CONTENTS
Thursday, June 20, 1996
Bill C-320. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 4143
Bill C-321. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 4144
Motion for concurrence in 23rd report 4144
Motion for concurrence in 22nd report 4144
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4147
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 110; Nays, 68 4156
Bill C-322. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 4157
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4158
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4158
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4158
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4158
Motion moved and agreed to. 4162
Bill C-8. Motion for second reading of amendments
andconcurrence 4162
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time andconcurred
in.) 4167
Bill C-20 Motion for second reading of amendmentand
concurrence 4167
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4167
Motion moved and agreed to. 4169
Bill C-20. Consideration resumed of motion 4169
Division on motion deferred 4170
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.45 p.m.) 4170
The House resumed at 1.58 p.m. 4170
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4171
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4172
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4177
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4178
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4180
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4180
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4181
Consideration resumed of motion for second readingand
concurrence 4182
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 131; Nays, 33 4182
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in.) 4182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4183
Motion No. 221. Consideration resumed of motion 4184
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4186
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.34 p.m.) 4195
The House resumed at 6.49 p.m. 4195
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 4195
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 4195
4143
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 20, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report from the meeting
of the permanent council of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary
Association that took place in Paris, from May 20 to 23, 1996.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, I have the honour to present the second report of
this committee. This report deals with the Main Estimates, on the
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1997.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Merchant Navy
Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act and the War
Veterans Allowance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to ensure that
wartime Canadian merchant navy veterans will henceforth receive
equal standing, rights, privileges and benefits to those afforded to
all Canadian navy, army and air force war veterans.
Current legislation limits recognition of merchant navy service
benefits to service on a high seas voyage. This bill will address this
injustice by amending the definition of ``high seas voyage'' under
the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act
to include all areas where actual attacks by the enemy occurred.
The bill will also clarify the measurement criteria for time of
commencement and termination of service for the eligibility of
merchant navy war veterans.
Current legislation excludes merchant navy service benefit
eligibility from time of capture or the involuntary termination of
duty travel assignment which left them stranded overseas. For
example, half of the merchant navy prisoners of war held in the Far
East who were captured after landfall fell into this category.
Further, this bill will amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to
include merchant navy war veterans, thus ensuring them the same
recognition and benefits provided to navy, army and air force war
veterans.
Time marches on and it is vital that Parliament moves now to
correct these long overdue inequities before it is too late; the
average age of merchant navy veterans is 76 years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
4144
(1010 )
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative
sentences).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I stand again for those victims of multiple
murderers and rapists who have been dismissed as irrelevant by
Canada's justice system. My bill, seconded by the hon. member for
Mississauga South, is a re-submission of Bill C-274 and calls for
consecutive sentencing for serial and multiple murderers and
rapists.
I re-submit this bill today encouraged by the words of the
Minister of Justice on Monday night in committee. He said: ``It
seems to me that when we are dealing with someone who has taken
more than one life we are entitled to take that into account''. He
continued: ``I do not know why it is difficult to perceive the
difference between a single offence and multiple offences. In terms
of whether I would support consecutive terms for murderers, I
might well''. So says the Minister of Justice, who indicated that he
has encouraged policy work on the subject and who said it should
be looked at.
This bill offers the Minister of Justice and this Parliament the
opportunity to defy the predator protection industry by ending
volume discounts for rapists and murderers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
On the Order: Motions
June 14, 1996-Mr. Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition)-That, pursuant
to Standing Order 81(4)(a) and Order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
consideration of Human Resources Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, by the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development, be extended beyond June 21,
1996.
The Speaker: Motion deemed adopted.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent
for the following motion. I move that the House concur in the 23rd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
tabled on June 19.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1015 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved that the
22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 18, be concurred
in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the
member for Lethbridge.
I have mixed emotions about bringing this motion forward to the
House today. I feel it is necessary that it be done. On the one hand, I
am very proud and happy to do it. It is an issue that has been
verballing around now since the last referendum in Quebec. It is
something that should have been brought to a head with the report
from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and
it was not.
By not bringing this issue to a conclusion in the report, the
Liberal majority in the House has allowed this to continue to
percolate. The feeling of sadness I have about this is that this will
come back to haunt us in the days and years to come.
What happened is now a matter of public record. The member
for Charlesbourg sent around a communique, now known as the
Jacob communique. It asked members of the Canadian Armed
Forces to consider joining up with the Quebec armed forces in the
event of a yes vote. It was brought forward at a very tense time in
Canada's history when, as members know, we came within a per
cent of losing a very important vote to keep the country together.
It is a matter of record that the communique was sent out
indiscriminately to Canadian Armed Forces members. It asked
them, I think, to contradict their oath of allegiance to Canada. It
asked them to consider their position in a new Quebec army, an
army that had not yet even been formed.
Due to the diligence of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, he brought this to the attention
of the House and to the attention of the Speaker. You ruled, Mr.
Speaker, this was a very serious matter and should be referred to
the committee on procedure and House affairs to deal with.
The reason I have mixed emotions about this is that I had hoped
it would have been dealt with and that a contempt of Parliament
would have been rendered. The reason I say this is that we will be
dealing with this again in the next referendum campaign. No action
has been taken by the House and by the committee. No action has
been recommended against the member for Charlesbourg and no
one here has found it necessary, now that the crisis is over, to give
4145
advice to the Canadian Armed Forces on how to handle its affairs in
the future.
When the crisis was on, it was called by the government whip
``dangerously close to inciting mutiny in a moment of crisis''. It is
now being sloughed off as ``it may be a mistake, but just let it go''.
The Minister of National Defence said this was a serious matter
and that we could not have members of the House saying those
kinds of things. Those were the minister's own words. However, a
few months later he says ``well, it is over now, let's just forget it''.
That is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable for the House to brush aside something that
was dangerously close to mutiny and unacceptable behaviour, by
the government's own admission, and then a few months later it
says let us hope it does not happen again. It will happen again.
The member for Charlesbourg says-
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard my colleague
accuse the member for Charlesbourg of treason, of breaking his
oath of allegiance and of inciting mutiny. I would ask him to either
withdraw his words or to make accusations right here in this House
so that the case can be referred, as was the previous one, to the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Otherwise, there is a
double standard here.
[English]
The Speaker: I did not hear the word traitor. I did not hear the
word sedition. I heard that the minister said he was dangerously
close to mutiny. I do not find these words to be unparliamentary.
However, we are in a very emotional debate today and I caution
all hon. members who are to take part in this debate to be very
judicious in their choice of words. This applies to all members.
I will not tolerate the word traitor in the House. I will not tolerate
the word liar in the House. But I will give as much latitude as I can
to all intervenors in this debate. As long as the terms are
parliamentary and they are not offensive to the House, I will permit
the debate to continue.
This is not a point of order. I return to the hon. member for
Fraser Valley East.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the word
``treason''. The expression ``breaking the oath of allegiance'' was
translated, in French, by ``trahison''. That is what we heard on this
side. We therefore have a problem.
[English]
The Speaker: I will review the blues when this is over. There are
no blues right now and I do not intend at this point to take a break in
the House. If those words were used I will come back to the House.
I am listening to every word that is being said here today. I know
the importance of this debate. I will proceed calmly and with the
co-operation of all members. I now go to the member for Fraser
Valley East.
(1025)
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I realize that emotions are high. I
would like to set a couple of things straight for the members of the
Bloc Quebecois as well.
In their press conference yesterday there was talk that we had
asked for the resignation of the member for Charlesbourg, that we
had charged him with treason. That is not true. We have never
asked for his resignation.
We did ask, however, that Parliament find the member in
contempt in committee. We did say that contempt does not mean he
has to resign but that he could have a censure or that he could be in
some way disciplined by the House of Commons. Certainly that is
true, but we have never asked for his resignation, nor would we.
There are things that happened in this committee that
contributed to the headlines we see in the paper today. The
headlines today say the report on this incident is a cop-out.
I called it, in my press release, a whitewash. It is because we
were not allowed to invite members of the armed forces to come in
and testify on the impact this communique had on the armed
forces. We were not allowed to bring expert witnesses like the
advocate general from the armed forces to say in his opinion what
could be done, what should be done in the future. That was
disallowed by the Liberal majority.
We heard from five people, from only House of Commons
procedural people. Then this thing was dismissed.
That is not an in depth study. It is not like we were charged to do
by the House of Commons when we were given this communique
originally. That is why this has turned into a cop-out, as the papers
say, and a whitewash.
We have come up with conclusions we think are obvious, given
the testimony we heard. We would have been grateful to hear more
testimony from the military personnel that we gave an extensive
list to the committee.
We have said, and we stand by our record, that the House should
have found the member for Charlesbourg in contempt. It should
have taken some action. It does not mean, as some members have
interpreted, that he should resign his seat. I am not saying that.
4146
However, some action should be taken or else this will happen
again. The member for Charlesbourg says indeed it will happen
again. He will do it again. That is what is wrong.
There are no guidelines given to members. Next time there will
not be one. I expect there will be 50 or 52 memos sent out from all
members of the separatist group because why not? They got away
with it last time so ``let us proceed and go with gangbusters''.
It says in the Toronto Star again today: ``The defiant Bloc MP
says he would send a memo to the soldiers again''. In other words,
we will face this again. That is what is wrong here.
The government has shirked its duty. It has allowed this thing to
fester. It will fester to the next referendum. Will there be another
referendum? Of course there will be. They said that. Mr. Bouchard
has said that. We will face this again.
We will ask our armed forces to go into this without any
guidelines. They will be saying ``if we get 50 memos from
separatist MPs on official letterhead, asking who knows what, we
will have to accept it, I guess''.
We do not have to accept it. We can say no to this. We could
have. We could establish guidelines and we could ask the armed
forces to put guidelines in place as well. It should have been done.
It was not. That is what is wrong with the report. That is why it is a
whitewash.
We said he should have been found in contempt and that some
action should have been taken. We were not even specific. It should
have been done on a contempt charge. Then it could be anything
from a censure, a slap on the wrist to apologizing for whatever
happened. It could be anything, but he should have been found in
contempt.
We should have said there are guidelines now for members of
Parliament in the future. The guidelines are necessary for members
of Parliament. The guidelines are necessary because it is not like
the member for Kingston and the Islands said, that this thing was
just a joke. He said ``when I get this thing, I throw it in the garbage,
it is just a joke''. We came within one per cent of losing the country
last time. What kind of joke is that? It is no joke at all. It is serious.
The people over here say let us forget about it, sweep it under the
table and maybe it will not come back. We came to the edge of the
cliff last time, one per cent away from the abyss. They are willing
to say let us take our chances again. It is not acceptable.
That is what is wrong with the whole plan over there on this
national unity thing. The government does not have a plan. Because
there is no plan, we will do this same thing again, only worse. That
is the problem.
(1030 )
They have not helped our Department of National Defence.
There are no guidelines given to national defence. They are going
to be asked to head into this next referendum campaign blind and
handcuffed, pointed to the edge of the cliff and told: ``I hope you do
not fall over''.
It is not acceptable to ask armed forces personnel who have
sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada to go into the next
referendum campaign and hope they make it through okay. Our
people in the armed forces deserve better, they deserve to be given
help and guidance and we should have done that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know not only if our colleague considers
that the member for Charlesbourg has broken his oath of allegiance
and has therefore betrayed his commitments to Parliament and
Canada but if he also accuses him of those crimes? Is he accusing
the member for Charlesbourg, or is what we are witnessing here a
battle between federalists from both sides of this House?
Are accusations being made or not?
[English]
The Speaker: As I said earlier in the debate, I would not permit
an accusation using the word traitor and I will not. This is a
question and I am going to permit it.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is
no. I have not questioned the oath of allegiance of the member for
Charlesbourg. I never did that in my initial presentation. We have
never done that.
The oath of allegiance I was talking about and which we have
discussed at times is the oath of allegiance taken by members of the
Canadian Armed Forces. That oath of allegiance states that they are
to be loyal to Canada. In their guidelines it states they are not to
entertain anybody approaching them to join other armed forces or
to consider leaving their post.
In other words, the oath of allegiance I was talking about is not
the member's oath of allegiance, although I think that oath of
allegiance is a bit of a lark in here. I am not questioning that at all.
The oath of allegiance I am talking about is that of the Canadian
Armed Forces, a solemn declaration to defend Canada. That is their
oath of allegiance. That is what I was talking about and that is the
issue which I think has been called into question here.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that no
accusations of treason and breaking the oath of allegiance are being
made. I therefore conclude, and I fail to see how my colleague
could conclude otherwise, that the Reform member was mistaken
when he made accusations of sedition. I have difficulty imagining
4147
how someone could be seditious, and act accordingly without
breaking his oath of allegiance and committing treason against his
country. It is either one or the other. One cannot simultaneously
commit treason, be seditious and abide by his oath.
Our colleague having just said that the oath was not broken, will
he admit today that his collegue was mistaken when he made
accusations of sedition, unless of course he prefers to ignore logic?
The people will judge; not only those in the House, not those in
only in Quebec, but those in the rest of Canada. And they will come
to the conclusion that Reform Party members make unfounded
accusations without following rather elementary rules of logic.
How can there be sedition if the oath of allegiance has not
broken?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here.
One is the issue of sedition that the member brought forward.
That issue of course was not given to the committee on procedure
and House affairs to deal with. It was continually brought up by the
Bloc but on the terms of reference that the House passed, and which
you referred to us, we had to deal with the issue of contempt. I
believe the member should have been found in contempt. I do not
apologize for that. I believe that.
(1035)
Contempt as brought to us by our legal counsel is anything that
brings Parliament into shame, ridicule or disrepute, plus some
other things. There are about seven categories. The communique
does that and without a doubt it is, in my opinion and the opinion of
our party, a contemptuous thing. That is why we disagree with the
whitewash report.
On the issue of sedition, the member's right has been dealt with
in the courts and it could still be appealed through the courts. If
they choose to do that I am not opposed to it. They may choose to
appeal it but that is up to the courts. The sedition issue was never
dealt with in our committee and I have never brought that specific
charge because that is not what we were charged with.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope to
speak to this motion as eloquently as my colleague did just now. I
will be moving an amendment at the end of my speech.
The Reform Party has expressed its opinion in its minority
report. It feels very strongly, as my hon. colleague has stated here
today, that the member for Charlesbourg is clearly in contempt of
Parliament because he breached his privileges as a member of
Parliament by sending a communique on the letterhead of the
Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to Quebec born
members of the Canadian forces which directly conflicted with the
oath of allegiance to Canada sworn by the Canadian Armed Forces
members.
According to what constitutes a contempt of Parliament
provided by Diane Davidson, general legal counsel for the House
of Commons, who was a witness, the communique satisfies the
requirement on eight counts. The communique, by contradicting
the oath of allegiance and carrying the authenticity and legitimacy
of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, violated the
integrity of this House.
The Reform Party maintains that the communique brought the
House into disgrace, shame and ridicule. The latter are the first
three categories enumerated by Davidson and meeting the
requirement of any one of them amounts to a contempt of
Parliament.
The next two means of contempt cited are from Erskine May's
definition: ``any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either
House of Parliament in the discharge of its functions''.
