales extends far beyond
the 12-mile limit.
The modernized Canada Wildlife Act includes provision for
the establishment of marine national wildlife areas out to the
limit of Canada's 200 nautical mile territory. Regulatory
authorities related to activities in marine protected areas would
be established.
The extension of the Canada Wildlife Act to the 200 mile limit
could help us significantly in sustaining the biodiversity and
other associated benefits of marine ecosystems.
No legislation can be effective if it cannot be applied and
enforced effectively. Therefore the modernization of the Canada
Wildlife Act will improve the administration and enforcement
of the act in a number of ways. All of the administration and
implementation provisions of the act are being updated,
streamlined and made consistent with other federal
conservation laws.
Some of the more significant of these revisions deal with
enforcement. Penalties are being toughened to reflect the
serious nature of crimes, such as poaching and the destruction of
protected habit that threaten Canada's wildlife heritage.
(1525 )
Potential maximum penalties under the Canada Wildlife Act
are being increased to a possible fine of $25,000 or a jail term of
six months, or both. The act will provide more flexibility to the
courts and enforcement officers in ways that will improve
compliance and enforcement.
For example, revisions to the act will provide authority for the
issuing of court orders and will enable conservation officers to
issue tickets for certain offences. This will give more options in
dealing with offences and punishment so that the best and most
efficient means are available to respond to the violations.
3889
At the same time where a violation is of a minor nature, such
as a record keeping violation, a ticketable offence can be
created. Rather than requiring a court appearance, an officer
will be able to give a ticket so that the ticket can be paid
directly. This will ensure fairness and relate to the severity of
the offence.
Community service will become an option in the sentencing
of convicted violators. This will encourage judges to assign
penalties where they might otherwise be reluctant. If the
community service relates to wildlife, as seems very likely, it
will provide tangible conservation benefits as well.
It will become possible to use court orders to prohibit the
continuation of activities harmful to protected areas. Persons
who have damaged ecosystems in national wildlife areas could
be forced to pay the cost of remediation. It is under the authority
of the Canada Wildlife Act that many areas of key significance
to Canada's wildlife are protected.
At present 45 national wildlife areas comprising 287,000
hectares have been set up under the act. Although many diverse
species are found in them, most current wildlife areas have been
established for their importance as habitat for migratory birds.
Furthermore, our national wildlife areas help Canadians meet
many of their international wildlife management obligations.
For example, our national wildlife areas help us meet our
international commitments under the convention on wetlands of
international importance, commonly known as the Ramsar
convention.
Canada also has commitments under the circumpolar
agreement on the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna
component of the Arctic environmental protection strategy, the
global convention on biodiversity and a number of bilateral and
multilateral agreements to conserve wildlife and habitat.
All of these commitments would be difficult if not impossible
to meet without our system of national wildlife areas and the
Canada Wildlife Act. The revised act will help us and the
international community to do a better job of preserving wildlife
heritage.
It is particularly appropriate to be speaking about the Canada
Wildlife Act today. I want to use this occasion to call the
attention of the House to the fact that Canada has recently
received formal notification that the Creston valley wildlife
management area has been registered as Canada's 32nd wetland
of international importance under the Ramsar convention.
Canada is a leading participant in this international
environmental treaty that is promoting the conservation and
wise use of wetlands the world over. In fact over 30 per cent of
total wetland area designated under the convention is located
within Canada.
Our network of important protected wetlands now spans all
the provinces and territories in Canada. The Creston valley
wildlife management area, the latest Canadian Ramsar site, is
the first to be designated as entirely owned and managed by the
province of British Columbia.
The Creston valley site covers 6,970 hectares on the
floodplains of the Kootenay River. It contains fresh eutrophic
lakes, ferns and lowland river delta wetlands. The Creston
valley is a major feeding habitat for migrating species on the
western flyway and regularly supports over 100,000 waterfowl
during migrating periods.
I and this government salute British Columbia for nominating
this area which is vital to a wide range of international migratory
species. Environment Canada is proud to have assisted the
people of British Columbia in seeking the Ramsar convention
designation for the Creston valley.
Canada has committed itself to setting aside and safeguarding
12 per cent of its total land mass as protected natural space. Our
national wildlife areas and the Ramsar convention sites are
helping us to set aside that 12 per cent of Canada's habitat as
protected areas.
(1530)
What about the other 88 per cent of Canada? Birds are
independent creatures. They fly where they want to fly and often
the places that are most important to them fall outside our
Ramsar sites, national wildlife areas, national or provincial
parks.
We have to make room for wildlife in the other 88 per cent of
Canada as well. We have to influence general land use
management in such a way that we humans do not drive out the
other species with whom we share our ecosystem.
In this regard initiatives such as a North American waterfowl
management plan are extremely important. Under the plan three
nations, Canada, the United States and Mexico, are working
together to preserve populations of wildlife and their habitat.
The North American waterfowl management plan is a leading
global example of a concept of wiser use that is promoted by the
Ramsar convention.
Under the plan, Canada has pioneered new and innovative
ways to protect wildlife and habitat in the other 88 per cent.
Under the plan concepts of wise use are finding their way into
land areas and wetlands not under the direct control of
governments.
Numerous organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, the Nature
Conservancy of Canada, and Wildlife Habitat Canada are
effectively promoting stewardship by private ownership.
Partnerships have been forged with farmers and many other
landowners to protect wildlife and the habitat in our vast food
growing regions. It has been shown that many of the practices
beneficial
3890
to wildlife also benefit agriculture, both economically and in
such areas as soil conservation.
In effect, the plan is exploring new ways to do business and
provide leverage to federal funds. For example, every federal
dollar invested in activities under the North American
waterfowl management plan is matched by an additional $6
from other donors of which approximately half comes from
American sources. This type of leverage is possible because
diverse partners and interests can gather together under the
umbrella of the North American waterfowl management plan
and develop and agree upon common goals and objectives and
put into effect their shared vision.
Shared interests can lead to shared objectives. Diverse people
and organizations can get together and find, sometimes to their
surprise, that they have things in common and can work toward
the same goals. This type of bridge building, of people,
organizations and governments working together is precisely
the kind of co-operation envisaged by the wildlife policy for
Canada and it is very important as we try to discover new and
effective ways to take us toward the goal of sustainable
development.
In addition to agricultural partnerships, partnerships are also
being formed with other major land use sectors in Canada. For
example in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland, North American
waterfowl management plan agreements are in place.
Bowater-Mersey and Krueger-Cornerbrach Pulp and Paper, two
large forestry companies, manage and protect tens of thousands
of acres of wetlands while maintaining profitable forestry
activities.
Clearly the North American waterfowl management plan
exemplifies sustainable development in action.
[Translation]
Sustainable development is the key to long term economic
and environmental health. By keeping wildlife populations in
good health, we will be able to contribute to the social, cultural
and economic well-being of Canada, as well as to the ecological
and biological processes necessary to sustain life.
A Statistics Canada study on the importance of wildlife for
Canadians reinforces this opinion. In 1991, Canadian residents,
and 1.8 million American visitors attracted to Canada by its
wildlife, spent a total of $9 billion on sport fishing and other
wildlife related activities.
(1535)
[English]
Canadians think that wildlife is important, and we engage in
all sorts of wildlife related activities. In fact the popularity of
these activities is at an all-time high. Over 90 per cent of
Canadians participate in one or more wildlife related activities.
We watch, photograph, feed, study and hunt wildlife. The
billions we spend doing these things contribute significantly to
national and provincial economies in the form of income and
jobs.
Given these facts, given the importance of wildlife to
Canadians, it comes as no surprise that Canadians are highly
supportive of wildlife and habitat conservation. Given the fact
that 83 per cent of Canadians feel that it is important to protect
endangered species and declining wildlife populations, it comes
as no surprise that Canadians are willing to work together and
work hard to try to preserve our precious wildlife and its habitat.
Passage of these amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act will
make the job a bit easier. I urge all members to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, in the
middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the
first time. Historians may eventually find that this vision had a
greater impact on thought than the Copernican revolution of the
16th century, which upset the human self-image by revealing
that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by
human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans,
greenery, and soils.
Humanity's inability to fit its doings into that pattern is
changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes
are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality,
from which there is no escape, must be recognized-and
managed.
This introduction, Mr. Speaker, is taken from the very first
chapter of the Brundtland report dated 1987. We must, each and
every one of us, recognize its importance and never forget it.
We are here today to debate Bill C-24. This bill amends the
Canada Wildlife Act, which was passed in 1973, and its purpose,
as stated by the department, is, and I quote: ``to permit the
Government to conduct wildlife research and 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.
This bill, in somewhat the same way as Bill C-23, is bringing
existing legislation up to date. It is basically an update, with a
few new provisions. Nothing indicates, upon review, this bill
might infringe upon the responsibilities of Quebec or any other
province in Canada. But as I said earlier, we can no longer afford
nowadays to ignore the environmental question, particularly
with respect to biodiversity.
We need only think of endangered species, as mentioned in
chapter 6 of the very important Brundtland report, ``Our
Common Future''. The introduction to this chapter reads as
follows: ``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
3891
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''.
All of us here in this House today are convinced of the
importance of saving endangered species, as the countries which
signed the Brundtland report were. The problem is how to do it.
(1540)
It is not necessary to point out that it is vital to humanity to
save these species. Just think of agriculture, medicine and
industry to see the economic importance of wildlife species. A
recent Statistics Canada survey indicated that spending on
activities of all kinds related to fish and other wildlife species
contributed $11.5 billion to GNP and created some 250,000
jobs. Protecting endangered species is vital for the whole
economy, whence the recent terminology ``environment and
sustainable development''.
Governments have come to realize that it is impossible to
separate economic development issues from environmental
issues. Everything is interrelated and, again, we must aim for a
global vision, a global position on environmental matters.
What about hope in all this? Some people may accuse us of
being idealistic and utopian, but one does not have to go very far
to come up with several success stories. The decrease in infant
mortality rates and the increase in life expectancy rates, in the
number of adults knowing how to read and write and in the
percentage of children attending school are some of the success
stories allowing us to believe in the evolution and improvement
of the environment. They seemed impossible to achieve but they
were because of the goals set out in the bill. This bill applies to
animals, wild plants and other organisms and to their habitats.
We thus want to ensure that an element of the ecosystem
essential to the survival of an endangered species is protected
too. That is why the term ``wildlife'' was substituted for the
word ``fauna'' throughout the bill.
Extending the definition of fauna to all wildlife, in
accordance with the Convention on Biodiversity ratified by
Canada in 1993, makes environmental measures more
consistent.
A few examples from ``Our Common Future'' make us realize
the economic potential of maintaining and preserving our
ecosystems.
First of all, there would appear to be plants containing
hydrocarbons, not carbohydrates. Since some of these plants
exist in regions which have become useless because of activities
such as surface mining or hydrocarbon extraction, the same
report says that coal, among other minerals, could be
regenerated by soil cultivation of hydrocarbons. And, unlike an
oil well, an oil plantation or fuel farm would never dry out.
Imagine the savings, as well as the benefits from an
environmental point of view.
Let us take a look at corn crops in the United States. In the
early seventies, some fungus seriously damaged corn crops,
causing losses of two billion dollars. Recently, a primitive kind
of corn from Mexico was discovered. This wild corn is
perennial, while the other kinds are annual. Crossing this corn
with commercial varieties of corn would translate into savings
on ploughing and seeding. The genetic qualities of this plant,
which was almost extinct, would allow savings of hundreds of
millions every year in the United States alone.
The preservation of wild species ensures our survival and
allows us to make enormous savings.
The amendments in this bill do not concern only endangered
species. Indeed, the scope of the legislation is extended to
include inland waters and territorial waters-we are referring
here to the 200 nautical mile limit-so that the government can
create protected marine areas to ensure the survival of
endangered species. However, and this is very important for us,
if provincial jurisdiction is involved, the federal government
will have to come to an agreement with the province concerned.
Moreover, this amendment will have the effect of significantly
increasing the protection of our marine ecosystems, which are
important for our wild species. Protecting ecosystems in an
intelligent manner contributes to the major goals of sustainable
development.
(1545)
Clause 13 of Bill C-24, which amends section 11 of the act,
clearly defines the duties and powers of wildlife officers as well
as their role with respect to the provinces. This provision
clarifies the specific duties and functions of wildlife officers
and others involved in this field.