The Reform Party maintains that the discharge of the function of
Parliament has been obstructed and impeded by the communique
because it contradicted the oath of allegiance to Canada which
came from Parliament and as sworn by the members of the
Canadian Armed Forces. The communique impeded and obstructed
the discharge of the function of the House to control the Canadian
Armed Forces.
The sixth means of contempt is achieved by so-called
constructive contempt. It is ``misconduct of an indirect nature such
as the publication of writings reflecting on the House''. The
Reform Party believes that the communique reflected on the
House, given the letterhead used of the Leader of the Official
Opposition, and was a misconduct because it contradicted the oath
of allegiance.
Davidson cited the seventh way contempt is committed as that
which is ``an affront to the House''. The Reform Party believes it
was an affront to the House for members of the House to answer for
this communique which the House as a whole was not provided the
opportunity to prevent and would not have supported, given its
contradictions to that oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
The member for Charlesbourg took it upon himself to release a
document which contradicted another document originating in this
House, the oath of allegiance. He released the communique with all
the authority of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Finally, the Reform Party believes that the communique has
specifically undermined the institution of Parliament and brought it
into disrepute, to use Davidson's words.
(1040 )
The institution of Parliament was brought into disrepute because
the Canadian Armed Forces members were forced to compare the
4148
communique to the oath of allegiance which it contradicted. Both
documents came from the institution of Parliament, yet they
conflict.
The Reform Party agrees with Joseph Maingot, an expert witness
on parliamentary privilege, who testified: ``The making of an
informal charge by the member of the House does not constitute a
breach of privilege''. He also said: ``The freedom of speech that
you have in the House is a freedom which the Supreme Court of
Canada has set out for over 100 years. The freedom is to bring forth
any abuses''.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was
exercising his right of free speech when he presented his
substantive motion containing a specific charge as required in the
House according to Maingot's testimony. You, Mr. Speaker,
acknowledged the correct manner in which the matter was brought
forth and proceeded to allow the House to deal with the matter.
Further, Maingot underlined that the House collectively decided
the matter was serious enough and forwarded it to the respective
committee.
Finally, Maingot assured the committee that the House of
Commons has the power to determine contempt of Parliament. We
have the power to freely interpret the terms of reference the
committee was given and decide what level of contempt of
Parliament has been committed.
The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the question of
the timing of the point of privilege raising this matter was moot.
Matters relating to the timing of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt's point of privilege were not a
consideration as per the terms of reference for the committee.
The committee has not accomplished the work that it had to do,
as we see it. The problem we have here is that we are not preparing
our country for the next secession debate. The committee has the
duty and the responsibility to work toward making it very clear
what the privileges of members of this House are in terms of
enticing the Canadian Armed Forces during a secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois is overjoyed with the work of the committee
thus far. The committee has shirked its responsibility and skirted
the issues in terms of addressing the issues that need to be
addressed. Members of this House could very easily be provided by
the committee with guidelines which would make it very clear
what the proper conduct of members should be in terms of their
communications with members of the Canadian Armed Forces as
they relate to secession debates.
The committee through the power of this House has the means to
direct the defence department to provide our troops with policy
guidelines that would assist them during the next secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals have tried to obfuscate the
business and the work the committee has to do. The Bloc has tried
to label this work into some kind of separatism on trial. Nothing
could be further from the truth. There can be good work done by
the committee.
The government and the Bloc should be working toward
preparing Canada for that next secession debate and taking a very
responsible stand on the issue. In light of that, I move:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleting and the following
substituted therefor:
the 22nd report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that
they amend the same so as to recommend that, at a minimum, the House find
the member for Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament, and determine
appropriate sanctions against the Member; and that in any secession
referendum or negotiation the House shall be guided by the principle that any
interference with the allegiance of members of the Canadian Armed Forces
shall be considered behaviour unacceptable and a contempt of Parliament;
and that the government instruct the Department of National Defence to draft
policies and regulations to guide its members during any secession
referendum or negotiation.
(1045)
The Speaker: The paper I have in my hand requires one very
small correction. Does the hon. member have a copy of this in front
of him?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I do not.
The Speaker: I would like to read to you the first ten words. I
want to know if these are the words you want to use. I am quoting
from this paper: ``That all the words after the word `that' be
deleting-''.
Do you mean ``be deleted'' or ``by deleting''? Would you please
clarify that for me.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I would say ``be
deleted''.
The Speaker: We will make that change. With that change I find
the form of the amendment acceptable to the Chair. It will be
received.
It is to be noted this amendment is seconded by the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
We now have five minutes for comments and questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to my colleague mention a few times that
the communique and the behaviour of the member for
Charlesbourg who wrote that communique were contrary to his
oath of allegiance.
4149
Throughout the history of British parliamentary government, I
believe there is a custom, at the beginning of each session,
whereby some members in Westminster question the very
existence of the monarchy. Up until now, this has been defeated.
To a certain extent, this is tantamount to breaking one's oath of
allegiance, but our institutions have never been looked at it that
way until now. They have viewed it that way because, when one
takes the oath of allegiance, one makes a commitment to abide
by the laws of the land and carry out the mandate received from
one's constituents.
I would therefore ask my colleague if he thinks the member for
Charlesbourg's behaviour is contrary to the oath of allegiance he
has taken. If it is, it means he has not honoured his commitments.
The oath of allegiance has therefore been broken, which clearly
means that he is a traitor and an insurgent. If this is the case, let it
be said unequivocally.
(1050)
Let everyone show their true colours. Let them tell Canadians:
``See how the Reform Party is standing up, how it dares to say what
you think''. That is what Reformers are constantly saying. Let them
say it. It is not a problem for me. We will see what it leads to.
Still, in politics, when you have beliefs, when you have
convictions, these must be voiced. That is what we do, on this side
of the House. We are not afraid to state our opinions or to act
according to our principles. We say what we think and we act
according to our convictions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the House leader for
the Bloc Quebecois would certainly like to lead me down that road
and lay those kinds of charges.
If the hon. member was listening he will know that it was very
clearly stated in my remarks that the oath of allegiance was
referring to the oath of allegiance by members of the Canadian
Armed Forces. Those members of the Canadian Armed Forces in
their oath of allegiance make a commitment to Canada and to serve
Canada and not to leave their duties or responsibilities during that
service and to protect us as citizens.
It is the basic function of the federal government to ensure
Canada has security with in the nation and security internationally.
That is a basic function of the federal government. We expect the
members of the armed forces to live up to that oath, commit to it
and not to deviate from it.
The communique that was sent by the
loyal-supposedly-official opposition, in our opinion, said to
members of the Canadian Armed Forces that they could leave the
armed forces. At that time it created a conflict in the minds of
members of armed forces, those who were Quebec born and others.
They asked ``who am I loyal to?'' There was a conflict between
the communique and the oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed
Forces. It was very obvious. There are many young men and
women who are committed to serving the country. When they are
presented with an order, edict or a communique from the House of
Commons, the formal government of the country, the last appeal
for Canadian people, can we not see their minds would be put into
conflict? We feel that because of that there was a contempt of
Parliament and certainly a conflict between the oath of allegiance
of our people in the armed forces and that communique.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the member for Berthier-Montcalm.
I am pleased to finally be able to express my views freely. For
over three months now, I have been hearing all kinds of things and I
have to say that I have sometimes heard falsehoods and rather poor
interpretations of the facts.
Let me state at the outset, particularly to the Reform members
and to the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, that if
they believe a simple communique is capable of influencing
members of the Canadian military to the point where they would
actually desert and take their weapons with them, as the member
suggested in this House, then they truly believe that members of
the military are weak-minded. When the hon. member served in the
armed forces, would he have been so weak-minded as to have been
taken in by a mere communique? I do not think that we share the
same opinion of members of the Canadian military, or of
Quebecers who serve in Canada's armed forces.
(1055)
I find it odd as well when people like General John de Chastelain
say that when constitutional change comes-therefore, when the
yes side emerges victorious in the next referendum-members of
the military will have to chose their allegiance. These are not my
words, but those of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Even General Roméo Dallaire mentioned that, in the military,
Quebecers were a true reflection of the rest of the population of
Quebec, that there were even some sovereigntists. The member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands also said that there were separatists, as he
put it, in the military.
Yet, when a Bloc Quebecois member sends out a communique,
the people in English Canada who consider themselves as being
beyond reproach take umbrage.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just heard the
member for Beaver River shout out ``treason, traitor'' in reference
to the member for Charlesbourg. I ask that she withdraw her
remarks.
4150
The Speaker: My colleagues, I did not hear these words
uttered.
[English]
I repeat that neither I nor my table officers heard this word.
However, the hon. member for Beaver River is in the House now.
There have been remarks made toward what she said or did not say.
If the hon. member for Beaver River would like to clarify the
situation I invite her to do so.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I did use the word and I withdraw.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, regrettable things are said in the heat of
the moment, and this is one such moment. However, when in the
course of a debate, a person does not share the views of someone
else, there is no need for him or her to sling insults at the other
person, as we have seen happen.
Let me give you an example of how easily Reformers are
offended, in particular the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In 1994, the members of the
defence committee visited several military bases, including two in
Quebec, namely Saint-Hubert and Valcartier. In all of the bases that
we visited in Canada, the briefings were conducted in English. As a
francophone, I did not have the benefit of simultaneous
interpretation, although someone was on hand to translate for us.
The briefing in Saint-Hubert, near Montreal, was in English.
Only at Valcartier was the briefing conducted in French. Let me
quote to you the words of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, as reported in the Pentiction
Herald, to illustrate how easily offended one is if one is an
anglophone. The paper reported that he had received a briefing in
French.
[English]
``You can bet that if the situation were reversed there would have
been screams of outrage''.
[Translation]
He was referring to us, and to how we would react to receiving
briefings in English. That has always been the case and we have
never complained. We are tolerant, but when we outline our
position clearly, we are accused of all sorts of things.
I could also quote several things the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt said in the course of the March
12 debate. He referred to Diane Francis of the Financial Post and to
the fact that Quebec anglophones have filed charges of slander
against her, the guru of the Reform Party. Yet, she has called
francophones racist, intolerant and traitorous and she has said that
they should be either extradited or banished.
The other Reform Party supporter, former General Louis
Mac-Kenzie, compared Canada to Iran.
(1100)
Imagine making a comparison like that. If a Bloc Quebecois
member had said such a thing, we would not have heard the end of
it, but there is no problem when the words come from someone
else's lips.
In my opinion, and based on the findings of the procedure and
House affairs committee, what took place here was essentially a
political debate at the expense of a member, the aim being to pass
judgment on the sovereignty program of my colleagues.
Unfortunately, it was raised as a question of privilege, but could not
be proved in committee.
The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, with its Liberal
majority, concluded that there was no evidence the privileges of the
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt had been
breached. As for contempt or breach of privilege, I have to say that
I was the one on the receiving end, as a result of the outrageous and
false accusations brought against me by the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I saw my name splashed
across the headlines: ``Jacob Headed for Jail'', ``Jacob To Lose His
Seat'' and ``Jacob In Hot Water''. I will spare you some of the
headlines in the English newspapers that were even worse.
In conclusion, let me say that it is unfortunate Reformers have
such selective memories. They claim that they never made any
charges of sedition or issued a call to arms or violence. Just check
in the March 12 issue of Hansard. The member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt did make all of these
accusations. He was never able to back them up, which means that
any member of this House is free to accuse a colleague, whether he
is a member of the Liberal or of one of the other parties, without
impunity.
This is a serious violation of the freedom of expression of
parliamentarians. As far as I know, I was democratically elected in
my riding, just as they were, and the majority of people in my
riding and in the province of Quebec accepted the communique at
face value. After the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt made his outrageous remarks,
I received insulting letters from anglophones and letters of support
and encouragement from Quebecers.
The explanation for this is that Reformers have never understood
what happened in Quebec during the referendum. As the Bible
says: ``Forgive them, for they know not what they do''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
4151
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for
Charlesbourg.
An hon. member: Not to mention astonishment.
Mr. Hart: Yes, and astonishment. I have a couple of comments
and maybe a couple of questions. I would like to answer to the
charge by the hon. member that I presented this motion in a
partisan or political fashion. I would like to say right here and now
that this is one issue that crossed political party lines.
I acted because I was asked to act on behalf of Canadians from
coast to coast to coast who phoned, faxed and wrote me letters.
They asked me at meetings to do something about this because the
government would do nothing about it. That is why I acted and it
crossed political boundaries. It went further than that.
Joseph Maingot, who is undoubtedly the expert in Canada on
parliamentary procedure, said in his testimony that I did things
properly. The reason it went to committee is because I followed the
rules given to an opposition member in this House of Commons. I
followed the rules on behalf of Canadians and presented the motion
in a proper fashion. There was nothing wrong in the way that
motion was presented.
(1105 )
I would also like to ask the member for Charlesbourg to explain
to this House and to Canadians exactly what the oath of allegiance
that our Canadian Armed Forces personnel take means to him. I
would like him to keep in mind that 11 Canadian Armed Forces
personnel serving in Bosnia were killed. I would like him to be
cautious in his answer because there are people who have laid down
their lives for this country on the oath of allegiance.
Maybe he could explain why he dared to use the letterhead of the
official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal and official opposition, to
bring this House into disrepute. He used that letterhead to ask them
to consider changing their allegiance.
Finally, I would like to ask the member for Charlesbourg, if it
was a normal press release, if it was a normal communique in the
course of a member of Parliament's actions, why it did not follow
the normal course, which would be to the media? It did not follow
that course. It went directly to Canadian Armed Forces bases in the
province of Quebec. That is not the normal route for a press release
coming from a member of Parliament-
The Speaker: I am loathe to cut off any member, but that was
two and a half minutes and I want to give an equal amount of time
to the member for Charlesbourg to answer, if he so wishes.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, the two questions raised by the member
for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt were put to the Procedure
and House Affairs Committee. I refuse to explain myself once
again. If he hasn't understood by now, he never will.
Secondly, to my knowledge, the communique makes no mention
of the oath of allegiance and moreover, when questioned about this
by committee members, the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was vague. When a member of
the armed forces swears an oath of allegiance, he stands by that
oath for as long as he remains a member of the Canadian military
and I don't believe anyone defected.
I also find it odd that during one of his outbursts, he informed us
that thousands of Canadians had called him and had come to the
defence of Canadians. I mean no disrespect, but five months passed
before he woke up. I don't know if these calls were late in coming
or if he needed time to understand. I'm sorry, but the referendum
took place last October 30. I worked with the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for two months on the National
Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee. There was never any
mention made of the communique. Was he merely slow to come to
this realization all by himself, or did someone put ideas in his
head? I have to wonder.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I find the members of the Reform Party have quite some
nerve, this morning, to once again raise the issue of this report in
the House when it has already been tabled, when minority reports
have been tabled. How can they raise this matter in the House now,
when we have been discussing it for three months. There were 25
hearings on the subject.
Why? Because, on March 12, a member of the Reform Party rose
to convince you, Mr. Speaker, of the great importance of this issue.