Clause 15, on the other hand, significantly increases the
amount of the fines that can be awarded. These may range from
$5,000 up to a maximum of $25,000 or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding six months. Hopefully, the new fines
provided for in the legislation will discourage potential
lawbreakers and poachers.
Pursuant to the legislation, the minister may acquire lands for
research, conservation and interpretation purposes involving
migratory birds and, if it is in the national interest, other
species, including endangered ones, in which case he acts in
co-operation with the provinces. There are currently 45 national
wildlife preserves in Canada covering a total area of 287,000
hectares.
3892
In conclusion, I would like to draw a parallel between the
Canada Wildlife Act, Bill C-24 and sustainable development.
Sustainable development is defined on page 8 of the Bruntdland
Report as the ability of humanity to do the following, and I
quote: ``to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs''.
The report also stresses the following point, and I quote:
``There is a growing need for effective international
co-operation to manage ecological and economic
interdependence. Yet at the same time, confidence in
international organizations is diminishing and support for them
dwindling''.
Therefore, it goes without saying that we on this side of the
House support this bill designed to update the existing
legislation and to clarify certain roles and responsibilities. You
can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the Bloc Quebecois will
continue to support initiatives that promote the environment and
sustainable development, provided they are respectful of
existing jurisdictions.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, as the
parliamentary secretary has stated, the purpose of Bill C-24 is to
amend the existing Canada Wildlife Act.
At the outset may I say as environment critic that the Reform
Party supports these long overdue amendments to the act that
was first proclaimed in 1973. Since proclamation there have
been a few minor amendments, but by and large the act is much
the same as it was when introduced 20 years ago. Canada's
wildlife legislation clearly needs modernization.
Bill C-24 is relatively simple and straightforward. However
that does not mean we should just give it a rubber stamp of
approval. This is the first real opportunity we have had in 20
years to sit down to review the act clause by clause and to amend
the bill so that it meets the needs of the 21st century.
We must ensure the bill is all encompassing, for it is not
enough simply to attempt to protect wildlife. I am pleased to see
that the bill addresses a wider range of organisms. The
broadening of the act to include all living organisms allows the
government to protect all endangered species.
Back in 1973 when the wildlife protection bill was first passed
it was said that the world was losing one species per year. Today
there are 258 species on Canada's endangered species list. Only
last month 20 new fish, mammals and plants were added to the
endangered species list.
Some of these species include the western harvest mouse in
the Okanagan and southern Alberta, the Pacific water shrew on
the lower B.C. mainland, the King rail in southern Ontario, and
the short-eared owl in most of Canada.
These species are largely endangered by pressures from the
urban and agricultural sprawl. Habitat loss, industrial pollution
and urban development contribute largely to the plight of
Canada's wildlife. However the broadening of the act to include
endangered species should be tempered in its use and
particularly in how it is applied.
(1550)
The United States with its endangered species act is not in my
view the direction this country should be going. The
amendments in Bill C-24 are appropriate as they cover
measures necessary to protect endangered species without going
to the extreme measures pursued in the United States. Too often
the species in question, for example the spotted owl in the
Pacific northwest, is simply the tool used to achieve another
objective. In the case of the spotted owl the goal is forest
preservation and the owl is simply used as a stepping stone to
attain another goal.
In Canada we must ensure that our legislation is directed
toward the endangered species in question and that the revised
act cannot be used or abused to achieve other goals.
This will also require the co-operation and understanding of
the provinces as there is an overlapping of jurisdiction. In
protecting wildlife and wild organisms the act should be applied
with care so as to avoid overstepping other jurisdictions. The
wider discretionary powers granted to the minister by the bill
must be exercised judiciously.
I would now like to step into the past for a moment and draw
on my previous experiences to show where areas within the bill
are appropriate and long overdue.
In my capacity as a forester for a large woodlands operation
on Vancouver Island part of my duties included overseeing the
land base of 250,000 acres. This involved dealing with many
federal and provincial agencies, including fish and wildlife, and
on numerous occasions dealing with wildlife offences.
In our area of operation there had been a particularly
successful transplant of Roosevelt elk from northern Vancouver
Island to the Nahmint Valley where a series of severe winters
had virtually wiped out the local elk population.
During the mid-1980s, 13 young bull and cow elk were
transported and released to join a single old bull who was the
only survivor of the original herd. As an aside I want to say that
old bull was delighted to see those cows coming off the back of
the transport truck. Four of the cows were equipped with radio
3893
collars in order to study the migration patterns and habits of the
elk. It was truly a success story, and in four years the herd had
multiplied to 24 animals from the original 14.
There was also a sense of pride and ownership in the
community as many different groups including wildlife clubs,
provincial agencies, forest companies and the community at
large had banded together to make this happen.
Unfortunately this story has a dark side as four of the best
breeding cows, three with radio collars, were shot illegally. To
add further insult only the hind quarters of one animal were
removed. The others were left to rot.
The individuals responsible were subsequently caught and
processed through the courts, but they only received extremely
light sentences. The local residents of Port Alberni were
particularly upset with the light sentences. My point is that
although I realize the situation I described is within provincial
jurisdiction, similar instances occur in federal areas such as our
national parks.
I am particularly pleased to see the bill address the areas of
enforcement and punishment, for too often the penalty does not
fit the crime. However the bill puts some teeth into areas that up
until now have lacked strength.
The bill increases penalties to include a maximum $25,000
fine and a maximum six months in prison. It also creates
indictable offences for the more serious infractions.
However there is one area that does not appear to be covered
in the bill. It is the illegal possession and sale of endangered or
protected species animal body parts. We are all familiar with the
plight of the African rhino. Its tusk brings poachers huge profits
for its final use as an aphrodisiac in Asia. What we are not as
familiar with is that this type of atrocity is also going on in this
country.
In my former job I have come across black bear carcasses
where only particular organs were removed, the remainder of
the animal abandoned. Why? It was because the sale of these
animal organs in Asia brings big dollars where they are required
in ancient remedies and tonics.
(1555 )
Body parts commonly being exported to Asia from Canada
include: black bear gall bladders, claws, paws and teeth; seal
and sea lion genitalia; beaver genitalia; deer and elk antlers in
velvet; and eagle and falcon beaks and claws.
British Columbia currently has legislation directed toward
possession and sale of animal parts. It is my hope that the
minister will be receptive to examining those portions of the
B.C. legislation that may be applicable to the bill, with the
intention of further strengthening the Canada Wildlife Act to
prohibit the possession and sale of animal body parts.
Another area of the bill which has been updated is that
pertaining to nautical wildlife. Whereas the old act applied to
the old 12-mile limit, it has now been expanded to include the
200-mile limit. This increased area of jurisdiction will play a
key role in the protection of water mammals and fish stocks.
Regulation making authorities related to marine protected areas
have also been established in the bill, and this will allow for
enforcement. Other administrative and implementation
provisions such as inspection, search, seizure, custody and
forfeiture are all provided for in the bill which will hopefully
allow these provisions to be effectively carried out. However all
these powers need to be exercised with discretion.
Other areas that deserve comment are those directed toward
the recovery of costs. In light of Canada's current financial
situation it is most appropriate to recover costs related to the
management of public lands and protected marine areas. It will
mean reduced government expenditures and a more
self-sufficient system. It will allow for greater financial
sustainability in policy over the long term.
In conclusion, we support the bill and look forward to
examining it in detail in committee with the purpose of refining
it to best deal with the wildlife concerns of the country into the
next century.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): As we all know, Mr.
Speaker, Canada is in many respects the envy of the world,
particularly when it comes to the diversity of its ecosystems and
wildlife and the geography that makes such richness possible.
However recent studies have revealed that we have 11
extirpated species under the general heading of mammal, bird,
reptile, fish and plant. We have nine extinct ones under the
general heading of mammal, bird and fish species. Under the
general heading of at risk species we have 258 mammals, birds,
amphibians, reptiles, fish and plants. This list is by no means
exhaustive.
The questions we have to ask ourselves in this important
debate are: Why are so many species at risk? How come we
already have so many extinct and so many extirpated species? Is
it due to habitat destruction caused by humans? Is it due to
thoughtless trafficking in animals because of greed?
It seems habitat destruction and trafficking are the two major
reasons. Whatever the combination of causes, it underlies the
need to increase our efforts in protecting wildlife and ensuring
that the destruction of wildlife and wildlife habitat destruction
do not occur.
The act is a good measure. It is a good step in the right
direction. As others have already indicated it is very timely and
badly needed. It allows, for instance, the minister to purchase,
acquire or lease lands for the purpose of research, conservation
and interpretation in respect of migratory birds and-this is the
interesting angle-in the national interest and with the support
of provinces other species including endangered species. So
3894
there is a broadening of a very important concept in relation to
the acquisition of land.
(1600)
Presently in Canada there are 45 national wildlife areas
encompassing roughly 300,000 hectares, as the member for
Terrebonne already indicated in his intervention. The provinces
have indicated to the federal government that the existing
penalties are no longer appropriate and that administrative and
enforcement procedures need to be streamlined. Because of this,
a number of changes have been proposed.
As the member for Comox-Alberni has already indicated,
the definition is no longer limited to any non-domestic animal
but includes wild organisms, animal, plant or other organisms
and their habitat. The broadening of the definition encourages
an ecosystem approach to conservation and brings the act far
beyond the traditional approach for protection which in the past
has been limited to just the higher order of animals.
Much has been said by those who spoke before me on the
establishment of protected marine areas. I also welcome these,
because this step has potential positive implications for areas
within the 200 nautical mile limit and provides authority for the
protection of marine animals and mammals.
Until now the marine ecosystem and its diversity has
remained largely unprotected from the perspective of habitat
protection and the application of the act has been limited just to
the 12 mile limit. Therefore it has become critical that the
wildlife habitat, including breeding and feeding grounds for
whales and areas of significant concentration of seabirds be
extended beyond the 12 mile limit. This is a very good
development.
I was very interested in the comments made by the member
for Comox-Alberni on enforcement. One often wonders about
the effectiveness of fines and whether the right level is achieved.
Certainly there is no doubt that what is being proposed in the bill
is an improvement. Until this bill is passed, enforcement
agencies in the field are reluctant, we are told, to charge
offenders because of inappropriate penalties and the time
required to follow up in court proceedings.
Hopefully the amendments will allow the wildlife officers to
have broader authority in inspecting wildlife specimens,
including the provisions regarding inspection, search, seizure,
custody and so on. The minister will also have powers to appoint
persons or a group of persons to be employed by the government
as enforcement officers.
While the amendments to increase penalties are welcome and
desirable, they will mean very little if the necessary resources
are not allocated to enforcement. At the present time the federal
jurisdiction has only 30 enforcement positions, all of which are
not filled. As the member probably knows, coming from
Alberta, a lot of criticism has been directed through the federal
government at the fact that enforcement powers have been
declining, as has the strength of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
(1605)
The parliamentary secretary waxed eloquently at the
beginning of his speech, stating: ``Canadians care deeply about
wildlife''. He is right. The question is this: Can fewer than 30
enforcement officers do the job? All they can do is answer
telephone inquiries but not much more. Therefore this aspect of
implementation and enforcement requires attention.
Fines have been increased. I will not go into the details of
what is being proposed but I have to ask this. What is the value
of a polar bear, what is the value of a spotted owl, what is the
value of a bald eagle once the species has entered the
endangered category? The monetary value expressed through
the fine is not adequate to express the damage caused to the
totality of our culture when an endangered species is removed
by one number.
I am a bit puzzled about the effectiveness of the fines
proposed, whether they go far enough in becoming really
preventive. There is definitely an improvement in the proposed
amendments to section 13 which make a person liable for a
separate offence on each day on which an offence is committed.
That is good. It will allow a court to multiply fines by the
number of specimens in the possession of the offender. The
member for Comox-Alberni made reference to possession of
wildlife that ought to be taken into account when we go through
this bill clause by clause.
Section 13 allows the court to impose additional fines if the
court deems that the person has made earnings from the offence.
Although this will be difficult to prove it is a good step in the
right direction.
Clause 15 of the bill among other things adds a new section
for special orders of the court which allow the court to order
those convicted to remedy the harm, pay for remediation of all
activity that could lead to repeat offences, perform community
services and the like. That is highly commendable.
Now we come to what is probably the heart of the bill. Section
8 deals with endangered species. Here the minister has been
given permissive powers, in co-operation with one or more
provincial governments, to take measures as the minister deems
necessary for the protection of any species of wildlife in danger
of extinction.
This terminology has good potential, but is it strong enough?
Does this section provide adequate protection or do we need new
legislation for the specific protection of endangered species?
This is the question that ought to be addressed. I am sure it will
be addressed in committee. If we do not come to grips with the
question of endangered species and their protection, future
generations of Canadians will not be able to enjoy them.
3895
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature in
January of this year in Argentina adopted an interesting
resolution which in effect repaired a protocol under the
convention on biological diversity which deals with diversity
in the forest. It is a good step in the right direction.
The question is this: How does Canada rank in the
international sphere? Are we doing enough to protect species
that cross borders?
(1610)
What about the Porcupine caribou in northern Alberta and in
Yukon territory? That herd resides and moves between Yukon
and Alaska. While the Canadian land is designated as a wildlife
area, one section of the calving region is in the United States.
This land is described as 1002 lands and is very important
because it is the calving ground of the herd and is in danger of
being destroyed because of oil exploration.
Therefore, should oil exploration be permitted on the north
slope, which is this 1002 land in Alaska, or should it be, as I
would of course argue in favour, banned for the protection in the
centuries ahead of these particular herds which move across the
border? This is a cross-border issue. We must, I submit, ensure
that species and populations such as the Porcupine caribou herd
are not threatened through exploration and exploitation of
natural resources. Since this is an international matter I would
urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to raise it at the appropriate
time in Washington.
It seems to me as we look at this bill and the overall situation
in the nineties that we need international agreements on the
preservation and protection of water and land wildlife. We are
losing species compared to the richness of 50 or 100 years ago.
In other words, there is a constant attrition and diminution in the
richness of species that can be documented.
If future generations are to have any wildlife to enjoy, then we
need to do much more for the species in danger of extinction and
for the cross-border species in particular.
I will conclude with a thought that I am sure troubles all of us.
It is more than that, it is a reflection. I wonder whether fines,
enforcement, laws and regulations can do the job. It seems to me
that they can only go so far.
What is needed as a complementary measure to Bill C-24 is
an intensive education program. We have to have education
aimed at all ages, an education aimed at all groups and promoted
at all levels. Every Canadian should know what is endangered in
our ecosystem, either on land or in the water, whether it is a
plant, an insect, a mammal, you name it.
Every Canadian through this educational effort should be
mobilized to protect wildlife. Every Canadian should be asked
to help in the protection of endangered species because in a
democracy the most effective instrument is education.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, the bill
the government is introducing this afternoon is aimed at
amending the Canada Wildlife Act. Enacted in 1973, this
legislation will be made more efficient by the new provisions.
The environment is indeed an evolving sector in need of
constant readjustment.
(1615)
I am very happy to take part in the debate this afternoon, being
the fourth member of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development to speak on Bill
C-24, immediately following its chairman, the member for
Davenport.
Over the past twenty years, this act had been left unchanged.
It was intended, first, to allow the federal government to
conduct wildlife research, and second, to protect wild animals,
especially those on the endangered list. The amendments before
us today appear to be quite justified since they are mainly aimed
at giving more teeth to this piece of legislation regarding the
protection of our wildlife. The proposed changes are in four
areas.
First of all, the amendments extend the act to cover the
internal waters and the territorial sea of Canada up to 200 miles.
Before, the limit was only 12 miles. This will allow the
government to create protected marine areas across a larger
territory. Among other things, such areas will serve to protect
endangered species. It is of the utmost importance to be able to
take care of these species since they are threatened by the
pollution in our waterways, even if they do not come under our
jurisdiction. Naturally, endangered species have no way to
protect themselves against such negative impact, and we cannot
pick up their distress calls if we are not in the field to notice the
devastation.
Another amendment deals with living organisms and
throughout the French version of the act, the word ``faune'' is
replaced by the expression ``espèces sauvages''. That way,
animals, plants and other living organisms and their respective
habitats, are all protected. If we care about the habitat of these
wildlife species, we also make sure that all the ecosystem
elements their survival requires will be protected as well. In past
years, we focused on animals and only animals. From now on,
this legislation will give the government all the authority it
requires to protect the producers, the first links in the food chain
which of course feeds the consumers. We will also deal with the
decomposers to ensure perfect recycling.
3896
Plants are the first link in the food chain which nourishes
herbivores and carnivores alike and which ends with man. This
reminds me of the story about Isle Royale most of us have
heard. Authorities had introduced herds of moose on that
island. There were no predators so the moose multiplied at an
alarming rate. What happened? There were too many, the whole
herd was weak and sick, individuals were aggressive with each
other, vegetation was scarce, the whole island was heading
towards disaster. There was overgrazing, so the animals had to
dig up plant roots in order to survive.
(1620)
Fortunately and just in time, authorities who did not want to
allow hunting, reintroduced on the island the moose's natural
predator, the wolf.
A pack of wolves was reestablished on the island. At the
beginning, food was plentiful and there was a population
explosion, while the moose population dwindled. However,
after thirty years, a perfect balance was reached on Isle Royale,
to everybody's relief.
This is the kind of balance that humans and the government
should strive to achieve. Previously, we did not protect habitats.
We could also talk about clear-cutting. When hundreds and
hundreds of contiguous hectares are ruthlessly stripped of all
trees, clearly habitats are being destroyed.
Animals must move out and search for a similar habitat.
However, when they find one it is likely already occupied by
other individuals of the same species. You know how it is, when
you have a territory you try to defend it, to keep intruders at bay.
Other times we see the total disappearance of a habitat, very
often crucial for endangered species. This amendment is in
keeping with the Convention on Biodiversity that Canada
ratified in 1993. Several members already mentioned it.
At the present time, the term used excludes domestic animals.
As it becomes increasingly clear that all elements of our
environment are closely interrelated, it would obviously be
inefficient to protect a mammal or a bird when it cannot survive
in its natural habitat.
The third amendment defines the duties and powers of
wildlife officers, who will have more leeway with regard to
offenders. Although the hon. member for Davenport spoke at
length on this earlier, I would still like to deliver this message.
The last amendment deals with fines, which will be much
higher. Provision is made for a $25,000 maximum fine or a
six-month prison term or both for more serious offences.
This measure, which is intended to discourage poaching,
should be proceeded with. By the way, Mr. Speaker, when I was
in my riding of Frontenac on the weekend, I read in the county
newspaper, the Courrier Frontenac, that people who had
burglarized dozens of cottages and summer homes were
sentenced to less than two years in prison-which is reasonable
in my opinion-but since provincial jails are overcrowded, the
journalist figured out that the time spent behind bars varies from
1.8 to 24 per cent of the sentence.
While listening to the hon. member for Davenport earlier, I
figured out that six months in prison multiplied by 30 days a
month amounts to 180 days. So 1 per cent of that would be 1.8
days, let us say two days. The bill may provide for a prison term
of six months but even if the judge sentences the offender to six
months, it should be a little less with good behaviour. But if the
prisoner only serves 1.8 per cent, 2 per cent or 4 per cent of his
sentence, it is a little disappointing for the judge, and our
wildlife officers will eventually lose all motivation.
(1625)
The Disraeli chief of police told me of the time he testified in
court in Sherbrooke, some sixty kilometres away. On his way
back, he stopped for a hot dog, french fries and a Coke and when
he got to Disraeli, the man he had testified against and who had
been convicted was already there. Maybe he spent too much
time eating his hot dog! That just goes to show how sentences
are not always appropriate.
The measures proposed today will protect wildlife species
more efficiently but will also ensure special attention is given to
endangered species. The public already knows some of these
species. The beluga whale, for example, at the mouth of the
Saguenay, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the prairie dog,
the grizzly bear, the bison which was endangered just two
decades ago.
Allow me to go off on a tangent once again. I am lucky enough
to live in the country. Last Sunday morning, for the first time, I
saw a bald eagle on my land. I called my wife and children so
they could see it and there we were, in front of the patio door
with our binoculars, filled with wonder at the sight of that bald
eagle. I hope it has a mate so they can reproduce on our land. All
this to tell you that even if I have lived in that area for many
years, last Sunday was the first time I had the opportunity to see
there a bald eagle, which is the emblem of the United States.
Other species are not as lucky. The preventive measures we
seek to introduce will allow us to foresee the problems and to
act, rather than react after the damage is done. Instead of waiting
until some species are on the verge of extinction to do something
to preserve them, we will be able to take measures to maintain
their numbers at a level that poses no threat to their continuing
survival.
I will tell you another story. You probably know that the
Government of Quebec had to legislate in order to save the
beaver, the one on the reverse side of the nickel, the symbol of
hard-working people. In Quebec, during the depression, beaver
was actively trapped for its pelt or its meat. Times were hard,
families were large and feeding them was not easy.
3897
The government prohibited all trading in beaver pelts as well
as trapping. Populations started to build up again. Maybe I have
a keener eye than most but on highway 417, coming to Ottawa,
about 15 kilometres from the national capital I see trees,
trembling aspens, cut down by beavers. I noticed them again
no later than Monday. This to say that beavers are now
plentiful, they are on the outskirts of Ottawa and Hull, along
the 417.
I urge hon. members using this road to be on the lookout, they
will see the fallen trees. Perhaps authorities will deport the
beavers, the way they deported the Acadians, if they do too
much damage along highway 417.
I remind you also of the passenger pigeon which, in North
America, has come to typify the devastating influence of
humans on wildlife. It is now extinct. Of course it was not
exactly a smart bird, it would come close to human dwellings.
As I said before, people were poor and hungry. These birds were
easy to catch and very good to eat.
(1630)
Do not believe that the only purpose is to save some very rare
species so that we can boast that we have rare birds in our
backyard, as I was just telling you earlier about the bald eagle.
Protecting their habitats lets our wildlife live in a healthy
environment that is the best possible one for them.
I will draw a parallel with Bill C-23 presented in this House
last Monday. One amendment made to that act on migratory
birds concerns embryos, sperm and eggs.
One may question the importance of protecting these items
and wonder even more what these items can be used for. If you
look a little closer, you quickly see that with biotechnologies
becoming more and more prevalent, it is good planning to
regulate potential problems that may arise.
This bill also amends a law that might not seem very
important, except that saving our wildlife depends on it. If we do
not want to always be in a race against time to protect our
endangered species, we must take proactive measures.
One possibly contentious aspect concerns federal and
provincial jurisdictions, since they are not always clearly
defined when it comes to the environment. Take the example of a
non-navigable waterway, which is under provincial
jurisdiction; if it were navigable, then it would be under federal
jurisdiction.
It is interesting to note that, under the provisions of this
legislation, if the jurisdiction of a province comes into question,
the federal government-and I certainly hope it will abide by the
letter and the spirit of the law-will have to reach an agreement
with the province concerned.
To conclude, I think it may be worthwhile to remind this
House that nature is exquisitely sensitive as well as
self-contained. On this blue planet of ours, we have something
called the food chain. This chain could be compared to the huge
chains big contractors use on their power shovels. Every time a
plant or animal species is extinghished, it is one more link being
weakened. Eventually, this link will break. Naturally, it would
be catastrophic if one of these links broke. That is what
sustainable development is about, as my colleague from
Terrebone so aptly described it earlier, based on the Bruntland
report. If one of these links were to break, then our children's
future and that of generations to come would be seriously
jeopardized.
It is well known that a chain is only as strong as its weakest
links. So, seeing that some links are getting weaker, it is high
time that we all worked together to make our planet a better
place to live, basically. At this stage, I can say the government
can, of course, count on the Bloc Quebecois' support. As my
colleague from Terrebonne said, we will always endorse
policies to protect our environment and make this planet a better
place for future generations.
(1635)
We are growing old, so this will be for generations and
generations to come.
I will close on this, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that by
the end of the day, you will have become very knowledgeable in
matters of the environment. I can see you listening with great
interest to all the speeches made this afternoon on Bill C-24,
including the remarks of four members of the Standing
Committee on the Environment who have spoken so far, with
perhaps a fifth one to come.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
over two decades ago Parliament passed into law the Canada
Wildlife Act. This was a key piece of legislation in the effort to
protect our country's wildlife. It enables the federal government
to carry out wildlife research and, in co-operation with the
provinces, to undertake a wide range of conservation
interpretation activities for wildlife and its habitat including the
protection of endangered species.