He rose on a question of privilege and said: ``I have a specific
charge and a substantive motion''. What was his question? What
was his charge? He said: ``In the opinion of the House, is the hon.
member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition?'' This was what gave
rise to the debate on March 12.
What prima facie evidence did the member have? He said in this
House that the member for Charlesbourg had sent a call to desert
the Canadian military, that this communique was sent to
francophones, that it was a call to arms and that it asked men and
women who have pledged allegiance to this country to desert the
Canadian Armed Forces with their weapons. These are serious
charges.
(1110)
They are so serious that, in a ruling on March 12, you said, and I
quote:
4152
I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the
House should deal with this accusation forthwith. I invite the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to put his motion before the House.
This was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Could you have decided
otherwise at the time? Probably not, because you had prima facie
evidence, through accusations that we could now call unfounded
but could not be verified at the time. You therefore said the
question of privilege was in order and that is why a committee
looked into this matter.
Why do I find they have quite some nerve today? Because after
three months, we should conclude that the member deliberately and
knowingly misled the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, in three months-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
I think I heard in French the words ``induit'' and ``sciemment'',
which in English mean ``deliberately, knowingly and in error''.
I would ask my colleague to withdraw what he said and to use
others words. Would the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm
please withdraw what he said?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, as I have a lot of respect for the
Chair, I take back what I said. So I come to the conclusion that the
member made these allegations unwittingly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The member took back what he said, and this is
enough for me. I invite him to go on.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was
quoting the very precise charges the member laid, unwittingly,
before the House. These charges are extremely serious and you
ruled that they were in order.
However, after three months and 25 days of hearings, and after
hearing the testimony of experts and of the member who laid the
charges, who came before the committee to explain during two
days of hearings, what did we learn? We learned that the charges
were unfounded, that there was not one shred of evidence, that
these were unwarranted charges. That is all. Two whole days.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: He had two days to prove his case, but he did
not. However, we learned a few things during those two days, while
the member who laid the charges was appearing before the
committee. We learned that in November, after the famous
seditious communique, the member sat five times with the member
for Charlesbourg on the defence committee without ever raising
that question. If this was seditious on March 12, why was it not
seditious in November 1995? Why did he accept to sit beside
somebody who had been seditious in Parliament? Because his
charges were unfounded, that is why.
(1115)
We also learned something else. On November 21, 1995, when
for the first time, the Deputy Speaker of the House heard charges
brought against the member for Charlesbourg, in a statement that
was not directly related to that matter, but which charged the
member for Charlesbourg with having issued a seditious
communique, do you know what he did? He wrote to him. Mr.
Kilgour, the Deputy Speaker of the House, wrote him a note telling
him to be careful, that the charges he was bringing against the
member for Charlesbourg were extremely serious, that he should
consult the clerk of the House as well as legal counsel.
Guess what we learned. The member never consulted anybody,
no counsel whatsoever, before laying those charges. Why did he lay
those charges on March 12? It was two weeks before a byelection,
that is why.
He was unable to prove a single allegation. He neglected to
obtain legal counsel, to consult professionals in this House who
could have advised him, guided him correctly so that he would not
breach the privileges of one of his colleagues, a man
democratically elected to defend the interests of Quebec.
Quebecers want to get all the information that is available.
Quebecers too are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, they
are not only francophones, they are not only anglophones. Within
the ranks of the Canadian Forces based in Quebec, there are
francophones as well as anglophones.
He even admitted that he had been careless when he said that the
communique was intended for francophones only. I think he did not
even take the time to examine the communique sent on October 26
by the member for Charlesbourg.
We also learned that the member knew practically nothing about
the referendum context, that he had not even read Bill No. 1, the
Act concerning Quebec's future where it is clearly written that a
sovereign Quebec would have its own armed forces. He had
neglected to read the tripartite agreement signed by Mr. Bouchard,
Jacques Parizeau, then Quebec's premier, and Mario Dumont. He
forgot to read it. He did not know-
An hon. member: Mario who?
Mr. Bellhumeur: Mario who, he asked. See, Mr. Speaker, three
months after the fact, they still do not know who Mario Dumont is
and what is meant by tripartite agreement concerning the future of
Quebec. As if Reform members had not already wasted enough of
Canadians' and Quebecers' time, they continue to raise the Jacob
issue in the House whereas, for us, the matter is closed. We are
4153
turning a new leaf. It is true that they do not know what they are
doing, that they are making extremely rash accusations.
But one thing is sure. One of us has been wronged. As you were
saying on March 12, the accusations made were of an extremely
grave nature. Today, we know, since the Liberals' majority report
says so, that there was no contempt of Parliament, there was no
question of privilege. However, we all know that the member's
partisan accusations have undermined the parliamentary privilege
of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
And what happens today? The government is making itself the
accomplice of Reformers by refusing to tell the member that he
was not careful in establishing his proof before making
accusations, that he made accusations without checking the facts.
(1120)
At least, and that is what we ask for in our conclusion, in the
recommendations, the member should apologize publicly not only
to the member for Charlesbourg but also to all his parliamentary
colleagues, because what he has done on March 12 to the member
for Charlesbourg, he could do again tomorrow to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; the next day, it could be the
member for Outremont or the member for Québec-Est. Will we
allow such things to take place in this House?
Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, is sacred. We asked
that the member apologize to my colleague for Charlesbourg, to all
the parliamentarians, but also to the people of Quebec and the
Canadian people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member who just spoke did some very emotional finger pointing
on this whole issue.
The issue that the member for Macleod and myself are really
concerned about is this. There was a referendum. A question was
posed during the referendum. That question was ambiguous. It
indicated or implied that if it was a yes that the Quebec government
would negotiate for a year for some kind of association and give the
federal government a year's time in which to do everything. Yet the
letter written by the member, which is what this whole motion is all
about said, implied, indicated that the day after a yes vote, it was
time to move on over; the day after switch your allegiance.
Was the question in the referendum misleading and was it all
along the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to declared Quebec
sovereign the day after a yes vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, concerning the referendum question, I would like to say
to the House that because the Reform members did not understand
the referendum question, that does not mean that it is necessarily
complicated. I think Quebecers have understood very well the
referendum question.
Mr. Silye: And 50 per cent said no.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, that is true, there are people who said no
but they did not do so because they did not understand the question.
If that is the way you see it, that is your problem.
The question was clear. In fact, it was so clear that we had a
federalist wave of love on October 27 because everybody
understood that if Quebecers said yes, Quebec would then be
sovereign. Negotiations would start the very next day and the Act
on Quebec's future would be taken into account. The tripartite
agreement was very clear. The process was understood by
everybody. It was very clear. There was talk of partnership. It was
very clear.
As for the communique, since it is what we are discussing today,
the communique from the member for Charlesbourg was also very
clear. They were trying so hard to find a hidden agenda and the
action they took was so partisan, as the member for Charlesbourg
said, that it took them about five months to decide do to something
about the communique which was, according to them, so seditious.
I know there is a time differential between the west and the
province of Quebec but I do not think it is five months. I do not
think I need to go on about this issue. It was extremely clear and the
only people who understood nothing are at the far end of the House
and will stay there a long time, I think, because they understand
nothing.
[English]
The Speaker: We have approximately two minutes. I will
permit another question or commentary for one minute and then I
will permit the rebuttal by the member.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address three points. The member for
Berthier-Montcalm indicated that in his opinion, the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt sent this matter to the
committee. That is, in fact, incorrect.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the charge and decided there was a prima
facie case. The House debated it and it was sent to the committee
by 295 members of Parliament, not by one man.
Second, ostensibly the reason the member for Charlesbourg sent
that communique to the Canadian forces bases was to advise
4154
Quebec members of the armed forces that if there was a yes vote,
there would be a job waiting for them in the Quebec army.
The member also clearly mentioned that Bill 1 spells out the fact
that there was going to be a Quebec army if Quebec became a
separate country. Why then was it necessary to send that
communique?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, there is at least one person who
seems to have understood certain things. And coming from a
Reform Party member, that is not so bad.
Indeed, the House made a decision and referred the motion to a
committee. However, the accuser is a Reform member. The one
who made the accusations is a Reform member and if I use that
word to describe him, it is because in my mind someone who
makes accusations is an accuser. But I will not tell you what I call
someone who is unable to produce evidence.
If Reform members had read the tripartite agreement and the Act
on Quebec's future, they would not have asked the questions they
are asking today because it was clear. I say again: following a yes
vote, we would have an army in Quebec. But in French, ``au
lendemain de'' does not mean ``the day after''.
That is an example of Canada's duality. It is another proof. We
are two solitudes. We say something in French and it is interpreted
by anglophones in a way that suits them. It has always been like
that in Canada. Next time, in the next referendum, if there is a
lesson to be learned from all this, it is that if we write that kind of
communique, we will send it with explanatory notes just for the
Reform Party.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have no intention of debating this issue at length.
First of all, we know that a charge was brought before this
House. Subsequently, a motion was introduced and amended
because it led to a charge and dealt essentially with the lack of
authority of the House. Some of those responsible for bringing
these charges even recognized this later. The resolution or motion
as amended was examined by a parliamentary committee. A total
of 25 public hearings were held and, by the way, most of them were
televised. Canadians were able to hear both, or should I say all
three, sides of the story.
[English]
We sometimes say that there are three sides to every story, yours,
mine and the facts. In this case, yours, mine and the facts can really
express what occurred quite well.
This morning we heard comments from Reformers on the report
prepared by the committee. They say that government members
were in complicity with the Bloc.
(1130 )
We heard the Bloc members say the Liberal members on the
committee were in complicity with the Reform. As I said, Mr.
Speaker, the two parties across could be described as yours, mine
and this side, the facts, because that is what we provided in our
answer.
Having listened to the debate this morning on this concurrence
motion, I cannot help but marvel at our rules of Parliament and the
over 1,000 years it took to develop these rules, both at Westminster
and here. These rules date back even prior to 1066, to the witans
and others who preceded the parliamentary system of democracy
that we have and the evolution of that process which made it such
that throughout the years we have felt, although not my wisdom nor
that of members who are here, although some have been here far
longer than I and have far greater wisdom, and throughout the years
we have developed processes whereby these issues are dealt with in
a parliamentary committee in a more detached way than they are
here in the House of Commons.
As the member for Lethbridge said, in dealing with those issues
in that parliamentary committee they are dealt with in a more
civilized manner, and I agree with him. He is a former speaker of a
legislative assembly, no pun on the name, although there perhaps
have been in many cases in the past. We have also all agreed that
was the way to do it. I congratulate those who had the wisdom to
develop that and I marvel at our system which has made it that way.
Today we see why this kind of issue cannot be resolved on the
floor of the House and why it has to be detached one notch into the
parliamentary committee with a narrower term of reference. We
took the original motion which, admitted later, was inappropriate,
and narrowed it. We brought it to committee and listened to all the
experts.
Some hon. members: All the experts?
Mr. Boudria: Yes, all the experts. We had 25 hearings on the
issue. We had more hearings on this one issue than we had on the
combination of dealing with the throne speech, the budget, the
privatization of our railroads and half a dozen other things put
together.
What, in its wisdom, did the committee conclude? It concluded
there was not a case of contempt of Parliament.
[Translation]
That the actions of the member for Charlesbourg did not constitute
a breach of parliamentary privilege.
But that does not mean the hon. member should be congratulated
for what he did. Quite the contrary. Many, myself included,
disapproved of the content of the press release. I feel that the
member acted imprudently in sending out a press release like this,
but this is not to say that his actions constituted a breach of
4155
privilege, something which has a very specific meaning. We all
approached the matter from this perspective.
Certain Reform Party members even asked some highly relevant
questions in committee.
For example, I am thinking about the colonel, the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, who himself asked some questions. He also
spoke to the committee about what was relevant, and what was not.
Some Reform Party members even told us that they were not
talking about sedition or about a call to arms. I heard some Reform
members say this. We saw that, at some point, the focus shifted.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): There was no basis for such a
charge.
Mr. Boudria: Correct. The charge may not have been founded,
but that does not mean the release was OK, justifiable. Nothing of
the sort.
I for one did not like it and I think it should not have been sent
out.
Earlier on, mention was made of the fact that the French and
English versions of the communique were given different
interpretations.
I did not write the communique in either language. The member
for Charlesbourg or the people acting on his behalf are the ones
responsible for drafting it. The two versions of the press release
were not identical. The committee agreed that the two versions
were not identical and that one version was worse than the other.
The English version was the more pointed of the two.
(1135)
The committee agreed that the English version contained a
reference to ``the day after'', meaning the very next day, whereas
the exact words used in the French version were ``au lendemain'',
meaning at some time in the future. That is what the two versions
say, not the versions translated by the Liberals or by Reformers, but
those produced by the member himself.
The committee spent many hours reviewing this matter. I truly
feel that members on all sides of the House did a reasonable job.
That being said, Reform members concluded that the Liberal
members, the majority on the committee, who helped write the
report were in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois, while the Bloc
members felt the Liberals were in league with the Reform Party.
That is ridiculous. As my colleague for Simcoe North said, what
the two parties have hinted at is impossible. We cannot be in
cahoots with both of them. Nothing of the kind happened. We gave
our honest opinion and, Mr. Speaker, if you read our report you will
see that we did our work conscientiously, and all Canadians can see
this as well.
[English]
There is no point in the people exercising themselves on the Bloc
side of the House, pretending that one if not all are kind of modern
day Louis Riels, and the people over there pretending they are
Perry Masons of the 1990s in their accusations. Both these
propositions are wrong. That is not was occurred and our report is
clear as to what happened.
There was not, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, a
case of privilege. Neither was there a totally neutral and likeable
press release. That is also wrong. I did not like it and I am one of
the people, contrary to the Reform Party, who fought against the
Bloc Quebecois and its option during the referendum campaign. I
was there on October 27, my colleagues were there and the Reform
Party was not.
Canada came calling, Canada knocked at the door of the Reform
Party and it was not even there. The lessons to take from it on my
side are rather remote.
[Translation]
And I say the same thing to Bloc Quebecois members. The
matter is closed, the referendum is over. Let us turn the page and
get on with other things. We have presented our findings. The
majority responsible for the report chose to side neither with the
Reform Party nor with the Bloc Quebecois. It chose to make a fair,
honest finding and that is what it did.
Therefore, I consider the matter closed.
[English]
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Speaker: When a motion for adjournment is put before the
house we deal immediately with the motion for adjournment.
On June 18, I received notice of a point of either privilege or
order, however the member wants to put it, of an incident which
allegedly occurred. I will hear more about it. I would propose to
hear that point of privilege or order after three o'clock.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
4156
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 117)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young-110
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -68
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Brien
Caccia
Caron
Chan
Cullen
Daviault
Deshaies
Fewchuk
Fillion
Gaffney
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guay
Hickey
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marchand
Mercier
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
(1215 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a motion which I would like to propose to the
House. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following:
Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young
Offenders Act (phase II), and specifically to observe how the youth justice
system operates in practice, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs, six members: four from the Liberal Party including the chair; one from
the Bloc Quebecois; and one from the Reform Party be authorized to travel to
Quebec, Montreal and Iqaluit from September 22 to 27, 1996, in order to hold
public meetings, visit sites (young offenders' facilities and programs), and meet
with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(1220)
The Speaker: Does the hon. government whip have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
4157
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That five members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, including one member of each of the
opposition parties, be authorized to travel to Edmonton on June 19 and 20, 1996
for the purpose of attending the meeting of the Provincial Disability Advisory
Councils.
The Speaker: Does the government whip have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information.
I heard ``June 19 and 20'', but I may be a little hard of hearing. I
assume this was a mistake; if not, I am sorry for not hearing right
the first time.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it June 20? It is.
An hon. member: We are already there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be getting back to my colleagues with another
possible motion for the transport committee. However now I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, during consideration of
Government Orders this day, the House shall consider the amendments made by
the Senate to Bill C-8, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their
precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the
Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, and the amendments made by the
Senate to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air
navigation, provided that, no later than the time of expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders, all questions necessary for the completion of the
aforementioned business shall be put without further debate or amendment and
any division thereon may not be deferred to another day;
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall, for the purposes of Standing
Order 28, be deemed to have sat and adjourned on June 21, 1996, provided that
nothing in this Order shall prevent the Speaker from convening the House for the
sole purpose of attending a royal assent to any bills later this day, on June 21, 1996,
or on any other date during the adjournment; and
Provided that, if, during the adjournment provided for in Standing Order 28,
the members of any standing committee unanimously so direct, the chairman of
any standing committee may present a report from the committee to the House
by depositing the said report with the Clerk of the House in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order 32(1).
The Speaker: Does the government whip have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
you would find unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills
for the purpose of introducing one private members' bill.
Apparently it was such that this bill could not be introduced a little
earlier today. Then we will proceed with business as usual.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1225 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Identification of
Criminals Act (forensic DNA analysis).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the private members' bill which I
introduce today is legislation desperately needed in our criminal
justice system. In effect, this bill authorizes police to seize for the
purposes of DNA analysis, individual hairs, buccal mouth swabs
and blood samples of any person taken into lawful custody by the
appropriate authority.
If passed, this law would allow the DNA information obtained
through seized bodily substances to be recorded, retained and made
available to police officers and other personnel engaged in the
execution and administration of the law.
This law would allow such material to be retained and used for
the prescribed purposes for 10 years. The justice system would
benefit to a great extent from this legislation. I urge all members of
this House to give it their full consideration.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Earlier this week while we were
discussing the Airbus affair during question period, the Minister of
Justice agreed to table a letter he received from the RCMP. To the
4158
best of my knowledge that letter has not yet been tabled and may I
request that that be done so, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if the hon. Minister
of Justice could assist us in this matter.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Act requires us to
remove the names of individuals referred to in the letter. We are in
the process of satisfying the Privacy Act requirements. I hope we
have a chance to table the letter before the House rises for the
summer. I will do my very best to try to achieve that. We will get it
tabled as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition to present to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petition contains 119 names of constituents of Simcoe North
and requests that the House regulate the longstanding Canadian
practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour
similar to that of the their brand name equivalents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, nearly 7,000 elementary school and junior high school
children of eastern Quebec have signed a petition asking the Prime
Minister to act on the commitments he made in 1990 at the World
Summit for Children by prohibiting the importation of goods
produced by child labour and by pressing world leaders to make the
education and protection of children a priority.
The original of this petition will be forwarded to the Prime
Minister's office, but I table in this House today a list bearing the
names of 92 students of the du Rocher d'Auteuil school, which is
part of the La Neigette board, whose head office is located in
Rimouski, who have agreed to redraft their petition to make sure it
meets the requirements of this House.
(1230 )
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a 212 page
petition signed by citizens of Windsor and Essex counties as well
as representatives from all part of Canada, who request the
government to legalize the use of industrial hemp.
These 7,000 signatures request that the government deregulate
the authority attended to low THC industrial hemp by the Ministry
of Health and that it be placed under the jurisdiction of the federal
minister of agriculture.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition from petitioners who argue that a tax on
health and dental benefits would have a disastrous effect on the
overall health of Canadians.
In tabling this petition I recognize that was not done in the 1996
budget.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend any federal legislation to include the phrase
sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could
lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal
privileges as married people and families.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
the Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition is on the subject of Bill C-205, the private member's bill of
the member for Scarborough West. The petitioners request that the
House enact Bill C-205 to prevent criminals from profiting from
their crimes.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table the first of a number of petitions designed to draw
to the attention of the House an issue of public interest.
It points out that the National Capital Commission proposes to
add a third lane to the Champlain Bridge but the environmental
assessment fails to assess the impact of such an expansion and
alternatives to the expansion. It points out as well that the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the city of Ottawa have both
adopted motions opposing the expansion.
The government's policy requires leadership in meeting
transportation needs in an environmentally friendly way and calls
on Parliament to oppose the expansion and refuse to allocate any
funds for this purpose.
4159
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of my
constituents in the riding of Egmont and the neighbouring riding of
Malpeque.
The petitioners are concerned with the profound inadequacies in
the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of
impaired driving charges.
They request and humbly pray that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that
a sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing
death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum
sentence of 14 years.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions today on behalf of
constituents of my riding as well as those in the province of
Saskatchewan. The approximately 250 signators are opposed to
term 17.
They pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are
very concerned about Canadian unity.
The petition calls for Parliament to confirm immediately that
Canada is indivisible, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces,
territories and territorial waters be modified only by (a) a free vote
by all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms or (b) through the amending formula as
stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions I wish to present.
The first petition calls on Parliament to provide legislation that
would allow a 30-day notice period before a gas company could
raise the price of gasoline at the consumer level.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition bears the signatures of 136 residents of my community
from the Frazer Heights Co-operative in Ajax, led by Sandy Gray,
and calls on Parliament to review to the acts respecting
co-operative housing from the federal perspective.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, finally I have
the honour to present a petition which calls on Parliament to make
amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure that the sentence
given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing
injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the
crime and of zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime, in
essence, supporting Bill C-201.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
drawn the attention of this House several times already to the plight
of Tran Trieu Quan, a Canadian citizen who has been imprisoned in
Vietnam for two years.
These petitioners add their names to the many petitions tabled so
far asking Parliament to ensure Mr. Tran's safety and to see that he
is released as soon as possible.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject from constituents
of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners point out to the government that 52 per cent of
the price of gasoline is comprised of taxes, and that the federal
excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent over the past
decade.
The petitioners also point out that the federal government invests
less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues, and call on Parliament
not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and to strongly
consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitating
Canada's crumbling highway infrastructure.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the constituents
of Lambton-Middlesex, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into
law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex
partners, and further that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex benefits or of homosexuality.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by several dozen of my constituents in the
Desbarats, Echo Bay and Sault area of Algoma riding.
4160
The petitioners are totally opposed to convicted criminals
profiting from their crimes by the production of books, videos and
other means by which it would be possible for average Canadians
to make money off reasonable activities. They wish to express
their support for Bill C-205 which would prevent convicted
criminals from profiting from their crimes.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions that I wish to present today.
The first petition opposes Bill C-33. It asks Parliament not to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms by adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
These petitioners state that society does not want privileges of
married couples given to same sex couples, which we are already
witnessing now that Bill C-33 is passed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is from 294 residents across British
Columbia, mainly from Vernon and the surrounding area, but also
from Trail, Rossland, Bella Coola, Merritt, Smithers, Victoria and
Campbell River, Fort St. John, Powell River, Kamloops and even
Vancouver.
Due to the tragic events Easter weekend at Vernon, the
petitioners request that gun permits not be issued for 12 months
after the initial report of a threat of violence regardless of whether
the threat is investigated.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from people throughout
the Ottawa valley.
They wish to draw attention of the House to the fact that Canada
is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child which states on page 2: ``Bearing in mind that, as indicated in
the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, `the child, by reason of
his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and
care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth'''.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament support a
binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next
election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal
government funding for abortions on demand.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my honour to table, on behalf of my
constituents in Lincoln, a petition calling on Parliament to enact
legislation to amend the Young Officers Act so that young
offenders who commit a crime causing serious injury or death be
treated as adults and face the same penalties as adults.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of a number of my constituents, to
present a petition calling on Parliament to pass Bill C-205 which
would prohibit criminals from profiting from their crime.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. The first petition states that section 43 of the
Criminal Code allows school teachers, parents and those standing
in the place of a parent to use reasonable force for the correction of
pupils or children under their care, and whereas reasonable force
has been interpreted by our courts to include spanking, slapping,
strapping, kicking, hitting with belts, sticks and extension cords,
and causing bruises, welts and abrasions, the petitioners call on
Parliament to end the legal approval of harmful and discriminatory
practices by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is in support of Bill C-205 which would prevent
criminals from profiting from their crimes through the publication
of books, magazines, videos and other materials.
(1240 )
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions. The first has to do with taxation of the family.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
That came from Hinton, Alberta.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Kingston, Ontario.
4161
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal
alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100
per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during
pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to revert to tabling of reports from
interparliamentary delegations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I missed the
interpretation on this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is a motion to revert to
tabling of reports from interparliamentary delegations.
Mr. Laurin: Very well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian delegation to the 37th annual meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group. The meeting was held in Alaska from
May 10 to May 13.
The Canada-U.S. relationship is the most significant in the
world. Daily two-way trade exceeds $1 billion and makes the
Canada-U.S. trade relationship the largest in the world. Eighty-two
per cent of all Canadian merchandise exports go south of the border
and into the United States. The trade in goods and services between
the two countries supports more than 1.5 million jobs in Canada
and directly generates 25 per cent of Canada's GDP.
Even with our strong and friendly relationship, there are still
some irritants between our two countries. The Pacific salmon
agreement, the Helms-Burton legislation, the split run magazines
are just a few examples of where we differ in opinion and approach.
Nevertheless, our annual meetings go a long way in helping both
sides understand each other's point of view and may therefore lead
to mutually acceptable resolutions.
The 37th annual meeting was held with 55 delegates from the
U.S. Congress and the Parliament of Canada. Twelve per cent of
the U.S. Senate was represented at the meeting. However, we
cannot take our relationship for granted. We must continue to build
on our successes and strive to resolve our differences.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 31 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 31-Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac):
Pursuant to the act amending the Department of National Revenue Act and
other acts in consequence thereof, which organizations or associations of maple
syrup producers received early payments for maple syrup production in 1994
and 1995 and: (a) what amount of money was used for each of these payments;
(b) on what date were they paid, and (c) under what conditions?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Maple syrup producer organizations received
early payments under the Advance Payments for Crop Act, APCA,
for maple syrup and not the Department of National Revenue Act.
For 1994, no applications for maple syrup were made under the
APCA.
In 1995, three organizations applied for and received guarantees
under APCA: les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec; la
Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec; and la
Coopérative des producteurs de sirop d'érable du
Nouveau-Brunswick.
Les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec was the only
organization of the three to issue advances under the program. Its
1995 guarantee on maple syrup was $6,000,000; to date advances
for maple syrup have been issued only in Quebec.
a) 1995 Interest payments under the cash flow enhancement
program total $163,548.28
b) Dates of Payments Amount of Interest
04-07-95 $21,435.95
27-07-95 $32,441.44
07-09-95 $27,741.44
26-09-95 $30,739.73
27-10-95 $26,198.63
24-11-95 $24,991.09
$163,548.28
c) The APCA provides a loan guarantee to producer
organizations to facilitate a loan from a financial institution for the
purpose of making advance payments to individual producers for
their crop in storage. This provides the producer with cash for the
loan negotiated by the producer organization with the financial
institution soon after harvest on the basis of crop in storage to allow
the producer flexibility in marketing. The advances are repaid from
sales as the crop is sold. There is no federal program expenditures
under the act.
4162
The cash flow enhancement program is a non-statutory program
that pays the interest on the first $50,000 of advances made to
each producer under the act.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over three months ago, on March 4, I submitted a question
to the Order Paper. I wonder when the government would be able to
answer my question. It is Question No. 15.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's
sense of frustration. A large number of questions have gone into the
departments. They consume many people's time and require many
detailed answers because they want to be correct.
(1245)
I was looking at that delay before I came into the House today,
anticipating there would be some concerns. I would like to allay
those. We are trying to catch up as fast as we can.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a little earlier today I indicated to the
House that I would be back with another travel motion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to
Vancouver, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec City,
Saint-Jean and Halifax between September 30 and October 25, 1996, in order to
hold hearings as part of its review of Bill C-44, an act for making the system of
Canadian ports competitive, and its study on transport, trade and tourism, and
that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
This motion is aimed at allowing six parliamentarians to travel.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the motions agreed
to earlier today, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to deal with all stages of Bill C-45. The purpose of this bill,
which has just been brought back from a parliamentary committee,
is to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, an issue that is very
important to all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Do I have the unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
_____________________________________________
4162
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (for the Minister of Health, Lib.) moved:
That the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-8, an act respecting the
control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain
other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and concurred in.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-8, the
controlled drugs and substances act.
This legislation was first introduced into the House of Commons
in February 1994 with a view to respond to the need for
consolidation and modernization of the existing drug control
legislation, the Narcotics Control Act and parts III and IV of the
Food and Drug Act.
Bill C-8 will allow for better controls over drugs covered under
these acts while listing new drugs and substances that are required
under the three international conventions of the United Nations.
Bill C-8 is an important component of Canada's drug strategy, a
strategy based on the recognition that we must favour a balanced
approach of both demand and supply reduction when dealing with
substance abuse and misuse. In fact, 70 per cent of the funding
under this drug strategy is dedicated toward education, prevention,
treatment and rehabilitation. The remaining 30 per cent goes to law
enforcement.
The drug strategy aims to reduce the harm caused by drugs to
individuals, to families and to communities. It is an effort by many
partners to co-operate in dealing with Canada's problems of
substance abuse. These partners include all levels of government,
law enforcement agencies, professionals, voluntary organizations
and community groups. Health Canada plays a leading role in the
strategy.
There is no simple solution to Canada's substance abuse
problem. There are many programs in place, both inside and
outside of government. Communities, provinces and territories
have been working hard for a long time to reduce the demand on
drugs and for drugs.
Many professional and volunteer groups have played an
important role in helping people learn about drugs. They also help
people cope with problems caused by drugs and abuse thereof.
4163
(1250)
Federal programs have also begun to stress even more the new
drug law enforcement and crime prevention. A balance between
reducing both demand for drugs and their supply in this regard is
crucial.
When Bill C-8 was referred to the subcommittee of the Standing
Committee on Health all members of the subcommittee worked
closely together to ensure the views of all were carefully
considered. The subcommittee heard many witnesses and clearly
examined the complexities of the legislation. There were
representations from a broad spectrum of groups, organizations and
individuals having an interest in the controlled drugs issues and
legislation.
The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs also
took the necessary time to listen to a wide diversity of views.
The government has taken very seriously the concerns expressed
by witnesses at the hearings of the subcommittee of the House of
Commons on the bill, as well as those put forward by hon.
members from all parties in the House.