Since 1973, however, we have seen far-reaching changes in
our approach to environmental issues. These changes
necessitate updating of the act. We have come to see the crucial
importance of the interrelationships between these issues and
the need to integrate the environment and the economy. We also
recognize that the issues we face are complex. To address them
successfully we need co-operation across jurisdictions and even
across borders.
3898
This new understanding lies at the heart of sustainable
development or sustainability. Sustainability recognizes the
need to keep human activities within the limits of the
ecosystem's capacity to sustain. It means integrating economic
and environmental goals. It also means building a wide network
of partnerships to achieve these goals.
At the United Nations earth summit in 1992 the world
community gave its support to sustainable development. In the
area of wildlife it adopted the convention on biological
diversity. Canada was one of the first industrialized countries to
sign this unprecedented agreement.
Signatories to the convention must regulate or manage
biological resources to ensure their conservation and
sustainable use and must establish a system of protected areas to
conserve biodiversity. The convention calls for conservation
efforts to consider all species within an ecosystem and requires
countries to develop legislative provisions to protect
endangered species.
We have welcomed the new international commitment to
maintaining biodiversity because wildlife has a special
importance to our country and to the vast majority of our people.
Canada is indeed fortunate in still having natural spaces largely
untouched by development where wildlife abounds in a free
state. We all take pride in our vast wilderness areas and the
creatures that inhabit them. They help to define the identity of
our country.
As well, Canada's living natural resources make a major
contribution to our economic well-being. According to a
Statistics Canada survey on the importance of wildlife to
Canadians in 1991, expenditures associated with all types of fish
and wildlife related recreational activities contributed at least
$11.5 billion to our gross domestic product. They generated $4.4
billion in tax revenues and provided 250,000 jobs.
The same survey shows that over 90 per cent of Canadians
took part in wildlife related activities during 1991, devoting to
them a total of 1.3 billion days and $5.6 billion. Those figures
indicate that wildlife plays a major part in Canadians'
recreational life. Further, 86 per cent of Canadians support
wildlife conservation.
For all these reasons we must ensure the health of Canada's
wildlife. The amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act will help
achieve that goal.
(1640 )
The bill under consideration will broaden the scope of the
Canada Wildlife Act to apply not simply to non-domestic
animals but instead to all wild organisms. That shift will bring
the act into line with the biodiversity convention.
The bill will also make it possible to create marine natural
wildlife areas, not only within the 12 nautical mile limit as at
present, but all the way out to the 200 nautical mile limit. This
will allow much greater protection of the Canadian marine
ecosystems important to wildlife.
The amendments establish regulatory authorities for marine
protected areas. They strengthen enforcement related
provisions. They will help deter illegal activities such as
poaching by setting a maximum penalty of $25,000 and/or six
months in jail for serious offences.
These changes will help ensure that future Canadians enjoy
the same benefits we do from flourishing wildlife populations.
However protecting Canada's wildlife is not a task for the
federal government alone. To a large extent managing wildlife is
a responsibility of the provinces and the territories. Only by
working with them can the federal government promote our
national wildlife objectives.
Canadians can be proud that the different levels of
government have a record of strong co-operation on wildlife
issues. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments adopted
the wildlife policy for Canada. This calls for effective
legislation conserving wild animals and plants and ensuring that
all uses are sustainable.
It also calls for penalties that pose effective deterrents to the
illegal use of wild species. More recently federal, provincial and
territorial governments together have been developing a
Canadian biodiversity strategy that will set out the manner in
which Canada will implement the 1992 global biodiversity
convention.
That same co-operation is central to the Canada Wildlife Act.
For example, the act provides for co-operative management
areas on provincial lands. While the federal Minister of the
Environment will have the authority to appoint provincial
officers as wildlife officers, these appointments will be made
only with the agreement of the provinces concerned.
The amendments define the authority and powers of those
officers and provide for inspection and search and seizure
procedures in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Federal and provincial governments will also
continue their co-operation on the management of endangered
species. That co-operation dates back to 1988 when the
responsible government agents launched the RNEW
organization and strategy.
RNEW stands for recovery of nationally endangered wildlife.
Its goal is to have all agencies and organizations work as a team
to rescue species at risk from extinction and to prevent
vulnerable species from becoming at risk. The need for such
teamwork is all too clear because the list of species designated
as endangered is growing ever longer while the list of recovered
species remains all too short.
RNEW brings together the directors of federal, provincial and
territorial wildlife agencies plus the heads of three major
national wildlife organizations: the Canadian Nature
Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the World
Wildlife Fund Canada. These officials set up a team to prepare a
3899
management plan for the recovery of a particular endangered
species, a plan eventually to be carried out by the responsible
governments in co-operation with universities and conservation
organizations.
Successes achieved through the RNEW program are
gratifying, but they must not make us complacent. There are
more cases by far in which Canada's wildlife populations are
suffering from the effects of such problems as loss and
degradation of habitat, overharvesting, poaching, disease and
the impact of toxic substances. Yet the few successes are
invaluable because they clearly show us the way forward. That
way is through co-operation of the different levels of
government and concerned groups outside government.
The amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act reinforce that
co-operation. They will enhance protection for Canada's
wildlife and help us advance the goals of sustainability.
(1645 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, in speaking
in support of Bill C-24 I am going to take a somewhat different
angle or attack to it than has been taken to this point.
We have been speaking an awful lot about issues concerning
enforcement, search and seizure and all of these things which of
course have to be a part of an act if it is going to be workable.
I would like to talk about some of the people in my
constituency and I believe all across Canada who presently are
involved, not in the enforcement but in the enhancement of the
whole issue of wildlife.
There is a network of people who belong to organizations like
rod and gun clubs all across my province, indeed across Canada.
In British Columbia some of the networking is interprovincial or
international in scale. For example, there are the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited,
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Canadian Wildlife
Federation, and on and on.
Simply stated, networks are people talking to each other,
sharing ideas, information and resources. These networks which
are fundamentally informal exist to foster self help, to exchange
information, to change society, to improve productivity and
work life, and to share resources.
The hunters, trappers, guides and fishermen of Canada
however are facing a crisis, a turning point in history. They have
always been low key. Their way is not confrontational. Their
way is to work in co-operation not confrontation. They not only
value the privilege to carry out their sport, but also to work hard
with real dollars to maintain healthy wildlife populations in
British Columbia and across Canada.
For example, within British Columbia there are
approximately one million homes. Of this number about 50 per
cent or half of them contain a hunter or fisherman, based on
licences sold. Of course, there are also thousands of homes that
contain non-hunters and non-fishermen.
Then there is a number containing anti-hunters and
anti-fishermen. The anti group is by far the smallest of the three
categories, but you do get more publicity if you are anti. You do
not necessarily have to know what you are talking about to get
press. There is a feeling that only antis care about wild animals
or fish. The so-called let them be group, they have a
management by lobby philosophy. A lot of what they do has
nothing to do with science. They are very simplistic and feel that
if hunting and fishing cease, everything will be fine. They could
not be further from the truth.
It is my experience that hunters, fishermen, trappers and
guides are very poor at getting their conservation message out.
So in my small part I am trying to do exactly that.
Most of the government wildlife agencies also have difficulty
getting their message out. What we find is that the media seems
to be mostly on the anti side of everything, particularly if it is
spectacular and there is some kind of confrontation involved.
Most of the material put forward by the media on the subject of
wildlife management is so distorted that it is almost
embarrassing when people take a look at what the real facts are.
There is a desperate need for government to understand and
provide public support for wildlife management through
organized sportsmen. It is a positive thing if done the right way.
Because of course we are always concerned in the nineties about
being gender neutral or gender specific or whatever it is to
express ourselves correctly, let me say that I was in a home in
my constituency just a couple of weeks ago and was admiring
some of the beautiful trophy animals they had mounted there. I
was about to compliment the husband on that when it turned out
that indeed the wife was the person who had gone out and done
such an excellent job. I recognize that it is a growing sport and a
growing interest no matter what a person's gender. Across
Canada the impact of a century of hunting, trapping and sports
fishing is quite well documented. As a matter of fact most
wildlife species are more abundant now than they were 75 years
ago.
(1650)
These species are all more abundant: the elk, the moose, the
buffalo, antelope, mule deer, beaver, sea otter. As a matter of
fact on Monday in this House when I was speaking on the
migratory birds act I mentioned that in one part of my
constituency they have very much an overabundance of grizzly
bears. I suggest that probably the reason those bears are thriving
as they are, even in an active logging operation area, is because
many of
3900
the loggers are hunters and fishers and support this kind of
wildlife and outdoor activity.
Most rod and gun clubs stand for scientific resource
management. They oppose management by lobby. Resource
decisions rather than political ones should be made on the basis
of scientific evidence. We must manage more intensely as
population expands. Those who use the resource are the ones
who really work for it on the grounds of purchasing and
enhancing habitat for all species. Many funds are set up exactly
for that purpose.
I stand in support of the principles of Bill C-24. I believe that
it will be an important part of the infrastructure required to give
us the regulations or the ability to bring forward regulations that
will help these dedicated people, indeed all Canadians, to be
able to protect wildlife.
There is an issue that keeps on coming up in this House and it
is directly related to what we are talking about here. These rod
and gun club people, these people who enjoy being out of doors,
enhancing wildlife, indeed putting much of their own blood,
sweat and tears into preserving and protecting wildlife also are
hunters and they are under attack. They are very much under
attack at this particular time.
These are people who join these wildlife organizations, pay
their dues, not only as membership fees, but pay their dues in
terms of their time and energy and effort.
These people currently are under attack by many different,
probably well meaning people across Canada. I cite as an
example one organization that purports to have ``over 5,000
Canadians'' count as individual supporters of this particular
organization.
Let us compare this organization to the wildlife or rod and gun
club organizations. I read from their bylaws where they say
there shall be no membership fees or dues unless otherwise
directed by the board of directors.
What kind of commitment is there on the part of these people
when they will not even put up their membership fee to be part of
this lobby group to go after people who are currently enjoying
the out of doors and the whole area of recreation in the wild.
At the risk of perhaps putting too many things together, I also
suggest that on the same page I read and I quote: ``Members
shall apply for admission as such by completing a membership
application,'' this is important, ``in such form as the board may
from time to time approve or by otherwise representing to the
corporation in a manner satisfactory to the directors that they
are interested in furthering the objects of the corporation''.
I am not a legal person. I have never been involved with the
law but when I read this I say to myself that if I wanted to
increase my membership list and I was not charging
membership fees anyway, I would put out a petition in support of
the objects of my corporation.
(1655 )
When I receive this back under these terms and conditions,
obviously these people are interested in furthering the objects of
the corporation which is the ban of all guns.
I suggest that when we compare the level of commitment of
the people, the lobby, that is currently going after the
law-abiding citizens who are members of rod and gun clubs who
enjoy the out of doors to the commitment of the people who are
spending time in the bush, who are going out and are enhancing
our environment and protecting our environment, obviously
they come down on one side and not the other.
Further to that, yesterday I took part in a meeting between our
party and this coalition and other supporters of the coalition. I
was absolutely astounded to find that one of the people there
said that we needed gun control to prevent suicide. Really, if our
society is currently toying with the idea of legalizing doctor
assisted suicide, what in the world are we doing on the other side
of the coin harassing legitimate gun owners all in the name of
stopping or trying to prevent suicide?
I stand in support of Bill C-24. I restate that I stand in support
of the principles of Bill C-24 because I stand in support of
Canadians who are going out into the bush and making our
environment better. I support them in every way. They are the
people who make Canada Canada.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I have listened all
afternoon with great interest to my colleagues, the hon.
members for Moncton, Terrebonne, Comox-Alberni,
Davenport and Frontenac, York-Simcoe and Kootenay East.
I share the concern they have made known with regard to Bill
C-24 and Canada's natural heritage. I hope I might add a little
something in the way of information to the debate. I will be
brief.
Wildlife has helped shape Canada's identity. Wildlife related
activity as the last speaker has just pointed out is a cherished
recreational activity for a large number of Canadians. For native
Canadians, wildlife harvesting is a vital component of an age old
but sustainable lifestyle. For Canada's economy, as we have
heard, wildlife activities make a contribution measured in the
billions of dollars.
All these are cogent reasons why we should protect Canada's
wildlife. We shall be better able to do so with passage of the bill
now before the House amending Canada's wildlife act. The
amendments bring the act into line with our latest understanding
of wildlife, with the latest international agreements, particularly
the North American water fowl management plan, the Ramsar
convention on wetlands of international importance and the
3901
global convention on biological diversity and with the planned
Canadian biodiversity strategy.