Hon. members knows the consultative process is inherent in the
parliamentary system. One of the strengths of that process is that it
brings forward a range of opinions and perspectives.
Some witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons
committee were not only addressing the proposed legislation
specifically but wanted to put broader issues on the agenda. That is
why the subcommittee recommended in a separate report that the
Standing Committee on Health undertake a comprehensive review
of Canada's drug policy to examine those broader issues. This
review will no doubt give members an opportunity to explore the
many facets of drug issues, namely scientific, political, social,
legal and economic influences of drug use and abuse.
At the committee's hearings members of the Senate committee
on legal and constitutional affairs also took note of the
opportunities for the commercial cultivation of hemp in Canada.
Hemp can be cultivated from varieties of cannabis sativa that
contain a very low level of THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main
psychoactive active ingredient in the plant.
The committee was of the opinion that this plant should be
considered by government for its potential commercial
applications. For example, it noted that hemp can be used in
textiles, paper production or sometimes as a wood substitute.
Research authorizations have been granted in recent years to
examine the issue of the viable commercial cultivation of hemp.
The research is still ongoing. The analysis, as well, is continuing.
Canada is learning more and more about hemp. One might
conclude that Bill C-8 opens the door for future products such as
commercial hemp because it allows the government to create
regulations for scientific, medical and industrial applications of
listed controlled substances.
The Senate committee made important amendments which will
pave the way for the commercial activities involving hemp by
facilitating its handling. Consequently, Schedule II to Bill C-8 has
been amended to exclude cannabis stalks and fibre derived from
such stalks from the application of the act. Although a licence will
still be required to cultivate hemp, once harvested the stalks and
fibre will not be subject to any form of control under the act.
I will come back to the general aim of Bill C-8. We have to keep
in mind the overall intent of Bill C-8 is the protection of Canadians
against risks to their health. Illegally obtained and unsafe drugs are
among the greatest risks to health. Substance abuse too often
contributes to isolate an important segment of our population. We
must equip law enforcement professionals with the tools and
techniques needed to deal effectively with those who prey on the
addicted. This bill, I believe, provides those tools. We must
promote sound law enforcement if we are ever to advance the
broader social goal of maintaining safe and peaceful communities.
This bill provides the means for accomplishing that goal.
(1255)
As Canadians we believe children are entitled to grow up and to
develop in a supportive and caring environment, one that spawns
honest, healthy and productive lifestyles. The bill before us and the
amendments with it in one way can help us to create such a climate
for the children of Canada.
Drug dependence is a complex issue requiring comprehensive
medical, psychological and sociological approaches. There is clear
benefit in treatment. However, the element of motivation on the
part of the patient is essential successful treatment.
Bill C-8 recognizes that drug dependence is also a health and
social issue. It recognizes a positive approach to treatment
programs for those affected by drug addiction. It supports the
availability of help and appropriate treatment for those who want to
get back their health and to resume a productive lifestyle.
[Translation]
Many people, at one time or another, develop a serious
dependency on medication or drugs sold illegally. Moreover, many
run the risk of becoming victims of drug-related crimes, such as
break-ins or gangland violence. This situation does little to help the
plight of individuals in general. It is unfortunately the cause of
tremendous suffering. Many are likely to become frequent users of
medication designed to treat or to temporarily alleviate anxiety
attacks or some condition. There is no doubt that the efforts made
4164
by the government to fight the abuse or ill-advised use of drugs
must be maintained.
Another aspect which must be pointed out is that the bill
promotes the rational use, for medical purposes, of several
controlled substances, while prohibiting their illicit distribution. It
recognizes that these controlled drugs are indispensable for
medical purposes. Doctors, pharmacists and authorized distributors
are all allowed to handle such substances, or to use them in the
fulfilment of their duties. These substances must not be unduly
restricted. They must be available when required, given the
medical condition of patients, so that these patients do not suffer a
drastic change in their quality of life.
Bill C-8 advocates the judicious use of medication by indicating
how controlled substances can be handled, distributed and used.
These substances are mentioned in the act to protect the health and
safety of the public, by striking a fair balance between people's
needs and the dangers of illicit use.
Bill C-8 covers other situations as well. It allows cancer patients,
people suffering from debilitating diseases and those who have
reached terminal phase to relieve their pain with prescription drugs
such as morphine. A patient who is hospitalized, or who is under
strict medical supervision, can even be prescribed heroin to relieve
the pain.
(1300)
The bill means that preparations containing cocaine can safely
be used during examinations and surgery. It also gives access to
many other products for the treatment of less serious, but
nonetheless debilitating, ailments, such as migraine. Medications
containing codeine are regularly prescribed; their usefulness is not
in question.
This bill also mentions substances used to treat addictions.
Methadone, for example, a substance covered by this legislation, is
used to relieve pain, but also to treat heroin addicts. A number of
treatment centres and hospitals use it. For a large number of
patients, methadone maintenance therapy means that they can
continue their regular activities and lead a constructive life. Some
have jobs, others decide to pursue their education. They can thus
lead a healthy family life and benefit from a stimulating social
environment.
I believe that, in this bill, we have found the balance necessary to
the well-being of all Canadians. It is for this reason that I urge all
members, and even our senator colleagues, to give it their support,
as I myself am doing today.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have just
listened attentively to the speech by the member of the government
party. In the bulk of his speech, he has indicated that the legitimate
and normal use of drugs would continue to be possible in this
country.
That, however, was not the issue being addressed by Bill C-8,
which replaced C-7, which in turn, I would remind you, replaced a
Conservative government bill, Bill C-85.
My hon. colleague made no mention of the work of the other
place, which has confirmed the concerns I expressed on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois in this House in February 1994. In those first
debates, on February 18 to be precise, the Bloc Quebecois
acknowledged the obvious necessity of passing legislation in the
drug field. The Bloc also expressed regrets, however, that Bill C-7
had several significant flaws and not only ignored the parameters to
be defined in effective drug control strategy, but also opened the
door to some major adverse effects. Quoting from my speech at
that time, the flaws could be grouped under four questions. First,
are legitimate activities of physicians, pharmacists, vets and
dentists properly protected against abusive application of the
legislation and especially against regulations the scope of which we
do not know at the moment?
Second, would the significant powers granted to inspectors, to be
designated directly by the minister, not possibly lead to some errors
which could unduly penalize health professionals and their
patients?
Third, how would the confidentiality of medical records be
ensured when the bill allows absolutely anyone designated as an
inspector by the minister to reproduce documents found in a
physician's office or in a pharmacy and to seize electronic data?
(1305)
Fourth and foremost, why are drug-dependent persons who need
to be treated and not jailed considered criminals in this bill?
What we are talking about here is the fact that the bill now before
us, which has already been before us and which was before us at the
time of the Conservative Party, talks of controlling supply and
totally neglects the elements of controlling demand. Controlling
supply involves cracking down on those involved in trafficking.
Controlling demand involves prevention, detoxification and
rehabilitation.
This is why the Bloc voted against Bill C-7 at second reading on
April 19, 1994 in this House. Subsequently, you will remember, the
bill was sent to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on
Health, which met many times over a number of years. Most of the
witnesses before the sub-committee, with the exception of federal
officials, need I mention, opposed the bill, because they felt it
would likely compound problems relating to drugs, rather than
contribute to reducing them.
As a result of the concerns expressed by the Bloc Quebecois,
other members of the sub-committee were made aware and they in
4165
turn made the members of their caucus aware. A period of
reflection then followed, between June 1994 and June 1995, during
which the committee did not meet.
In October 1995, the Bloc Quebecois proposed 14 amendments.
Five were accepted by the sub-committee, four were rejected
following explanation and five were similarly withdrawn.
Furthermore, there were six amendments the Bloc Quebecois
deliberately chose not to introduce, because the government tabled
equivalent amendments, which had clearly been borrowed.
Before the other House considered this bill, it was amended,
thanks to the initiatives of the Bloc Quebecois, in order to reduce if
not eliminate most of the major irritants I mentioned earlier. So,
now a judge will have to take clause 11.1 into account. With your
permission, I will read it, because it makes Bill C-8 much more
sensitive to the interests of those affected by the consumption of
drugs.
This clause reads as follows: ``The fundamental purpose of any
sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the
respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe
society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in
appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the
harm done to victims and to the community''.
This short clause in the bill is the only provision dealing with
rehabilitation and detoxification but not, as you can see, with
prevention. It is very little in a bill as comprehensive as the one
before us today.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having the
penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana reduced.
We also succeeded in having medical records protected. Search and
seizure will now be allowed only on reasonable grounds. The
inspectors and analysts appointed by the minister must show that
they have the necessary qualifications or they must acquire them.
(1310)
Finally, on a related topic, the definition of practitioner has been
sufficiently broadened to prevent people involved in the legitimate
performance of their duties from being sued under the Criminal
Code.
As our distinguished colleague pointed out earlier, the
subcommittee was also told by many witnesses that the debate
should be broadened and include concerns that Bill C-8 does not
address.
In fact, the subcommittee submitted three recommendations to
the Standing Committee on Health, which included them in its
report. First, that a task force be set up to define the relevant
criteria in determining which substances should be listed in
schedules I to VII of the bill. Second, Canada's drug policy should
be implemented. Third, the regulations and orders issued under this
bill should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. I
should point out that the last two recommendations resulted from
the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois.
I also want to thank the members of the subcommittee, who
considered these issues and debated the validity of Bill C-8 with
open-mindedness and honesty, before finally approving and
drafting the recommendations I referred to.
On October 25, 1995, the chairman of the Standing Committee
on Health tabled the report on Bill C-7 in this House. On October
30, 1995-need I remind the House that it was the day of the
Quebec referendum and that, as a result, all the members of the
Bloc Quebecois were away-the House passed Bill C-7 at third
reading in the absence of Bloc members. The other place, which
undertook the consideration of this bill on December 13 and 14, has
recently submitted the amendments it wants this House to
incorporate in the bill. In fact, that is the purpose of the motion
before us. But I must tell you that these are only minors changes
that the other place is requesting.
Still, it is interesting to note that, following on remarks made
first by Bloc Quebecois members, and then by government
members, the other place is also recommending that the Canadian
drug strategy be reviewed.
This leads me to conclude that this bill still falls short of
resolving the drug problem adequately. While the bill deals with
the supply aspect, it fails miserably to address the demand aspect
by providing for prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation. But
the worst bugs of the bill had been ironed out before it was referred
to the other place.
I must say that, unless provisions pertaining to prevention,
detoxification and rehabilitation are included, the bill before us
will never have any real positive effect. In this respect, I should
remind the House that the other place was told by the Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy that it was a shame that the legislators
in this House and in the other place did not dare put in place a
modern drug strategy.
(1315)
As a matter of fact, this foundation recommended that the other
place not approve Bill C-8, but the other place realizes that
defeating the bill would mean going back to square one and starting
all over the debate on repression while sorely neglecting the real
issues of prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation.
To introduce legislation reflecting a modern approach to
managing the drug problem, the legislator must feel he has public
opinion behind him. It is precisely to allow the public to form an
informed opinion on the issue that it becomes essential to have a
national debate. Had the other place refused to approve Bill C-8,
we would have faced a dead end.
4166
That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. But our
support must be construed as a very strong expression of our
demand that the government act on the recommendations of the
Standing Committee on Health by opening as soon as possible a
national debate on the drug issue.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 has been
a complex and long lived bill in this House. It was the first bill I
was the watchdog for, so I have watched the process very carefully.
Reformers had one big concern with this bill in that the bill gave
very broad powers to the minister and to the bureaucracy that
would have affected the health food industry. The clause that
caused us the most concern said that the minister could deem any
depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic and include those in the
schedules.
I am proud of Canadians on that issue. Canadians with a little bit
of help decided that was not suitable. The health food industry has
stimulants, depressants and hallucinogenics. Our office was a bit of
a focus for what I consider to be a campaign against that clause in
Bill C-8. There were petitions, faxes and a huge amount of interest
on the bill and we were able to get that clause kicked out. Our
efforts were rewarded.
There is still a problem in the bill in that the regulatory powers of
the governor in council still allow anything that is deemed to be in
the public interest to be inserted in the bill. Although that is better
than the minister deeming, it is not what I consider to be an open
and democratic way to include things in a bill.
I looked over the amendments. I found them to be pretty
standard amendments, crossing ts and small changes, until I found
a very significant amendment to the bill, an amendment that was
spoken of in a press release yesterday. I received these amendments
at 10 o'clock last night. It is difficult to look at amendments when
one does not have the bill and the amendments, but there was
something brand new in the bill which had not been debated in
public.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that hemp is now being
facilitated by Bill C-8. I listened in the committee to testimony
about whether or not hemp should be included. There were
witnesses who talked about hemp as a product for agriculture in
Canada. There was no significant approval at that point in time for
this direction to be undertaken. A senator, along with other
members of the other place, has inserted one very, very tiny
sentence in the bill, that ``mature cannabis stocks that do not
include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches and fibre derived from
such stocks are not included in the schedule''.
(1320)
I always thought that if we in Canada were going to have a
change in direction it should have public scrutiny. This change in
direction has not had public scrutiny. What possible problem would
there be for a brand new agricultural product to come on the scene
in Canada?
Why do the people concerned with marijuana legalization want
so badly to have hemp included? I have never had anybody admit
this to me, but I believe and will state on the public record, the
reason for this is that the normal cannabis plant can be hidden very
easily with the hemp plant early on in the growth stage. Detection
at the early stages of cannabis sativa of the inadmissible cannabis
plant is very, very difficult. As mature plants they are very
distinguishable, but the young plants are not.
I have listened and discussed with those individuals who argue
strenuously for hemp. I have tried to figure out whether their only
motive was to have another good agricultural product in Canada. I
do not find that argument persuasive, but if the argument were
persuasive I would have loved to have had this debate publicly.
I believe this was an attempt to sneak this clause past the
Canadian public and I use the word sneak advisedly. I go back to
my original opposition to the bill, which is that the regulators could
very easily include things in the bill that might not get broad public
Canadian support. There is no public scrutiny of possible problems.
For the Canadian public who are watching, I say this amendment
should have come before the health committee with broader public
debate rather than the very quiet press release yesterday and
presentation by the parliamentary secretary today. I am not happy
at all.
With that issue on the table, I want to mention one other very
significant inconsistency in the government's policies. I am going
to use a health product as an example of how inconsistent the
policy is. Melatonin is the health product.
Melatonin in the past few years has been used for a number of
things. It was touted as a fabulous drug for aging, to keep us all
young, the fountain of youth. It was touted as being very useful for
jet lag, something parliamentarians have some problems with.
Because melatonin is a natural product, it has not had the usual
number of clinical trials.
Our Department of Health determined that melatonin did not
have proof of safety and so it should be banned in Canada. I am fine
with that. If there is no proof of safety, do not use it. But then we
allow the private individual in Canada to purchase a three months
supply in the United States and bring it into the country which
seems totally inconsistent to me. Melatonin, if it is not good for us
should be banned. If it is okay for us, we should be able to buy it in
Canada.
4167
The health food business is going to be impacted by Bill C-8.