This modified act will recognize that an ecosystem approach
is the best way of protecting wildlife. In other words, we can
save wildlife by saving the habitat on which they depend. One of
the key ways which our country is doing this is by establishing
national wildlife areas or NWAs under the Canada Wildlife Act.
The purpose of these areas is to conserve essential habitat for
migratory birds and other species, especially endangered
wildlife. At present there are 45 national wildlife areas covering
approximately 287,000 hectares of habitat. Another six sites
have been designated to become NWAs.
(1700 )
National wildlife areas exist or are planned in all provinces
and territories except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
These areas protect a wide variety of critical habitats.
In British Columbia the wetlands of the Alaksen NWA and the
Fraser River estuary are an internationally significant stop-over
point and wintering area for large numbers of migrating birds.
On the other side of the country Pointe de l'Est is one of the
few remaining nesting sites in Quebec for the piping plover, a
bird listed as endangered in Canada.
At the Suffield NWA in Alberta the short grass prairie and
sand dunes are home to the burrowing owl and the ferruginous
hawk, both threatened species. Part of the endangered Arctic
population of bowhead whales frequents Isabella Bay in the
Northwest Territories, the site of a proposed marine NWA. In
this case the opportunity to extend the boundaries beyond the 12
nautical mile limit of this NWA depends directly on the passage
of this bill now before the House.
For each of these areas the Canadian Wildlife Service
conducts public consultations as an integral step to preparing a
management plan. The plan specifies which activities are to be
allowed under permit within the NWA, for example, perhaps oil
drilling, livestock grazing, or haying. The management plan
may also specify how to improve habitat in such ways as
planting native plants to provide food and cover for wildlife or
digging ponds to make the landscape more inviting to
waterfowl.
Conservation is the main purpose of the national wildlife
areas but it is not the only one. Under the Canada Wildlife Act
public education and research, as the hon. member for
Davenport pointed out, are also goals.
In most NWAs visitors are allowed to hike, canoe, take photos
and watch birds. Traditional uses may be allowed to continue.
Some management plans provide for trapping, hunting and
fishing. All these activities are carefully regulated to prevent
declines in wildlife population levels and deterioration of
habitats.
In some NWAs research takes precedence. For example, at
Scotch Bonnet Island NWA on Lake Ontario access is restricted
because the island is used for long term studies of the effects that
environmental contaminants in the food chain have on wild
birds in the great lakes.
At Polar Bear Pass in the Northwest Territories as well as at
other NWAs the focus is on archaeological and biological
research.
Many of the sites protected as national wildlife areas have
also been accorded international recognition. Cap Tormente in
Quebec is one of several NWAs that are also wetlands of
international importance under the Ramsar convention. The
Shepody NWA in New Brunswick is a western hemisphere
shorebird reserve.
This international recognition shows that the world
community appreciates the value of our national wildlife areas.
This House must do the same by passing the amendments now
under consideration.
NWAs also involve key partners outside the federal
government in the work to conserve our wildlife by conserving
wildlife habitat. They are managed by the federal government in
co-operation with provincial and territorial authorities as well
as non-governmental organizations.
Some important areas have been protected thanks to
donations and leases from the Nature Conservancy and other
non-government partners through land transfers from other
government agencies or with the help of funds from other
habitat protection programs such as those of Wildlife Habitat
Canada and the North American wildlife management plan.
Recently the establishment of NWAs has been a part of land
claim settlements reached with aboriginal groups.
All these groups have become involved because they know
that while wildlife needs our protection, Canada equally needs
our wildlife. This is a part of our heritage, a part of our present
and it must be part of our future.
(1705)
As we work to make the transition to sustainable development
we know that we must safeguard the health of our environment
as a way of ensuring our prosperity. Wildlife provides one of the
best indicators of environmental health. The signs are that we
must do still more on its behalf because such actions ultimately
benefit us all.
3902
That is why I strongly support the amendments to the Canada
Wildlife Act. It will extend our ability to protect wildlife
throughout Canada and in the oceans which wash our shores.
This is in the interest of all Canadians. I urge hon. members
to support this measure and give it swift passage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry) moved that Bill
C-12, an Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read a
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin
debate on second reading of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the
Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
As a piece of federal framework legislation, the Canada
Business Corporations Act helps promote the competitiveness
of Canadian businesses. It is a key element of our national
economic union and our internal market. The act must be kept
up-to-date so that the government can use modern technology
to provide better services and to improve administrative
efficiency. It must also respond to the emerging challenges of a
rapidly evolving global market.
[English]
This new law must be fair. The Canada Business Corporations
Act will continue to provide a practical balance of interests
among shareholders, creditors, management and the public.
This House will recall that the CBCA came into force on
December 15, 1975 in order to revise and reform the law
applicable to companies incorporated to carry on business
throughout Canada. At that time the CBCA was heralded as an
exemplary act, a model to be followed in Canada and abroad.
For nearly 20 years it has acted as a model and promoted order
and fairness in the corporate environment.
The CBCA is important to the competitive position of small
and medium sized businesses as well as for the many large
corporations registered under it. Over half of the top 500
companies in Canada are registered under the Canada Business
Corporations Act. Approximately 190,000 corporations in
Canada are covered by the provisions of the act.
However, after nearly two decades we need to update the
provisions of the CBCA. Business practices and legal
developments in a number of areas such as shareholder
communications and the roles and responsibilities of directors
have evolved considerably since the act was originally passed.
(1710 )
Corporations today must take into account the intensified
competition of an international marketplace and the
globalization of capital markets. Our framework laws must take
into account increased share ownership by institutional
investors and the holdings of shares through intermediaries.
The Canada Business Corporations Act must keep pace with
the changes that are driving the competitiveness of Canadian
industry. It must be amended to ensure that it will continue to be
a useful tool for Canadian businesses and a model for others to
follow.
The legislation before us today represents the first of two
phases that will reform the framework legislation which governs
federally incorporated businesses. We are introducing these
amendments now so we can move quickly on a number of
technical but important reforms. They represent a first step in
renewing the CBCA. They will be followed by more substantive
revisions after consultations with all interested parties.
Hon. members will note that the legislation before us provides
for a parliamentary review of the CBCA within three years. We
intend to introduce substantive amendments when the act comes
up for review. Hopefully we will be in a position within 18
months to proceed with the review, but at the very latest we will
have an opportunity to review the need for further amendments
within three years.
In the meantime, Industry Canada will consult extensively
with those who have a stake in the CBCA. We have prepared a
consultation package and hope to complete our consultations
and have draft recommendations ready for review by the
government within 18 months.
[Translation]
The phase II consultation package deals with such issues as
the liability of corporate directors, shareholders
communications and other substantive issues. The package has
been submitted to interested Canadians, including corporate
executives, corporate law experts, institutional investors,
shareholders' representatives, the accounting profession,
business associations and other stakeholders.
After we have heard back from those who have a stake in
reforming the CBCA, we will recommend to Parliament further
amendments to the act to reflect business and community needs.
[English]
I want to emphasize that the legislation before us is a
necessary first step. It enables the government to proceed with
some important technical changes to the CBCA while we
prepare for more substantive revisions. The primary objectives
of the legislation before us lie in four areas and I would like to go
over each of these briefly.
3903
First of all, the legislation provides for improved service to
federally incorporated companies. It brings the CBCA in line
with technological advances and permits the introduction of
more equal service across the country.
[Translation]
In the years that have passed since the CBCA came into effect,
technology has revolutionized the way in which business is
conducted. The drafters of the 1975 legislation could not have
foreseen the day when, for example, fax machines would be used
to transmit key corporate documents. They could not have
known that, within a few decades, electronic data interchange
would have the potential of reducing the paper burden for
business.
[English]
I must confess that in my days of practising law here in
Ottawa it was quite convenient to act as Ottawa agents for firms
across the country as we delivered and collected documents
from the corporations branch of the then consumer and
corporate affairs department.
I suppose I really ought to apologize to some of my former
colleagues still in practice in Ottawa that we are now making it
possible for firms across Canada to deliver their documents
directly and electronically.
My friend from Toronto says ``hear, hear''. The one benefit of
the old rules was that we found ways to collect fees from Toronto
law firms.
The director who administers the CBCA through the
corporations directorate of Industry Canada receives a variety of
notices and documents from corporations, directors,
shareholders and others.
Many representatives of CBCA corporations have requested
that facsimile transmission and electronic filing and issuance of
documents be permitted under the act. The CBCA director has
begun to accept some documents transmitted by facsimile, but
there are certain impediments in the existing act to the use of
modern technology.
(1715)
The amendments before us provide broad regulatory making
power to prescribe the form and other details of electronic filing
and issuance of documents. They authorize the CBCA director
to deal with the technical details. These changes will result in
eventual same day incorporation from all regions of Canada, not
just the national capital region, thus again saving money to
industry across the country.
CBCA corporations and others will have easier access to the
information that the corporations directorate provides.
[Translation]
I would like to emphasize that while we want to amend the act
in order to better enable the corporations directorate to keep
abreast of modern information technology, clients will still be
able to use paper-based communications if they prefer.
[English]
The second broad area that the amendments before us address
is the need to simplify certain corporate government procedures
and record keeping and filing requirements. For example, the
amendments will permit current directors to appoint a limited
number of directors in the time between shareholders meetings
if the corporation's articles so provide. While shareholder
democracy is safeguarded by the limits placed on this power, the
change will give CBCA corporations the flexibility to react
quickly and with less expense to unforeseen events.
Under the amendments shareholders can also elect a reduced
number of directors at the same shareholders meeting that they
approve the reduction. As the law now stands shareholders can
vote to reduce the minimum number of directors but must wait
until the next meeting to elect that reduced number of directors.
Another amendment would permit the CBCA director to
exempt the filing of specified classes of documents when they
are publicly available elsewhere. This will reduce the burden of
multiple filings of certain documents and thus the costs incurred
by CBCA corporations.
[Translation]
In keeping with the trend towards reducing paper and
administrative costs for users of the CBCA, the amendments
will establish a six-year period for which accounting records
and files must be retained. Currently, the CBCA gives no
direction to corporations as to how long such records must be
maintained.
[English]
The amendments will eliminate public financial disclosure
now imposed on large, privately held CBCA corporations while
maintaining disclosure to shareholders. The CBCA currently
requires public disclosure of the financial statements of
privately held CBCA corporations whose assets exceed $5
million or whose gross revenues exceed $10 million.
Mandatory public disclosure of financial statements of large
private corporations is not required by the provinces, nor is it
required by the laws of our major trading partner, the United
States. The CBCA therefore places federally incorporated
companies at a competitive disadvantage and increases their
compliance costs. This may discourage foreign businesses from
establishing in Canada, certainly under federal jurisdiction.
3904
Shareholders of privately held companies will continue to be
protected because an audit can only be waived if all
shareholders agree. Financial statements will still be prepared
and sent to shareholders in any event.
Financial statements of all corporations, not just those that
are federally incorporated, must be disclosed to Statistics
Canada through other legislation such as the Corporations and
Labour Unions Returns Act. This information is publicly
available on an aggregate basis.
The third broad theme of these technical amendments is
clarification. Some amendments have been introduced to clarify
the language of certain sections of the CBCA through changes to
the French or English versions or through the use of better
terminology. For example, revised definitions of control and
subsidiary are proposed in order to capture the whole chain of
corporations under the ultimate control of a holding
corporation, thus simplifying amalgamations and financial
assistance within corporate groups.
Finally, the fourth area addressed by the bill before us is
efficient administration. The act now requires that before an
administrative dissolution of a corporation can take place the
CBCA director must give notice of the decision to dissolve a
corporation in, among other things, a local newspaper.
(1720 )
By removing this requirement for publication in a local
newspaper the CBCA director will be able to move
expeditiously against defaulting corporations. This will help
encourage companies to comply with the public information
filing provisions of the law. Also, the government will avoid a
publication cost of almost $1 million over the next few years.
The amendment will not affect the statutory requirement to
notify directly the corporation in default and each director
personally, nor the requirement to publish notices in the Canada
Gazette and the Canada Corporations Bulletin.
[Translation]
To promote effective administration, the amendments before
us also include provisions to strengthen the CBCA rules
governing corporate names. For example, under one proposed
amendment, corporations will be prohibited from using words
such as ``Limited'', ``Limitée'' and ``Corporation'' in names
other than their corporate names.
[English]
Industry Canada is committed to the continued modernization
of the CBCA. We will proceed with the technical amendments of
the kind I have outlined today. In the meantime we will continue
to work with the Canadian business and professional
communities to design more substantive changes to the law. Our
overall objective is to help the conduct of business in Canada
and to contribute to the competitiveness of federal corporations.
The amendments before the house render the CBCA more
efficient. They simplify filing and record keeping requirements
and certain corporate grievance procedures and they allow for
technological innovation.
They also allow for improved service to corporations
governed by the CBCA by reducing overall paper burden and the
cost of compliance under the act. Overall they make the CBCA a
more useful instrument to businesses and investors who use it.
This government is committed to helping small and medium
sized Canadian business. We want the CBCA to serve Canadian
businesses in their bid to become competitive at home and
internationally.
[Translation]
They also allow for improved service to corporations
governed by the CBCA by reducing paper burden and the cost of
compliance with the Act. Overall, they make the CBCA a more
useful instrument for businesses and investors who use it.
I hope that my hon. colleagues from both sides of the House
will join me in supporting this legislation and in helping ensure
its speedy passage. Thank you.
[English]
I know late in the afternoon it is hard to find enthusiasm for a
bill on the Canada Business Corporations Act and I do find
myself concerned that I will contribute further to my generally
perceived image of being rather dull and boring. However, it is
the best we can do with the Canada Business Corporations Act.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières, I must make a statement concerning
the time reserved for Private Members' Business tomorrow,
May 5. The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk has informed
me in writing that he could not present his motion during private
members' hour tomorrow.
[English]
Since it has not been possible to arrange an exchange of
positions in the order of precedence under Standing Order
94(2)(a), I must direct the table officers to drop the item of
business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), Private Members' Hour
will thus be suspended tomorrow unfortunately and the House
will continue with the business before it prior to Private
Members' Hour.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate in this debate and I agree with the
minister when he says that this bill may be part of the
government strategy to sometimes be dull and boring. Indeed,
this is not a romantic piece of legislation, and it does not
generate a lot of controversy.
3905
As you know, Bill C-12 is an act to amend the Canada
Business Corporations Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
(1725)
Therefore, this legislation purports to amend the Canada
Business Corporations Act. It allows for the implementation of
technological innovations such as electronic filing and
facsimile transmission of documents, it simplifies certain
statutory procedures and record-keeping and filing
requirements, and it makes the administration of the Act more
effective.
Its object is to modernize the federal Canada Business
Corporations Act. This act, which was passed in 1975, is a
commercial law regulating about 190,000 Canadian businesses
which were incorporated under it.
Half of the 500 largest businesses in the country were
incorporated under that legislation. The government wants to
amend the act in two stages, Bill C-12 being the first of those
two stages.
A review of this legislation shows, as we in the opposition see
it, four major changes which will allow businesses to improve
their operations from a technical point of view.
The first of these changes is the fact that businesses will now
be able to use electronic means to transmit documents. This
should facilitate communication between businesses and the
department.
Another provision allows current directors to appoint, under
certain circumstances and if the rules of the corporation so
provide, a limited number of directors. It must be pointed out
that until now shareholders were the only ones who could
appoint the directors.
The third change is to the effect that, from now on, companies
will have to keep official documents such as accounting records
and files for a minimum of six years. Obviously, we agree that
this measure should help reduce the paper burden, but we
wonder if a period of six years is sufficiently long.
Finally, privately-held corporations will no longer have to
disclose financial information. This measure is criticized by the
Order of Chartered Accountants, which worries about the
impact it will have on the accounting profession. We must also
realize that this measure will remove an injustice that may have
existed before, in that provincially licensed companies had an
unfair advantage because they did not have to disclose such
information; federally licensed companies will now have the
same status.
It is not easy to take position on such a slim bill. However, we
must realize that, like other bills, it will take up a great deal of
time and energy. That is why opposition members feel
uncomfortable with this bill because there is still so much to do.
There is so much to do with regards to the economy, to small and
medium sized businesses and their development, that the
government is not doing. Let us take, for instance, the paper
burden small and medium sized businesses especially must
carry, just to serve the government.
According to some studies, these businesses spend one out of
five days dealing with government red tape. The government is
aware of that, as it acknowledges in the red book. On April 28,
the Minister of Industry announced a 29-member committee
would be set up to study the issue of red tape among other things.
As everyone knows, including the officials of his department,
there have been numerous reports and the solution proposed by
the government-it is like a reflex of this government-is to
form a committee to study the issue; 29 people from coast to
coast will consider the issue of government red tape. It is a waste
of time.
Some adjustments would probably be easy to make, however.
Knowing how competent federal public servants are, they could
consult with their provincial counterparts, including those from
Quebec, who are very competent.
(1730)
Adjustments could be made to the program, and the procedure
that companies must follow for exports, for example, could be
simplified. Why not try to come up with ways to make it easier
for small and medium sized businesses and others to export,
which is vital for the economic development of Canada and
Quebec? Why not refine what is offered to small and
medium-sized businesses to encourage research and
development? The Liberal Party of Canada made a big issue of it
in the red book.
Why not ask officials, without striking a committee, to find
ways of streamlining the forms, of reducing the delays in order
to help small and medium sized businesses effectively, tangibly,
pragmatically to do research and development? We know how
complicated it is; I worked on it before. It is extremely
complicated for a company to qualify for research and
development tax credits, for example.
Easy ways must be found to help companies in that regard,
just see to it. Companies must be helped to find ways to
modernize their equipment, to give them the training that exists
on the market to increase their productivity, to be more
competitive internationally. Everything must be done to ensure
that companies take the total-quality approach more and more.
This is essential if we want our companies to be recognized,
both here as subcontractors and internationally. Today, with ISO
9000, there is an international standard to help make sense of all
the complexity in the world and to identify the companies
considered qualified by a third party and those that are not. All
our companies must be encouraged to come up to the ISO
standard.
3906
Even more serious, not only do we see no government interest
or concern for these small things, which could really turn the
situation around for small and medium-sized businesses if the
government cared. Not only do we not sense any willingness
on the part of the government, but we are moving backwards
in areas such as military conversion programs, about which the
government was very eloquent in its red book and made a lot
of commitments. However, not a word about conversion was
said by the minister, in the Throne Speech or in the budget
speech, even though there are areas, in Quebec for example,
where the military industry is very important. We will address
the issue of the military industry tomorrow. The military
industry must be revamped everywhere in the West, because of
the evolution of the geo-political situation. As everyone knows,
the Cold War is over, at least in the form we have known it until
now.
We must make some adjustments to help industries move
from military to civilian production, but there is no
co-operation in this area. The government does not seem to be
really concerned, since all it did was skim over the issue in some
of its speeches. However, we have companies in Quebec, like
Oerlikon and Paramax, which are in trouble. They have lashed
out against the government. They cried for help again fifteen
days ago. Help us, because if you do not and we do not get any
more military contracts, thousands and thousands of jobs will be
lost. Only in Quebec, the military industry has already lost
11,000 jobs in the last five years. These were high tech, high
paid, and high-knowledge jobs. That is not the kind of jobs we
can afford to lose in Canada and in Quebec, where the economy
is already staggering, as we all know.
The situation with MIL Davie is also very important for the
Quebec City area. If I am not mistaken, it is the largest company
in the Quebec City area and it depends on government contracts.
It needs the help of the federal government through a project that
would meet a need, and I am talking here about the Magdalen
Islands ferry. There is also another project, the smart ship
project, which is important for the future of Quebec and Canada.
Among other things, this multifunctional ship will be used to
help settle regional conflicts as well as for UN peacekeeping
missions. These projects should be a priority, but the
government does not seem to have the political will to move on
them.
(1735)
This is an issue, and not only the Bloc Quebecois says it, since
the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology,
although he may be a Liberal and a federalist, has recently
denounced the Liberal government by saying: ``You see, you
even wrote it in the red book''. I heard it with my own ears on the
radio. He was alluding to some form of political will by saying
that it was nice to have written it, but what was behind the text?
Where is the political will? We have not heard anything about
that since.
It is not crying wolf to talk about this issue and to repeat that,
if we do not do anything, we should be aware that we might have
another brain drain, as we did in the late 1950s. Meanwhile, the
Americans are developing their economy, they are here, they are
everywhere, they are the giants and, as with the Avro Arrow in
the late 1950s, they will come and get the best people from
Canada and Quebec to develop their economy.
Another issue where we are going backwards is the fight
against unemployment and the so-called job creation. Drawing
from the red book, the government implemented the
infrastructure program, indeed, $6 million in Canadian
investments, including $2 million from the federal government.
This program is supposed to be the main action and, so far, is the
only one coming from this government to fight unemployment.
The number of unemployed stands at 1.6 million, and this
program will create 45,000 jobs. We must suspect that a very
good number of these infrastructure jobs are seasonal,
temporary jobs such as repairing sewers, roads and bridges. This
will create many temporary jobs; of the 45,000 jobs created they
say that 15,000 will go to Quebec.
They have nothing more to say and quite the contrary they
brag about it. Weeks and months are passing by and this is all
they have been able to find. They see this as a panacea and they
think that this will solve the problem of 1.6 million unemployed.
It is a shame to have so little imagination, to lack that much of
the courage required to find another solution. I find this
outrageous.
If there were a political will, there is an initiative that could
go ahead readily, whatever the Prime Minister thinks of it, and
that initiative is the high speed train. The project, which would
link Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, and Windsor, could go ahead
immediately but the government went wrong in that case.
During the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois supported the
cancellation of the helicopters contract and everyone agreed to
that. There was nevertheless something implied in what the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Lac Saint-Jean,
said. It was that we should take the necessary steps in order that
the expertise and all the budgets allocated to the helicopters be
used for immediate and imminent development of the
high-speed train. The government retained a part of the
suggestion, since it cancelled the helicopters contract but as a
result, thousands of workers lost their jobs.
I do not think this is the way to go to ensure economic
development. We should note, and this is not coming from us but
from the president of VIA Rail who said last week, and he should
know what he is talking about, that the HST would create
127,000 jobs over a period of 10 years. Furthermore, according
to the scenario favoured by the president of VIA Rail, this would
3907
require absolutely no additional funds from the federal
government.
That project would have many technological spin-offs and
create jobs of all types, high technology or more simple ones, in
all regions of Ontario and Quebec. Its impacts would be highly
beneficial, mainly, as you have guessed I am sure, in the St.
Maurice Valley, if first, it is implemented, second, the line is
built on the north shore and third, the HST stops in my riding, in
the regional capital of Trois-Rivières.
The third issue, and this one is dramatic because we can even
talk about negligence in this case, concerns pharmaceutical
products; the influence of lobbies is felt everywhere, most of all
the lobby of Ontario members and ministers from the Toronto
area.
(1740)
There are two types of drug manufacturers, those who create
new drugs and do research and development, and generic drug
manufacturers, who copy existing drugs. Most of the first ones
are located in Quebec where they do research and development.
Last Monday, I met a representative of the Canadian Drug
Manufacturers Association. You need to know that it takes from
10 to 12 years to develop a new drug, before it is certified,
licensed, tested and what not. I am told that it costs an average of
$360 million to develop a new drug.
That industry is concentrated in Quebec. Bill C-91 was
passed under the former government with the support of the
Bloc Quebecois and over the opposition of the Liberal Party of
Canada, although that party was divided over the issue. I could
come back to that later. That bill extended to 20 years patent
protection for drugs developed by those innovative companies.
New drugs cannot be copied.
The proposal before us would provide for an immediate
review of Bill C-91 even though the bill itself specifies such a
review will not take place before 1997. And this, again, much to
the dismay of the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and
Technology, being the federalist and Liberal that he is, who was
reported in Le Devoir on April 28, 1994, as saying: ``The federal
government's decision to review the legislation protecting drug
patents for 20 years is creating uncertainty and its
indecisiveness is scaring away potential investors in the
strategic sector of pharmaceuticals. A $50 million investment
was to be announced last week but was postponed owing to the
federal government's indecisiveness''.
The Quebec manufacturers' association strongly opposed any
attempt by the federal government to review this act.
Finally, I will quote from La Presse, which is hardly
sovereigntist and neither is its editor, Mr. Alain Dubuc, who
wrote in an editorial comment yesterday: ``The research
investments matter is neither a joke nor a multinational piece of
cake. The Trudeau era policy''-this should ring a bell for the
members opposite-``of eliminating patents was a disaster.