I am still opposed to the bill because of these broad regulatory
powers. I am disappointed in the sneaky issue on hemp. I will now
be quiet.
(1325 )
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of points raised
which need to be addressed.
First and foremost in the hon. member's presentation, we ought
to be clear on the lines of communication and the lines of
responsibility. If it is his intention to have the department report
directly to the House of Commons, that is an innovative way for
establishing lines of accountability.
The reason the minister has been charged with certain
responsibilities is that he is always accountable to this House and to
the hon. member in debate. That is a mainstay of our democratic
process. I do not think we can dismiss that as being somehow
anti-democratic. It is a very important element in the lines of
accountability. The Minister of Health is always accountable, not
only to the House but to the electorate.
Second, I am a little concerned that the member would take
umbrage with the fact that there is an industrial application of
hemp that the department is leaving open. It is a little bit of a
problem because members of his party, members of the other
opposition parties and the general public have been suggesting for
quite some time that we ought to at least give it an opportunity to
demonstrate its value.
The member quite rightly reads the amendment. It is not sneaky
nor is it some surreptitious, vague wording. It deals specifically
with the stalk of hemp and with its fibres. It does not deal with
anything else. It is the element that is the least likely to contain
hallucinogenic qualities.
If we open the door for the industrial use of a product that has
been used by others in what many might suggest is a fashion not so
far tolerated but at least proven to have some merit, that is
consistent with what the Reform Party has been asking for all the
way along. It is not an amendment that has been sneaked in. It is
one that has been debated publicly for quite some time.
In that regard as well, the House should know that what the
members of the official opposition and the Reform Party have
suggested, that there be a health committee review of Canada's
drug policies, that is being undertaken. In fact, the health
committee has already set in place a schedule for reviewing the
entire process starting in September when the House resumes
sitting.
I take what the member has said in a positive fashion, but I do
not think that members of the House should be confused as to the
direction, purpose and openness of the bill as it is before the House.
I encourage concurrence.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, definitely I want to reply with
vigour.
The issue which the member has missed completely is whether
there is some risk with hemp. There is a risk with hemp: detection
of the illegal plant. This should not have come through the back
door. It should not have come through the Senate. It should not
have come through as an amendment. It should not have come
through quietly. It should have come through openly. The member
sitting across the way knows full well that did not happen. I am
disappointed and I believe the Canadian public will be
disappointed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and
concurred in.)
* * *
(1330)
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services, be read the second time and
concurred in.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a technical
amendment that does not affect any of the provisions in the bill. It
is only a matter of timing.
Prior to the amendment all sections of the bill were to become
effective upon royal assent. The intent of the amendment is to make
three sections, sections 11, 13 and 100, come into force on the
transfer date, which is expected to be 60 days after royal assent.
Section 11 pertains to the designation to the international civil
aviation organization of Nav Canada as the Canadian authority for
air traffic control services and aeronautical information services.
Section 13 provides Nav Canada with the right to plan and
manage the airspace subject to the governor in council's right to
make regulations respecting the classification and use of that
airspace.
4168
Section 100 is a consequential amendment to the Aeronautics
Act which removes the authority of the Minister of Transport and
the Minister of National Defence to impose charges for air
navigation services.
If this authority were to be removed prior to the transfer date, it
would have implications for the revenue stream of Nav Canada in
its first few days of operation. This would be the case because of
section 33 of the bill, which states: ``The charges imposed by the
corporation on or after the transfer date for air navigation services
shall be the charges that were imposed by the minister immediately
before the transfer date''.
If the minister did not have the authority to impose the charges
on the day before the transfer, Nav Canada would have no charges
in place as it began operations. Nav Canada would be able to
impose its own charges within two weeks, but the gap and the
degree of uncertainty associated with the process would complicate
its initial financing.
The commercialization of the air navigation system will provide
significant benefits to Canadians. I urge my colleagues in this place
to support this amendment as a way of ensuring this initiative takes
off to the best possible start.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the other place sent us back Bill C-20 with some rather
technical amendments. I take this opportunity to say that, the day
after the Pearson airport legislation was killed, we have yet another
example of the uselessness of the other place, which can even be a
nuisance. Yesterday, a House of unelected people blocked a very
important government bill. We should reflect on this.
As for Bill C-20, the proposed amendments are of a very
technical nature. The government's excuse for not having moved
these amendments earlier in this House, either at third reading or
report stage, is that the Senate is there to do the work. How much
did it cost to let the other place debate the issue, including the costs
generated by the additional delays?
Today, the session is coming to an end. We are forced to pass
bills while taking into account many elements and deadlines. Had it
not been forced to send the bill to the other place, the House could
simply have passed it at the end of debate here, and the government
would have been accountable for it.
(1335)
And had there been omissions such as the one corrected by the
Senate, the government would have had to take responsibility for
them. We should not rely on a House which is not accountable to
Canadians to correct mistakes.
This example, along with yesterday's much more catastrophic
end of the Pearson bill, shows once again a lack of seriousness on
the part of the government. Let me tell you that, regardless of one's
opinion on the Pearson bill, it was neither flattering nor pleasant to
see that an unelected house could kill a bill that had been debated
and passed here. Even though we were against this legislation and
felt that many changes were needed, including the establishment of
a commission of inquiry, the fact remains that this is a rather telling
episode.
I think it is important to remember the reasons why the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against Bill C-20. During the clause by clause
examination in committee and the debate at third reading, we
proposed amendments regarding safety that we thought were very
constructive.
These amendments were intended to ensure that the new agency
responsible for managing air navigation would be required to give
priority to ensuring the safety of carriers. The intention was to have
this obligation included in the legislation in the form of a preamble
that would have served as an interpretation clause. The government
did not yield to our arguments in this regard. Neither did the
Senate. There is no recommendation along these lines.
We were not listened to. When the government does not listen,
that may be what it chooses to do, it may think that this is not the
right course of action. But as for the Senate, that is a concern they
should have had. They could have presented us with something
more useful than the three tiny amendments we have before us
today.
The other point the Bloc Quebecois emphasized, and which was
ignored, concerned the representation of small carriers on the board
of directors of Nav Canada. We think that a few years down the
road, it will be realized that this decision will have significant
negative economic effects on a number of outlying regions in
Canada, where there are carriers specializing in chartered flights,
tourist flights, and utilitarian flights, and not necessarily regular
passenger flights.
It is true that the composition of Nav Canada's board of directors
includes almost all the stakeholders in the economic sector
concerned, but we feel that large carriers are over-represented on
the board, to the exclusion of small carriers. We think that will have
an impact on charges. When it comes to deciding how charges will
be levied, the voices that will be heard the loudest will be those of
large carriers, and the small carriers will be lost in the shuffle.
It must be borne in mind that there was a need to rationalize in
this industrial sector, a need to organize so as to reduce costs, and a
good many of these objectives will probably be met by Bill C-20.
What we would have liked to see was the pendulum swinging in the
other direction in order to guarantee safety, something not found in
this bill.
4169
It seems to me that, at this final stage, that the Senate
amendments do nothing to change the basic question. There has
been no additional important element introduced by the Senate.
The bill, in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, is identical to the
way it was on third reading. For these reasons we will be voting
against it, in order to let people know that the Bloc Quebecois feels
safety ought to have more importance attached to it than the
government has done in this bill.
We hope there will be no unfortunate accidents to prove us right.
(1340)
We hope this will never happen, but we believe that, even when
the bill is implemented, at least if there was no will to change it in
the text, in connection with the administration of Nav Canada,
there will be representations by the government to ensure that this
is a concern in the day to day administration of Nav Canada, and
that costs will not be the only concern.
To conclude, after this debate at every stage, I believe a number
of members of this House, those on the committee with which I
was associated at the end of the process, have worked very hard. I
feel they have produced good legislation. It is unfortunate that they
have not heeded the arguments raised, for the most part about
safety, for if they had we could have joined with the government. I
feel it would have been worthwhile, and important, for there to
have been unanimity in the House on a bill of this type.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House
for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities be authorized to travel to Toronto, Ontario from October 7 to 9, 1996, for
the purpose of attending the National Conference on Disability and Work and
holding a hearing, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
The opposition parties were consulted, and I think there will be
unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not consider myself entering into debate because I
agree with the government's position and the parliamentary
secretary.
While I do not always agree with him, certainly this time it was
both accurate and succinct. I hope he keeps those qualities in future
debate as well, particularly on issues where we tend to differ.
As seems to be the norm with this bill and several others, I find
the few comments I want to make relating to the previous speaker
from the Bloc Quebecois. He talks about the lack of safety in the air
navigation system now with Nav Canada taking over.
I have been a commercial pilot and also an air traffic controller
for 22 years. The same people will be running the system after as
before. We have in our system among the best in the world and it is
safe.
I find it an interesting contradiction that the hon. member who
just spoke talks about how the Senate hinders the process of this
House. Then in the same breath he turns around and says the Senate
should have listened and made amendments according to what the
Bloc was looking for. It is starting to sound like the government
with regard to the Pearson deal where it said it had to cancel it
because it is too rich and it does not want to pay any compensation
because they would not have made any money anyway. I am still
trying to figure that one out. I bet the liberals are too when they
stop and actually listen to themselves.
I found it very interesting that the Bloc is to vote against this
legislation. This legislation is not being voted on today. The only
thing that is being voted on is the amendment to the legislation
which the Bloc said it would support. It is a bit confusing, the
Liberals are a bit confusing. Thank God it is summer and we are all
going home soon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
4170
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote is deferred until
3 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 2 p.m. today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.45 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 1.58 p.m.
4170
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently I had the wonderful opportunity to present a
Canadian flag to the children at the Jonathan McCully school in
Napan. As we stood around the flag pole we talked about the
importance of the flag as a symbol of nationhood and unity and
about the respect and care that our flag deserves.
Also I learned about the Napan Pond demonstration project
which is a collaborative effort between the school, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada and Ducks Unlimited. Together they are
developing a small wetland/woodland site on the Napan Research
Farm. This site will be used to educate school children about
wildlife and farming and to demonstrate to farmers the potential
value of wildlife habitat on farmland.
Today I congratulate and commend the principal and the students
of the Jonathan McCully school for their efforts to improve
environmental awareness and to promote Canadian nationalism.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
situation that has prevailed in Nigeria since the 1993 democratic
elections were cancelled could have a disastrous impact on a large
part of Africa, where Nigeria is a major player. Such
destabilization could also have unpredictable repercussions
throughout the world.
The human rights violations, particularly the arbitrary arrests
and executions as well as the persecution of the Ogoni minority, are
all reasons in favour of the international community taking swift
and firm action against the Nigerian government.
Consequently, at the Commonwealth conference next week,
Canada must actively promote the imposition of sanctions,
including an oil embargo.
It has been more than a year since the Prime Minister raised the
issue with Commonwealth officials; it is high time that concrete
action were taken against Nigeria, as was done previously against
South Africa.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
this closing day, allow me to read a list of the Liberal government's
accomplishments. The Minister of National Defence enriches his
campaign manager and then hires the commander now under
investigation for lying. The Minister of Justice bungles the
Mulroney case and then denies misleading Canadians about same
sex spousal benefits.
(1400)
Liberals exonerate the Bloc after it tried to divide the Canadian
army in Quebec. They make shamelessly partisan appointments to
the Senate and install race based fisheries on the west coast. Their
promise on the GST is blatantly broken, blamed on acts of God and
loose lips and finally, a billion dollar bribe is offered to shore up
their image.
The referendum debacle, the divisive distinct society and now
the crowning glory-
The Speaker: Order. I ruled the other day on the word ``bribe''. I
wonder if the hon. member would withdraw that word.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw that word.
We have had the referendum debacle, the divisive distinct
society and now the Pearson airport fiasco. It took two and a half
years for them to totally botch the Pearson privatization deal and
now Canadians are left with nothing in the way of airport
improvements and a $600 million lawsuit to boot.
In the throne speech the Prime Minister said: ``No one can
question the integrity of this government''. Mr. Speaker, you
cannot question something that does not exist.
4171
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week Mississauga has once again been the target of massive
investment in research and development.
Astra AB, the parent company of Mississauga East based Astra
Pharma, has launched the development of a revolutionary new
treatment for osteoporosis. In a new partnership with Allelix
Biopharmaceuticals, also of Mississauga, Astra will provide
Allelix with $50 million in licensing and development funds to
move this new product forward aggressively.
I congratulate Astra Pharma and Allelix for bringing $50 million
worth of jobs and investment to Mississauga and offering relief to
the world's 200 million sufferers of osteoporosis.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first we had the Helms-Burton act, that sleight of hand by the
American Congress to legislate outside the territory of the United
States.
Now we have the American coast guard stopping Canadian
pleasure boats in mid-Great Lakes and demanding entry permission
certificates that incidentally cost $20. These same people are
threatening our citizens with seizure of their boats for future
non-compliance.
The last time I looked there was no white line in the middle of
the St. Clair and Detroit rivers. Canadian boats out for a cruise
wander in and out of U.S. waters.
Perhaps the Ministers of National Revenue, Fisheries and
Oceans and Foreign Affairs will collectively reciprocate with some
of the 830,000 pleasure craft in the state of Michigan. At $20 per
boat we could use the $16.5 million windfall.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to acknowledge today the great mark of
confidence the firm Hoeschst Marion Roussel Canada has just
given Quebec, and Laval in particular.
A leader in the pharmaceutical industry, Hoeschst Marion
Roussel is one of the five leading pharmaceutical companies in
Canada. At the unveiling ceremony of the head office's new
corporate signature, the company's president, Gérald P. Belle,
announced a $200 million investment in research and development,
at least one third of which will be invested in Laval.
At a time when the federal government is shamelessly
withdrawing from high technology areas, to chose Laval as the site
of a major research centre shows how much private enterprise
values and respects the skills, innovation and reliability of Quebec
researchers. This gives me one more reason to be proud to be from
Laval and to be a Quebecer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate national aboriginal day. In honour
of this event I wish to congratulate Marcia Guno who graduated
from Simon Fraser University this month with a BA and is enrolled
in a masters program.
Marcia Guno is a Nisga'a from the Nass Valley who wants to
research how aboriginal students can be more successful in
pursuing education. She wants to work toward ensuring tomorrow
is a brighter day for the next generation.
The celebration of national aboriginal day should celebrate the
success of community minded role models.
(1405 )
Education is a basic building block for full participation in
Canadian society. I endorse the principle that Marcia Guno
espouses in her academic endeavours. I wish her and the aboriginal
community every success in achieving education for its young
people.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Pearson
airport sale was done in the summer of 1993, just three weeks
before that Conservative government was reduced to two seats.
The Liberals who opposed airport privatization reversed the deal
with Bill C-22, based on their fresh democratic majority and the
Nixon report. Reform and much of the business community
opposed Bill C-22 because it ``broke a contract''.
Strangely, the contract argument is ignored when these same
people want to reduce pensions, unemployment insurance,
workers' compensation or medicare. The Senate is now the focus.
Senators are not elected. Neither are the Transport Canada officials
who made the deal. The real question is, what happened to Liberal
opposition to privatization of Canada's infrastructure like ports,
railways, airports, et cetera?