Canada's pharmaceutical industry literally dies away, with
research funding dropping to 3 per cent of sales, as compared to
approximately 14 per cent in the United States, France and
Germany. Bill C-22, which repaired the blunder, was a success;
from 1987 to 1991, companies invested nearly $1 million, half
of which in Quebec-
[English]
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all
appreciate this history lesson but I thought we were on Bill C-12
regarding the business corporations act. I am sorry, I do not see
the relevance whatsoever of the member's comments with
regard to Bills C-91 and C-22. I thought we were talking about
Bill C-12.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could direct the member to
speak to the bill before this House.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that is the first time the
relevance rule has been raised in this Parliament, as least when I
have been in the chair, and it is a rule that the parliamentary
secretary will know is observed more in the breach than in the
respect.
[Translation]
Perhaps the hon. member who had the floor could speak to the
point, that is the bill presently before us.
(1745)
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to demonstrate that
the government should have other priorities than Bill C-12 and
should not tackle such things as reviewing the pharmaceutical
legislation the way they have been doing. That is the point I want
to make, and they are not through hearing about it. As far as I am
concerned, I am not through talking about it.
Bill C-22, which was tabled before Bill C-91 and cleared the
air, was a success. Between 1987 and 1991, companies invested
almost one billion dollars, half of that amount in Quebec, to
such an extent that in 1991, research reached 9.7 per cent of
sales in 1991 compared to the 3 per cent rate under Mr. Trudeau.
While this is a marked improvement, it does not make up for lost
ground.
How can a country complaining because it is lagging behind
in research by contrast to other countries and also because it is
not part of some high tech industries manage without one of the
major high tech industries? The red book recognizes that our
research is lagging behind. I will come back to that later.
3908
We will not give up on the issue of pharmaceutical patents,
which is critically important for Quebec. In fact, the
pharmaceutical industry typefies Quebec industry. It is one of
our finest industries, and we will not let the lobbying of
members from Ontario, especially from Toronto, lower Quebec
economy to such an extent.
I think that something happened last week, when my
colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, quoted
Confucius when responding to the minister of Industry who
himself had quoted Shakespeare, a bit nastily, I must say.
The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie quoted Confucius
and said: ``Culture is like jam; the less you have, the more you
spread it''. That struck me. I thought about it last week, if I
remember well, while working on my lawn. I wondered why my
colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie had quoted Confucius in
those terms. After having given this matter much thought, I
finally realized that it contained a message, a subliminal
message. There was something symbolic about it. By ``jam'', he
meant ``in a jam''. In a jam because of the failure of the
government. Failure, especially if you make a report card after
six months. I believe the government is celebrating that
anniversary of its official and legal victory.
If you take a look at the situation, I think ``in a jam'' is the
right expression. Let us recall, for instance, the issue of
cigarette smuggling. Without the determination of the Official
Opposition, we might still be discussing this whole issue. In the
meantime, smuggling was flourishing in Quebec, resulting in
loss of revenues for the government-which, in itself, was
terrible enough. Also, because of civil disobedience, a whole
climate was created where everything was challenged-our
institutions, the role of the government, respect of the law, even
social peace.
The government argued that there was no evidence of
smuggling. It took weeks, but the opposition did not let go, and
finally the government took the necessary measures.
Take another example, the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean. Here again, I want to show you-in case the member
does not understand -that there are more important things to do
than discussing minor bills such as this one. And, in our opinion,
when the government does act, it does not necessarily act in the
right way.
Mr. Fontana: Time.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I am allowed 40 minutes.
When the government acts, we know the results.
An hon. member: A fine mess, a jam.
Mr. Rocheleau: Yes, the military college was another fine
mess. The Liberal government is forced to admit they have
neither the desire nor the money to maintain the only
francophone military training institution in America.
(1750)
In tomorrow's Canada, in order to receive military training,
francophones will have to go to a most anglophone city-which
is all right-that has no facilities to make them feel welcome.
The government say they have no choice. They have neither the
desire nor the money to go on. That gives an idea of the Canada
in which Quebecers will have to live, if they decide to remain a
part of it.
What can we say about social program reform besides saying
that again the government is in a jam? When one is obviously
and deliberately taking it out not on unemployment but on the
unemployed, not on poverty but on the poor, when the only thing
we know about the government is that they will consult for two
years-only to cut $7.5 billion in social programs at the end of
the consultations, the situation is serious! When it is the
unemployed and not unemployment, and the poor as opposed to
poverty that are attacked, I say we are in a jam!
As for manpower training, the federal government stubbornly
wants to keep jurisdiction over it. However, everybody in
Quebec, employers as well as union leaders, school board
members, Department of Education or Quebec government
officials, whether federalist or not, everybody agrees that
vocational training should be entirely under Quebec
jurisdiction. But no, the government, for reasons known only to
itself, is stubbornly hanging on to manpower training, after a
two-year study involving goodness knows who, whereas
everyone in Quebec is saying that it should withdraw from this
area.
The last issue has to do not only with the government
opposite, but with the federal system as well. I will not hide the
fact that for sovereigntists like myself, it is very good news
indeed to know what the rules of the game are in this country.
The Supreme Court has just given us some idea of what they are
with its ruling on telephony and communications where it said
that however distinct Quebec might be, it had no rights over this
field.
[English]
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know
that this member may not have much respect for this institution
but I am sure he would have respect for the Speaker.
I thought I heard the Speaker give some guidance to this
member and ask him to stick to the subject matter which is Bill
C-12. That is what we are discussing today. Opposition day is
tomorrow. There are plenty of opportunities in this House for
this member to speak about anything else he would like.
3909
Surely Canadians, taxpayers, who are watching this
institution would expect that the hon. member would respect
the wishes of the Chair and stick to the subject matter we are
discussing today, Bill C-12, and not ramble on about
everything that this House has done or will do in the foreseeable
future.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance for this member
who just does not seem to get it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. colleagues, as I said a while ago,
it is extremely difficult to say whether a comment pertains to the
subject matter before the House or whether it does not.
Therefore, I would ask all members for their co-operation in
complying with the Standing Orders and speaking to this bill. I
think that all members can appreciate how very difficult this
situation can be for the Chair.
Mr. Rocheleau: Let me congratulate my colleague on his
intellectual rigour. It shows that he must not come to the House
often. In fact, I have not often seen him here myself. Mr.
Speaker, you will surely agree with me that it is difficult to
discuss this bill for 40 minutes, given that it is a slim piece of
legislation and, as the minister said, a rather dull and boring one
at that. Furthermore, unless he talks nonsense, a member has a
right to use his speaking time to discuss subjects which he
deems to be timely.
As I was saying, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling
concerning telephony and communications which gives the
federal government full jurisdiction. It is the federal system
which is at issue here and I will not hide the fact that Quebecers
are deeply interested in this subject.
(1755)
The federal system is at issue here. To say that
telecommunications-telephony, for example-come under
exclusive federal jurisdiction is to deny Quebec's
distinctiveness, one of the key points of the Charlottetown
Agreement, which by the way was unanimously rejected.
In other words, for the hon. member's information, as
Quebecers and Canadians must ponder the situation, I hope that
Quebecers will realize that if they ever decide, in a referendum,
to remain within Canada as a province, they will have to accept
centralization.
That is the conclusion to be drawn from such measures.
Decisions concerning the military college, social program
reform, manpower training, telephony and communications all
reflect a growing tendency on the part of the federal government
to centralize major powers in Ottawa, and to consider provincial
governments henceforth as regional governments. This is the
context in which Quebecers will be deciding, in a referendum,
whether or not to keep Quebec in Confederation.
In the time I have left, I want to come back more
sensibly-my colleague will be pleased-to the issue of
Bill-C-12. I said earlier that the government must have better
things to do and you only have to look at all the statements and
the promises of the red book to see what I mean. I want to quote
what it says about research and development, technology, small
and medium-sized businesses, and economic development. On
page 52, it reads: ``It would also create a climate that encourages
pre-competitive research in various sectors of the Canadian
economy. A Liberal government will further strengthen R and
D, especially in small and medium-sized business, by
encouraging technology partnerships between Canadian
universities, research institutions, and the private sector that
emphasize the commercial applications of research and
development''. For your information, Mr. Speaker, that is
precisely what is going on in the pharmaceutical industry.
Again, the red book says: ``A Liberal government will
continue to support basic research, including the provision of
stable funding for the granting councils, the National Research
Council, and the Networks of Centres of Excellence''.
It is so nice that I could go on and on. It is so very interesting
but that goes back to last fall. Since then-and that is the
complaint I have against this government-the government has
not kept its promise-for which it was elected by Canadians
from Ontario and the Maritimes, among others-but it
introduced minor measures like Bill C-12. As I said at the
outset, Mr. Speaker, it is a waste of time, a waste of energy and a
waste of money to deal with such an issue.
Reading the red book and seeing the negligence of this
government, I am led to say that it is more and more obvious,
and absolutely necessary, that people take charge of their own
destiny all across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, in every
region of Quebec.
I want to tell you that as far as people of my riding, the riding
of Trois-Rivières, are concerned, they have already started to do
so. This is wonderfully exemplified by the re-opening of the
former CIP Forest Products plant, which had closed down,
causing the loss of 1,200 jobs, if memory serves me well. This
plant has just re-opened, thanks to the involvement of the Fonds
de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec; and if it has been
re-opened, we must understand that it is because its workers had
never given up. They made all the necessary representations,
they made everybody aware that it was unacceptable that such a
large plant, in a city like mine, Trois-Rivières, could close down
for good. They managed to get the Fonds de solidarité involved.
I take this opportunity to congratulate them for that.
There are other areas where people of my riding have
understood and are doing something. First of all, at the CEGEP
of Trois-Rivières, which is famous for two things, its Centre for
Metallurgical Technology and its Centre for Pulp and Paper
Technology, two specialized centres which are increasingly
3910
serving the needs of metallurgical as well as pulp and paper
industries all across Quebec.
(1800)
And secondly, at the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières,
there are also people with a sense of imagination and vision who have set up a research group on small and medium-sized businesses to make sure that more universities know the problems of such businesses in order to better train young people and give assi
In a field which has a very bright future, there is also a
hydrogen research centre which, you have to admit, is a
high-tech field. This hydrogen research centre is attracting
more and more attention and, given the importance of this
product for the future, could have a remarkable development in
the coming years.
Lastly, I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the
fact that l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières is the only
institution in all of Canada to offer a doctorate program in paper
engineering. This is another illustration of our region's capacity
to show its resourcefulness and its determination to take charge
and make its presence felt more and more in Quebec as well as
abroad.
In closing, and my friend will be happy, I would like to talk
about Bill C-12 and say that we all know that it is the first part of
a two-part law, the second part of which will come in three years
and address much more important issues related to the operation
of small and medium-sized businesses, like the responsibility of
directors, insider trading, for example, and take-over bids.
It seems that these issues, and the government is still
consulting, will be addressed in two or three years. The position
of the Official Opposition is that we cannot oppose such a bill;
although it is uninspiring, it is important in its technical aspects,
and we understand that it makes technical changes which should
improve the operation of our businesses. Consequently, the
Official Opposition is for this bill, in spite of everything.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
will address my remarks to the contents of Bill C-12. I resist
corroborating the opinion that was expressed by the member
opposite that if the bill is really not a major bill then it should
not receive major debating time. If there are major points to be
made then let us make them. However we have to be very careful
not to abuse our privileges.
Bill C-12 as I understand it represents amendments to the
Canada Business Corporations Act which will govern
approximately 190,000 Canadian federal business corporations,
including over 50 per cent of Canada's top 500 corporations.
This is the first phase of amendments designed to improve the
competitiveness of Canadian business, simplify filing and
record keeping requirements and certain corporate governance
procedures and allow for technological innovation. The bill also
begins the process of modernizing federal corporate law.
Amendments to Bill C-12 are purported to be of a largely
technical nature. While this is in essence true we feel certain
amendments could have ramifications far beyond the technical
level.
We applaud those amendments to Bill C-12 that will result in
simplifying filing and record keeping requirements and certain
corporate governance procedures, allow for the technological
innovation and better service to all regions of Canada, enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the
CBCA and clarify the language of the act through changes to the
French and English versions and through the use of better
terminology. It will promote good governance in corporate
enterprises-at least that is what the intent is-facilitate
efficient and flexible business management while protecting
investors, including minority shareholders, and foster a fair and
efficient marketplace.