The voters thought they had thrown out privatization along with
the Tories. Who won the last election, the Liberals or Transport
Canada's freedom to move. It certainly was not the people.
4172
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there are still people in this country who are trying to
understand what makes Quebec different, all they have to do is read
the Léger & Léger poll published this morning. They will realize
that there is no simple answer to the Quebec issue.
According to the poll results, 54.9 per cent of the 1,003
respondents support Quebec sovereignty, while at the same time
65.3 per cent of them hope that Quebec will remain in Canada.
Beyond the impression of ambiguity created by these figures,
one thing remains clear: a substantial majority-over 60 per
cent-of the people are asking Lucien Bouchard to work with us at
renewing the Canadian federation.
Let us hope that the Quebec premier will hear their message and
finally agree to shelve his separation option.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last fall all
sides of the House rose together to give a standing ovation to John
and Jesse Davidson on the completion of their long summer
journey.
With the more than $1 million they raised, the Foundation for
Gene and Cell Therapy has been established to promote research
into genetic disease.
I am pleased to report that on May 20, 1996 at the first annual
family day to celebrate Jesse's journey in Springbank Park in
London, an agreement was signed by the foundation and the
Medical Research Council of Canada.
Nine post-doctoral Jesse Davidson research fellowships will be
established. The Medical Research Council will provide some
matching funds to the foundation and will contribute its expertise
in the selection and awarding of the fellowships.
Most important, this could not have been accomplished without
the thousands of Canadians who gave their heartfelt support to a
courageous young man.
To Jesse and John Davidson and to all those who gave so
generously to this cause, our heartfelt thanks and gratitude.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 40 people
from the city of Waterloo, Ontario are on their way to Waterloo,
Quebec to attend a bicycle festival this weekend.
The two Waterloos, after years of exchanges, officially twinned
their two communities in October 1995 during the Octoberfest
celebrations in Waterloo, Ontario.
The mayors of the two Waterloos, Bernard Provencher and Brian
Turnbull, were in Ottawa on October 19, 1995 to exchange their
respective municipal flags in the presence of the Prime Minister.
The mayors made the point that people to people contact among
Canadians is important to build understanding and to promote
national unity.
Waterloo, Quebec voted yes to Canada and no to separation.
We commend the two Waterloos for continuing their ties and for
promoting understanding and goodwill among Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, June 21, Canadians for the first time will be
celebrating national aboriginal day. This occasion will allow all
Canadians to gain a greater appreciation for aboriginal cultures and
the important role aboriginal people have played and continue to
play in our society.
National aboriginal day offers us an opportunity to understand
our collective history and renew our efforts to build a better future.
I am proud to represent members of the Mi'kmaq community
living in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. Together I believe
we have taken steps to improve local economic opportunities while
ensuring the preservation of the Mi'kmaq culture.
(1410 )
I ask all members of the House to reflect on the importance of
this and, in so doing, we can embrace all cultures by sharing our
collective wisdom and experience.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on June 20,
1976, a spectacular Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebration was held
on Mount Royal. Gilles Vigneault sang for the first time a tune that
epitomizes the sensitivity of the Quebec soul: ``Gens du pays, c'est
votre tour de vous laisser parler d'amour.'' In Quebec, this song has
since become a central part of every public rally and political
4173
demonstration. It talks about building a country, returning to our
roots, and about the primacy of the notion of freedom.
It was in 1977 that Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day became Quebec's
national holiday. How far we have come in 20 years. The people of
Quebec have come of age and are preparing for their long-awaited
country to become reality.
To all the men and women of Quebec, I wish a happy national
holiday.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 125 years ago on July 20 the colony of British Columbia
joined the Dominion of Canada. Today it is Canada's third largest
province, after Ontario and Quebec, in both size and population.
I was smart enough to be born in B.C., Canada's fastest growing
province, which has been described as a large land mass entirely
surrounded by envy.
Many eastern and central Canadians envy the fact that British
Columbia has Canada's tallest mountains, oldest trees, longest
frost free growing season, lowest per capita provincial debt and is
the greatest distance from Ottawa.
B.C. produces most of Canada's sawn lumber and plywood. Its
ports handle most of Canada's grain and coal and is Canada's
gateway to the Pacific rim. Vancouver is closer to Hawaii than to
Halifax.
I invite all my hon. colleagues to come to see for themselves as
B.C. celebrates 125 years in Confederation.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know that all
members of the House would like to join with me to express our
appreciation to the young American interns who have joined us for
the past few weeks and worked in the offices of various members of
Parliament from all political parties.
They come from the United States, so they bring a new
perspective to our offices. Best of all, they take back a good
impression of Canada and become ambassadors throughout the
United States on behalf of Canada.
To interns like Matthew Zweig and all of his partners,
congratulations. Thank you for joining us. We look forward to the
next group of Michigan interns next year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Degussa multinational corporation announced that it
would build a hydrogen peroxide plant at the Port of Quebec. The
governments of Canada and Quebec each agreed to pay 50 per cent
of a $10 million refundable contribution to help carry out this
project.
This $140 million investment will provide work for 1,000 people
every year during construction and create 150 direct and indirect
jobs once the plant is up and running.
It should be noted that the process that will be used at the Quebec
plant to produce hydrogen peroxide is non-polluting and that it will
also reduce the toxicity level of the waste generated by pulp and
paper mills during bleaching.
The hon. members representing the Quebec City region will
surely join me in citing this as additional evidence of the benefits
resulting from intergovernmental co-operation and consultation
designed to promote economic development and create jobs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is taking charge of its future. Through effective deficit
reduction, industry deregulation, the lowering of internal trade
barriers, Team Canada trade missions abroad and a tremendous
effort by all members of the Liberal government, it has succeeded
in creating a healthy economic environment for jobs and growth.
The OECD today pointed to Canada to lead the way in economic
growth. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development predicts that Canada will have the fastest growing
economy in the industrial world.
Thanks to a concerted focus on trade and lower interest rates,
Canada's economic growth is projected to average 3.5 per cent over
the next 18 months. The unemployment rate is expected to continue
its downward course, averaging 9 per cent in 1997.
Canadians are a hard working, determined, results oriented
people and so too is the government.
4174
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada
pledged to extend the gas pipeline from Lévis, in Quebec, to Nova
Scotia, through New Brunswick. A similar commitment is
expected from the New Brunswick premier.
This project will maximize spinoffs within the Canadian
economy. Natural gas is an environmentally friendly source of
energy. Making it available to businesses in the lower St.
Lawrence, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia regions will promote
their economic growth.
For eastern Quebec, this project will make it possible to set up
several businesses that will be competitive thanks to this initiative.
The Bloc Quebecois will work to ensure that the project becomes a
reality, since it will be a mutually profitable economic partnership
for Quebec and Canada.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, June 24, French speaking Canadians will
celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
All over the country, including in Quebec, French Canadians will
be honoured for their contribution to the greatest country in the
world, Canada.
Back home, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, thousands of
francophones and francophiles will get together in Alfred, Ontario,
to celebrate the village's 125th anniversary, as well as
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
On Sunday, we will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila
Copps, who will come to our riding to celebrate the Saint-Jean with
all French Canadians, and also with those who will honour their
contribution to our country.
_____________________________________________
4174
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the military police, having been forced to reopen the
investigation after the appearance of documents implicating
General Boyle in the cover-up operation, have just released their
report.
It concludes that the chief of defence staff not only made a false
statement to his own military police, but also was aware of the
cover-up, and categorically refused to reply to questions by the
military police.
My question is a straightforward one to the Acting Prime
Minister. What credibility does the chief of staff of the Canadian
Armed Forces have, when it is now known that he lied to his own
military police, that he refuses to be cross-examined, that he was
aware of the cover-up of the Somalia affair? Will the government
insist on his resignation, or will it not?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has covered this issue a number of times. The
fact that I will not comment on any evidence to be presented to the
commission of inquiry is firm.
The commission was established to examine all aspects of the
deployment to Somalia. Let the commission take its course.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Minister of National Defence has said
the same thing very often, that he refuses to budge. That we know.
If I understand the response correctly, the government tolerates
its chief of defence staff lying with impunity to his own military
police and, what is more, refusing to submit to any
cross-examination. We also learned that he had the support of five
officers-the Canadian Army camouflage brigade no doubt-in
preparing his testimony before the inquiry, while the other
witnesses had no such services available to them.
Can the government tolerate such a practice? Is this not utterly
shameful?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the commission of inquiry is the proper forum for this
kind of debate, not the floor of the House of Commons. Let the
commission do its job.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the commission is doing its job, despite every effort to
block it from so doing by the chief of defence staff. The one not
doing its job is the government, that is the problem. I had hoped for
more than a pre-recorded message in response.
The chief of defence staff will appear before the inquiry only in
mid-August.
4175
(1420)
Meanwhile, he has lost all credibility, not only in the eyes of
Quebecers and Canadians, but also in the eyes of Canada's allies.
Who can have any confidence in him when he meets with other
chiefs of defence staff? Does the government not realize that it is
the entire credibility of Canada that is at stake, the credibility of the
Canadian Armed Forces as a whole, as long as this general is left in
charge?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat, the minister has covered this issue a number of
times. The minister will not comment on this because the evidence
is presented to the commission of inquiry. Let the commission do
its job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The other House definitively signed the death warrant for the bill
on the Pearson airport yesterday. The government is now faced
with damage suits, and the Liberals' blunders could cost taxpayers
up to $662 million. All because the government has been refusing
for the past two years to listen to the official opposition and to hold
a public hearing to bring this whole political and financial scandal
to light.
Rather than submit yet again to another partisan study behind
closed doors, and because the government is in a tight spot, is it the
minister's intention, finally, to hold a real public hearing into this
whole matter?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contradiction between one member of the Bloc's not
wanting to have a commission of inquiry proceed but to have it
discussed on the floor of the House and the next question coming
from a member who would prefer to have a commission rather than
discuss it on the floor of the House is very striking.
I agree with him that we have a concern here. The government
will not allow the Conservative senators to put the Canadian
taxpayer at risk to the tune of some $600 million of unearned and
undeserved profits.
That is why the bill was introduced in the first place. We are now
examining our options for our next steps. We are looking at all
options before us. None is ruled out. There is one consideration
paramount, that we protect the Canadian taxpayer from this attempt
of the Conservative senators to provide $600 million or more of
unearned profits to the developers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is just as irresponsible as the Senate. We have
been calling for a commission of inquiry for two years, not since
yesterday.
The Government Leader in the Senate said, following the vote
yesterday, that they would do everything in their power to ensure
no Conservative interest group would benefit from the agreement.
What assurance do we have from the minister that Liberal
interest groups will not benefit from this agreement either?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's position has been put many times in the
House and elsewhere, not just since this government was formed
but also during the election campaign when this infamous deal was
signed by the previous government 10 days before the election
date.
We wish to protect the Canadian taxpayers by all the means we
have available. I assure the hon. member we will make available to
him and to other members of the House our decision in due course
as to how we will proceed.
All I can say further is that what happened last night by the
Mulroney appointed senators, unelected members, was a vote in
favour of granting hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned and
undeserved profits in an unacceptable deal done in the dying days
of a federal campaign.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals, not the
Conservatives, made a number of ill conceived promises that are
now costing taxpayers billions.
First it was the GST, then it was the EH-101 helicopter
cancellation and now it is the Pearson airport development deal.
(1425)
The Pearson deal cancellation was politically motivated in the
first place. The attempt to keep it out of the courts was politically
motivated, and now Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for
$662 million and counting.
Who will take responsibility for this mess, the former transport
minister, the present transport minister or the Prime Minister who
made the wrong decision in the first place?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot in recent days about the right getting
together, but there is something thoroughly unpleasant in the way
4176
the Reform Party is cosying up to a group of people in the other
place trying to provide the developers of this proposal with money
they have not earned.
This party should recognize that in its efforts to get the right
together, it is perhaps cosying up to the wrong people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister pretending to protect
taxpayers' interests. The way to protect taxpayers' interests would
have been to have made the right decision in the first place, not to
try to shield a wrong decision from the courts.
Nothing the government says can change the fact that this
government cancelled the Pearson deal in the first place, that this
government compounded the problem by trying to deny access to
the court to affected parties and that this government will leave
taxpayers on the hook for $662 million or more.
What will be done to undo the damage of this politically
motivated decision and action?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the third party, the fourth party-Reformers
must thank their lucky stars the Bloc Quebecois did not run a
candidate in Hamilton or they would have been fifth.
The position of the government is clear. The contracts were
entered into in the middle of an election campaign when it was
indicated by one of the major political parties that if we were
elected the appropriateness of the contract would be reviewed. It is
appropriate to compensate the parties for their out of pocket
expenses but not for profits they have not earned. That is our
position and we will do whatever we can in the future.
The hon. member can stay tuned for our decision in the future
and he will find we will be taking further steps to protect the
Canadian taxpayer, whom he from time to time seems to have some
concern for.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have here is a huge infrastructure project of vital
importance to Ontario and to Canada knocked completely off the
rails by political interference.
In the Airbus case we have the Liberals trying to use the justice
department to go after a political opponent. In this case we have the
Liberals trying to deny both their friends and their political
opponents access to the courts. This is political corruption of the
sleaziest kind, and Canadians want resignations-
The Speaker: Although no particular member was named, I find
the words ``political corruption'' to be very strong. I wonder if the
hon. leader of the Reform Party would consider withdrawing the
words ``political corruption''. Following the withdrawal would he
put his question directly.
(1430)
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the words but we
continue to worry about why the words offend the House but what
they represent do not.
The Speaker: My colleague, a simple withdrawal. Would the
hon. member please just make the withdrawal of the words?
Mr. Manning: I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker.
Where are the resignations, not the excuses, that will convince
Canadians that political interference in infrastructure development,
in purchasing and in due process will stop and stop now?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the attempts to unify the right are reaching new lows.
What groups should he be asking for resignations from, those
attempting to protect taxpayers' interests or those that would assist
the lobbyists and the developers get unearned income?
I suggest the hon. member from Calgary read the May 15
Hansard of the other place, read the changes that were made to the
bill, read the statements made by the chief witness of the
Conservative Party in that place, Professor Monahan, where we
met all the objections with the exception of the issue of lobbyist
fees and unearned profit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Earlier this week, the minister tried to convince the House that
decisions by Atomic Energy of Canada did not involve her. It did
not prevent her from claiming that this crown corporation would
provide Quebec with $100 million in economic benefits with each
sale of a CANDU-6, a figure strongly contested by those
responsible for marketing this equipment.
Will the minister acknowledge that, if Atomic Energy of Canada
moves from Montreal to Toronto, the businesses she listed the day
before yesterday are very likely to transfer part of their operations
to Toronto as well to be close to the source of their contracts? Will
she recognize this?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify to the hon. member that I did not say I
was not interested in AECL and the restructuring that it is forced to
go through like every other company, be it a crown corporation or a
private corporation in this country.
4177
What I said was that the government has an arm's length
relationship with crown corporations such as AECL and we do not
involve ourselves in the day to day running or management of
AECL.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is sweet in her confusion, but my
supplementary is as follows.