(1805)
It is purported to provide flexibility for corporations to act
quickly and with less expense to unforeseen events by
permitting current directors to appoint a limited number of
directors in the time between shareholder meetings, if the
corporation's bylaws permit that to happen.
We recognize that these measures are part of the
government's commitment in the speech from the throne to
focus on small and medium sized businesses. We encourage
measures that are designed to improve the competitiveness of
Canadian business. By encouraging internal trade within
Canada and by helping business pursue an active international
trade policy, we can place our federal corporations in a better
competitive position.
We would be pleased if the reforms that are currently within
the amendments to the CBCA accomplish all of these
objectives. Certain provisions however require closer scrutiny
and should be noted.
First, the provision to eliminate public financial disclosure
for larger privately held corporations may allow certain public
companies to transfer assets to private companies under their
control and thereby avoid financial disclosures of these private
subsidiaries.
Sections 16 and 17 regarding financial disclosure, while
apparently not significant to the minister, being simply of a
3911
technical nature, should be recognized as a substantive
departure from the current provisions. They are not
technicalities as suggested by the minister. They should be
studied by the committee with a promise to consider moving
them to the second part of the amendments to this act.
Notice is hereby given as well that two other matters are of
concern to members of our party and will be drawn to the
attention of the committee studying the bill. They are, first, the
new section, 258.2, which allows the director to exempt notices
or documents from having to be sent to the director in the
prescribed circumstances. This is potentially a very wide
provision if the governor in council chooses to prescribe wide
circumstances.
We have been advised by department officials that this is
intended to apply only to cases where documents are publicly
available elsewhere. To make sure this is the sole reason, an
amendment to that effect is required. The amendment could be
something like this: ``If a notice or document is required under
this act to be sent to the director must be made public by some
other provision of or made pursuant to another act of Parliament
other than this act, the director may, by order made subject to the
condition that the other provision has been complied with and
any other conditions the director may consider appropriate,
exempt the notice or document from the requirement under this
act that it be sent to the director''.
The second amendment that ought to be looked at refers to
section 8(2). This section provides a previously unregulated
period for which records must be kept. The minister mentioned
that presently the act is silent on this and that we need to
recognize under the Income Tax Act and the provisions thereof
that claims to be made by the minister may be made for six years
back and the limitation on actions in contracts in most and
maybe all provinces is six years after the cause for the action
arises.
In light of these provisions it seems strange to have a six year
minimum, as longer record retention is generally mandated by
other legislation and by common sense. It would appear to be
better either to leave out this provision or to avoid redundancy
and to have a longer period, say eight or ten years. Eight years
would certainly cover the income tax provision and meet most
contract litigation needs.
There is a second reason why the provision which will see
record keeping reduced to six years may be inadequate.
Litigation procedures may be started after six years so the
requirement should be, in our opinion, probably something like
ten years.
The second phase of the reforms that are being talked about
here should also be referred to at this time. We are alerted that
consultations for phase two reforms have apparently started
already. They includes issues like the liability of corporate
directors; shareholder communications both between the
corporation and the shareholders and also among shareholders;
citizenship and residency requirements currently imposed on
boards of directors; financial assistance granted by the
corporation to directors, officers, shareholders and others; and
governing insider trading and takeover bids. Each of these areas
are very substantive in nature and will require very careful and
detailed examination and study.
(1810)
Their importance to the federal business corporations and to
Canada's competitiveness is clear. The expansion of directors'
liability may be leading some qualified people for example to
refuse board appointments. For a corporation to be successful,
qualified people must be willing to serve on boards and once
there to take bold steps in order to compete in the global
marketplace.
We also encourage commitment to continued reform. It is
absolutely amazing this particular act has not been revised over
the last 20 years. If we compare business practices of 20 years
ago to today and the competition that exists out there I find it
almost unbelievable that the act still fits. It does not fit too well
and that is why it is before us today. So we are encouraging
continued reform.
The proposed amendments require the minister to submit
within three years of this bill receiving royal assent a report to
Parliament on the provisions and operation of the act, including
recommendations for further changes to the law.
We heard the hon. minister say about an hour ago that within
18 months he expects to bring this forward. I certainly would
encourage him to meet that deadline.
In general we support the objectives of the bill. We recognize
the government's efforts to meet one of its promises as set out in
the speech from the throne. However we would caution the
minister from viewing all of the amendments to this bill as
technicalities. While in some instances this is essentially true
there are other areas, as demonstrated in the text of my speech so
far, that require closer and more cautious scrutiny.
I am confident that once this bill is referred to committee,
government members will agree that some safeguards must be
implemented to protect shareholders, the corporate structure
and finally the Canadian marketplace. Once this is
accomplished I believe Bill C-12 will meet its objectives of
promoting a fair and efficient marketplace and an economic
climate that is conducive to sustained growth and job creation.
We look forward to the referral of this bill to the committee.
We will take the opportunity then to ensure that Bill C-12 meets
its objectives in a manner satisfactory to all sides of the House.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
3912
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to
present for second reading a bill to amend the Railway Safety
Act. I understand there is agreement that we do all three
readings hopefully before the hour of adjournment.
The bill, which will help reduce accidents and fatalities
associated with Canada's railway system, will create an offence
for trespassing on federally regulated railway property.
(1815 )
A similar prohibition in the Railway Act was revoked by
proclamation of the Railway Safety Act in 1989. By
reintroducing the prohibition we will put teeth into the Railway
Safety Act by giving railway companies a strong deterrent.
Effective and enforceable legislation in conjunction with
public education should help reduce trespassing related
incidents on railway lands. The three es to enhanced railway
safety are education, engineering and enforcement. I am pleased
that this enforcement initiative will enable law officers,
especially railway police who are empowered to enforce federal
legislation, to charge trespassers found on railway lines.
This legislation is clearly in the interest of public safety.
Trespassing on railway property is one of the most frequent
causes of fatalities and injuries related to railway operations.
The incidence of accidents to trespassers is increasing. In fact,
last year for the first time the number of trespassing fatalities
surpassed the number of lives lost at level crossings in Canada.
An estimated 100 people are struck by trains each year while
trespassing on railway right of ways. Almost half of these
people are killed and the remainder are seriously injured. Many
of these people are habitual trespassers, and an unfortunate
number of accidents involve young children and students. These
are tragic statistics.
The government has introduced this bill as a means of
reducing the terrible consequences that can result from
trespassing on railway lands. Trespassing commonly occurs
near schools, parks, recreational facilities and commercial or
residential locations which have high pedestrian traffic, urban
areas such as Montreal and Toronto.
The reasons for trespassing include shortcuts to commercial
establishments, schools and residential areas, and the use of
railway tracks by children as play areas. Unfortunately a railway
right of way is a dangerous time saver and far too often becomes
a deadly playground for young children.
There is also a major problem of homeless people using
railway property as living or resting areas. Many trespassers
make use of railway property with total disregard for their
personal safety and this is of major concern to Transport
Canada.
Fencing and highly visible signage put in place by railways
have not been sufficiently effective in discouraging trespassers.
Let me emphasize that the penalty provisions contained in the
act are broad enough, up to $5,000 on summary conviction, to
create a major deterrent to repeat offences.
Reinstatement of the prohibition against trespassing will
assist police in reducing the incidence of this dangerous practice
on railway property and hence the number of accidents and
fatalities. The onus for enforcement would rest with the
railways through their police forces and there would be no
demand on government's resources as a result of this
amendment.
The original anti-trespassing provision in the Railway Act
was not included in the Railway Safety Act when the latter
legislation was proclaimed in January 1989 because it was felt
the matter could be addressed effectively through subsequent
regulations.
A review by the justice department has determined that due to
the nature of the prohibition, the provision should be established
as part of the legislation itself and not as a regulation. Transport
Canada has worked with railways to improve safety in areas of
heavy trespass; measures such as increased railway policing,
barbed wire top fences and other steps to discourage trespassers
have been introduced as a result.
The amendment will not affect individuals such as native
people and prospectors in remote areas who may need to cross
tracks on a regular basis to reach trap lines and mineral claims.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable railway police forces
to take action in areas of continual and dangerous trespasses.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that the federal government
is committed to working with the railways to reduce accidents
and fatalities associated with Canada's railway system. This
addition to the Railway Safety Act strengthens this important
piece of legislation and in conjunction with public education
should help remedy the problems of trespassing on railway
lands.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans I would like to ask the
House if it is true the other parties have given unanimous
consent for this bill to go through all three stages and be passed
today?
3913
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official
Opposition, I can confirm that there is such a consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. Does the Reform Party
concur?
[English]
Is the Reform Party prepared to give unanimous consent to the
three stages passing today?
Mr. Gouk: We are, Mr. Speaker.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, as
transport critic for the Official Opposition I would like to make
a few comments on that bill. The first purpose of this very short,
but nevertheless important bill is to ensure equivalence between
the French and English versions of the Railway Safety Act. The
second is to prohibit unlawful access to line works.
I can tell you that I am doubly concerned about this bill. In my
riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans there is a rail line
that people at CN call Murray Bay. It goes from Limoilou, in
Quebec City, to Clermont, in Charlevoix, which means that it
crosses the entire riding.
While I was preparing my notes and rereading the bill, I
remembered two events that I would like to share with you. They
are tragic events for the families involved. Some two or two and
a half years ago, in July, a 72-year old person was hit by a CN
train in front of the Basilica in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, in my
riding. I can tell you that in a community the size of
Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, such an accident creates quite a
commotion.
The second event, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport just mentioned, involved a child. Last
year, a six-year old boy, on his way home from school in Ville
Vanier, in the Québec-Est riding, was hit by a Via Rail train
which was going through a residential area at high speed. There
was a coroner's inquest. We are still waiting for his conclusions.
I can tell you that listening to the testimony of the father, who
was deeply affected, was heart-rending-I do not mean that the
mother was not affected-but the testimony of the father left me
with extremely painful memories. I can tell you that, as the
father of two children, I was shaken.
Having said this, I will refrain from saying that this is a good
bill even if I would like to. I do not know if I am becoming a
seasoned parliamentarian, but I do not dare say this was a good
decision because when one does, there are usually ministers,
whose good faith can be questioned, who are only too happy to
mention in response to our questions: ``But you said the
government had made a good decision in this bill''. So I will
refrain from saying it. It is unfortunate that the rules of the
British parliamentary system, and our friends opposite's vision
of it, prevent me from saying this is a good bill, although I am
tempted to say so.
I can tell you why I consider this bill important. By the way,
short lines are referred to as C.F.I.L. in French. Perhaps I should
take this opportunity to enlighten my francophone colleagues
from other provinces. Instead of using the expression ``short
lines'' in French, we should say C.F.I.L., which stands for
chemin de fer à intérêt local. We know that railway companies,
whether it is CN or CP, are more interested in selling lines.
I think that if we have local operators trying to make a profit
with their line, it would be unfortunate to see railroad safety
adversely affected. I feel that this bill, which guarantees a level
of firmness regarding the implementation of certain safety
standards, is a good piece of legislation. And as regards short
lines, we, parliamentarians, will have to be watchful and ensure
that operators comply with a minimum of safety rules.
(1825)
To conclude, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois did not
object at all to the grouping together of all three reading stages.
We support this bill, which is primarily aimed at increasing
railroad safety.
I forgot to mention recreational use of land on which a railway
line is situated. For example, in my riding, as in several others,
snowmobiles make increasing use of that land. To some extent,
this bill is to protect from themselves such people, who take
unwarranted risks. As you know, the snowmobile was invented
by a Quebecer, Mr. Bombardier. Its usefulness has been
demonstrated and this invention has had an impact across
Canada and throughout the world.
In conclusion, we support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
we recognize this as an important but non-contentious piece of
housekeeping legislation designed to improve rail safety. As
such the Reform Party supports the bill.
We support it going through three readings and we offer our
co-operation in that regard. We do not wish to take up the
House's time in any further debate or comment on it so that we
can finish with the bill and get on to the more important and
pressing matters coming before the House.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported and concurred in.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By unanimous consent, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
3914
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Transport, I want to thank both parties for the quick passage
of this very important bill.
It does show that when an important piece of legislation needs
to be put through the House in fairly quick order all parties can
move, and I want to thank them.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I do not
think things will go as fast with Bill C-22 on the privatization of
the Pearson airport.
[English]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)