Is the minister aware that Canatom, which she put at the top of
the list of companies benefiting from AECL contracts in Quebec,
did not get the contract to build the CANDU-6s that will be sold to
China. It was in fact the American firm Bechtel that got this
lucrative contract. Is she aware and is she asleep?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Let me explain to the hon. member that the CANDU reactor
business in foreign markets is a highly competitive one.
AECL puts together a consortium on the basis of partners who
provide the most competitive bids in the circumstances. Canatom,
like any other company in this country, has the right to bid, to
participate. Canatom has a long and lengthy history in the nuclear
business in this country and I am sure it will receive much work in
the future.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
Liberals had kept their mitts out of the Pearson airport deal from
the beginning it would have cost Canadians absolutely zero. The
Prime Minister has stuffed the Senate with-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stuffed the Senate
with 16 of the best Liberal yes men in the country and he still could
not get Bill C-28 through the Senate. It is dead.
When will the government get the hint and realize this bill was
flawed from the beginning? What part of dead does it not
understand?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a party that managed to come dead last in a byelection
should understand the word dead, dead in the water, dead last.
As I have answered four times already, we are exploring our
options because we believe the Canadian taxpayer should be
protected from a major payout to the tune of $600 million of plain,
unearned profit on the punitive Pearson deal.
To answer the other part of her question, we have arranged with
another group for a not for profit management of the airport in local
hands. I can assure her we are currently spending $250 million to
bring Pearson up to where it should be, the number one gateway for
North America, for the whole central heartland of the continent.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that
deal had gone ahead that whole process would have been finished
by now and we would have had a class act airport, not simply
talking about the possibility of it now.
The minister talks about due process of law. I might remind you,
Mr. Speaker, he used the due process of law some time ago to sue
his own government, for heaven's sake. What credibility is that?
Tory patronage may have been replaced by Liberal politics but
Canadian taxpayers are still paying the price and that is what they
are angry about.
Instead of worrying about covering their own political assets,
when will the Liberals come up with a plan that will benefit
taxpayers, not Liberals, not Tories, but Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is extraordinary. We have explained how we are
trying through various measures to protect Canadian taxpayers
from $600 million of unearned profit. These are the people who are
not protecting Canadian taxpayers, yet the member has the
audacity to stand up and suggest we are not protecting Canadian
taxpayers.
It is about time they discovered who the Canadian taxpayers are.
They are not just a small group of developers and Conservative
members of the other place and lobbyists. They are more than that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Last year, the industry department cut the budget of CITI, the
Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, located in Laval,
from $13 to $9 million. Now there are rumours that the government
is getting ready to close down this research centre in the Montreal
area by 1998, by reducing CITI's forecast budget for 1996-97 from
$9 to $3 million.
4178
Can the minister confirm our information to the effect that his
department is getting ready to shut down CITI, thus eliminating
over 70 high tech jobs, once again, in the Montreal area?
(1440)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as announced in the February 1995 budget, the first
program review concluded that CITI's activities were not essential
to the government's mandate and should be gradually excluded
from it by April 1, 1998.
After looking at the options that would best serve the interests of
employees and of taxpayers, I asked my officials to try to privatize
CITI. Following a transparent public process, MicroCell submitted
a duly completed proposal to us last April 29.
We responded with a counteroffer, and are now awaiting
MicroCell's reply. We have informed the staff at CITI of the
government's position in this matter.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is the closure of Tokamak in Varennes, the possible
move of Atomic Energy of Canada from Montreal to Toronto, the
awarding of CANDU-6 construction contracts to Americans, and
now the pull-out from CITI.
Does the Minister of Industry admit that his government has but
one objective: to systematically reduce its investments in the
greater Montreal area?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Laval Centre should be embarrassed to
ask such a question. Is she not ready to admit that we have a
number of federal laboratories in Quebec, including the Food
Research and Development Centre in Saint-Hyacinthe, the animal
health and food safety laboratory in Saint-Hyacinthe, the research
station in Lennoxville, the research station in
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the space agency in Saint-Hubert, the
earth resources branch, the systems provided in Hull, the
environment service-
An hon. member: They often forget.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport seems confused. He keeps
referring to the Tories. There are more Liberals involved in this
than Tories.
In two secret government documents, senior bureaucrats warned
the government at the start of the Pearson process in 1993 that the
contract was a better deal than trying to do it themselves and that
cancelling the contract could leave the government and
subsequently the taxpayers of Canada on the hook for up to $2
billion.
My question is simple and it is directed to the Minister of
Transport. Why did the government not listen to its own advisors?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought perhaps the hon. Reform Party critic would have
the decency to simply sit quiet and let the others in his party speak.
The reason I say that is that last night a group of Mulroney
appointed senators, unelected people, voted in favour of granting
hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned, undeserved profits to
unaccountable developers in an unacceptable deal.
The member in today's Vancouver Sun is quoted as saying:
``This defeat is a victory for all Canadians''. This is a possible $600
million liability to the Canadian taxpayers and the Reform Party
critic has the unmitigated gall to get up and tell us that this is some
sort of victory for the Canadian taxpayers.
It is time Reform members began to understand who taxpayers
are. It is time for them to understand that they will never get
themselves re-elected on the basis of Mulroney appointed-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke.
(1445 )
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook for $600 million
because of Bill C-28. They are on the hook because of the bungling
of the minister.
The minister talks about the Tories and the Senate. It was a
Liberal who cast the final ballot which shut down this bill.
Those same government documents provided all the figures
backed up by independent experts to show that the crown
construction option would have cost the taxpayers more than
letting the Pearson contract proceed, even without the cost of the
lawsuit added in.
4179
My question is again directed to the Minister of Transport. If
he was interested in saving the taxpayers money, why did his
government not try to renegotiate or restructure the contract
instead of ignoring the advice of his own experts and subsequently
setting the taxpayers and this government up for a $600 million
suit?
Mr. Abbott: Remember, sparrows fly.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member will cast his mind back to the period prior
to the election of this government, he will recollect that in the
dying days of the previous government, the Mulroney-Campbell
regime, a deal was signed against all conventions of this House and
the parliamentary system. It was a major contract which the
opposition party at the time, now the government, claimed it would
re-examine if it were elected and if it was found to be not in the
public interest it would indeed get rid of it. That is precisely what
has been done.
Not only do Reformers not understand who their friends should
be, they do not understand the workings of a democratic system
where the people elected by the public of Canada have the right to
determine how taxpayers' money will be spent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Up until now, the federal government had always recognized the
predominant role of the Montreal region as a major site for
research and development in Canada. The Picard report and
subsequent studies have always highlighted the importance of
research and development for Montreal's future. Furthermore,
during the last election campaign, the Minister of Finance
reiterated, in his action plan for Montreal, the federal government's
commitment to continue supporting these activities.
After making this election promise, how can the Minister of
Finance justify his inaction in the face of the federal government's
systematic withdrawal from research and development activities in
the Montreal region, in particular the Varennes Tokamak, the
Atomic Energy offices, and now the Centre for Information
Technologies Innovation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have enough time to list all the federal
government's substantial investments, which are very important
for the future of Quebec, and for the future of research and
development throughout Canada.
Today, another Canadian astronaut working for the Canadian
Space Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, was launched into space.
Last month, a Canadian astronaut from Quebec, Marc Garneau,
who also works for the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert,
Quebec, was launched into space for the second time. We continue
to invest in federal laboratories in Quebec, in the area of
biotechnology in particular.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these
investments are not presents from the federal government, but what
we are owed in return for the taxes we pay to the federal
government.
In his June 1992 action plan, the finance minister promised that
in the greater Montreal region, a Liberal government would
maximize the benefits from its national research and development
program.
Does the minister admit that these promises were nothing but a
smoke screen, as the federal government is systematically
withdrawing from R and D investments in the Montreal region,
with the minister's tacit approval? Where are the members from
the Montreal region in this government?
(1450)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
opposition is giving us today a great opportunity to show how the
federal government, the Canadian government, is omnipresent in
Montreal's development. In fact, our government is the most
actively involved of all levels of government.
We are involved in cultural matters, in pharmaceuticals, in
aeronautics, in biotechnology, in environmental matters. My
colleague, the Minister of Industry, has announced a technological
partnership that will produce outstanding benefits.
Since the beginning of the year, and again recently, we have
made major announcements in the Montreal region. Consider, for
example, the millions of dollars invested in Delisle Foods and
Galderma and the $712,000 invested in the Tristan and Iseut textile
company. Consider-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has made great
strides in helping to improve the Atlantic economy. In this time of
major adjustment there is still an important role for ACOA, but a
4180
Senate banking committee has suggested that ACOA be merged
with other agencies.
Will the minister confirm the government's commitment to a
strong and independent ACOA? Yes or no?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate banking committee provided the government
with a number of recommendations with respect to the functioning
of the government's banks as well as the regional development
agencies. I will be responding very fully to that report on behalf of
the government in the Senate committee in the coming weeks.
I would like to say to the hon. member as clearly as possible that
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the other regional
development agencies continue to play an important role in this
government's plan to assist small and medium size enterprises in
the regions of the country to acquire the capital and the technology
they need to build jobs and growth for people in their regions.
It is not my intention nor my plan in any way to collapse the
agencies into Industry Canada or into the banks, but rather to use
them as real economic tools to build jobs and growth for Canada.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
I think it is fair to say that last night was a national
embarrassment when the political hacks, flacks and bagmen in the
Senate, including a Liberal senator, decided to call upon Canadian
taxpayers to cough up about 600 million bucks to hand out to a
bunch of land developers in Toronto.
Would the minister not agree that if we ever needed any evidence
to suggest that the Senate should be abolished we now have it?
Why does he not do just that?
The Speaker: I am not sure that is an administrative
responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but if he would like to
answer the question I will give him permission to do so.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my capacity as acting Prime Minister, I can say that the
element I liked of the question was the part in the preamble where
the member criticized the decision of the Senate on Bill C-28.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Pearson
airport is a vital resource of the Ontario economy. Millions of
business travellers depend on efficient airport service to give them
an advantage in the global marketplace.
Under this government for two and one-half years the
infrastructure at Pearson has continued to deteriorate. So much for
infrastructure programs. For the sake of business confidence, we
need to clear the air.
(1455)
Will the Minister of Transport tell this House if he has a plan for
the long, overdue redevelopment of Pearson?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered that question in response to an
earlier question.
We regard Pearson airport as an airport of tremendous potential
not just for southern Ontario but for the entire heartland of North
America. Just as Vancouver is becoming the gateway airport for the
Asia-Pacific, we want to have Pearson as the gateway for all
Atlantic flights going into central North America. That is our
objective.
To that end, three weeks ago we signed over letters of intent with
a local airport authority, excellent people in the Toronto area who
will be running the airport when we deal with the various items that
have to be organized. We expect a final signing in January.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport knows the redevelopment of Pearson will
cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now that the government has
put taxpayers at risk for hundreds of millions of dollars in
compensation, where will the minister get the same amount of
money for construction?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned, we have undertaken a number of
improvements in the Toronto Airport Authority which in total
come to about $250 million despite the fact that we are handing it
over to that local authority.
I am interested in the question. Finally comes from Reformers an
admission that oh yes, the government and the public are going to
be stuck for $600 million. That has been behind their questions to
this date. Now they admit they know full well what the result was
of that decision last night.
4181
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In its annual report released today in Paris, the Observatoire
international des prisons reports numerous cases of abuse in the
area of immigration.
Does the minister not realize that by turning a blind eye as she
does on a whole host of abuse cases, she has actually started
undermining the reputation Canada enjoys around the world? Will
she finally call for an inquiry into abuse cases instead of into
processes?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, did I hear correctly? Was the Canadian immigration
system described as abusive? I cannot believe my ears.
Reports aside, do the members of the Bloc Quebecois not live in
Canada? Do they not realize that the immigration system we have
here is open, generous, welcoming, the most open in the world in
fact? I will never stand for such statements coming from the Bloc.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence today is deflecting questions regarding General
Boyle because he says the open public inquiry will get to the
bottom of the matter. I would like to point out that this is a daily
open public inquiry for the Canadian public. The Canadian public
would appreciate a straight answer from that side of the House.
In the past, the Prime Minister has expressed his confidence in
the chief of defence staff. Given the proof that we have seen today
that the CDS disobeyed directives from the Privy Council Office
and the Minister of National Defence's office, will the Prime
Minister now restore confidence in the military and fire the
Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has covered this issue a number of times.
I will not comment on any evidence presented to the
commission. The commission was established to examine all
aspects of the Somalia inquiry. The inquiry is the proper forum for
this kind of evidence and debate, not the floor of the House of
Commons. Let the commission do its job.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
The OECD has expressed its concern that deficit and debt
reduction could have a negative impact on real economic growth in
Canada. What assurance can the minister give that the prosperity of
Canadians will not be negatively impacted by these actions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the OECD said in its report that Canada would have in 1997 not
only the strongest growth of all of the G-7 countries but more than
likely the strongest growth of all the OECD countries.
The OECD went on to congratulate the federal government for
its activities in cleaning up the balance sheet and in deficit
reduction and essentially said that low inflation, high productivity,
the reduction in the current account deficit and the huge increase in
exports, some of which were announced today, are all leading to a
very strong economy.
In effect, the OECD said that the Canadian people are really
doing a job and the rest of the world is starting to take notice.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention the
presence in the gallery of, if I might use the term, a fledgling
democracy, and one that should have our support.
We have with us a parliamentary delegation from the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have a point of order and I am also going to
render a decision today on a point of privilege, but we will go
directly to the vote that has been asked for. I will hear that point of
order and I will give a decision to the member for Lethbridge
before this day is out.
>
4182
4182
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to an
amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion to adopt the Senate
amendment on Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization
of civil air aviation.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 118)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Young-131
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-33
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bethel
Brien
Caccia
Caron
Chan
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Deshaies
Fewchuk
Fillion
Gaffney
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Mercier
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1510 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in.)
The Speaker: Colleagues, may I have your attention for one
minute. I do not want to quote Yogi Berra in the House, it is not
over until it is over, but if today is the last day that we are going to
be sitting in this part of the session, as is the custom, I, as your
Speaker, will be hosting a very small reception to just say so long
for the summer.
4183
I want to thank you very much for this part of the session. I
wish you all a very pleasant and a safe summer. I look forward
to welcoming all of you back on 16 septembre à l'automne.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour of tabling a
notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act
and related acts. I ask that an order of the day be designated for
consideration of the motion.
[English]
The Speaker: I have a point of order which I will get to, but I
have a point of privilege which takes precedence over the point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you are in the chair, along with the three other
people who chair this House of Commons, and I would like to
extend to you and to the others in the chair and at the table a big
thank you on behalf of this House for your patience, the esteem in
which all of you are held and the fairness in handling this
boisterous crowd out here on the floor of the House of Commons. It
is at a time like this that I think we should recognize good habits
and practices in the House. We thank you and the others for your
fairness in handling all situations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: In the name of my fellow Speakers, I accept all
accolades.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I think he is just trying to get extra sandwiches at your
reception.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to comments made in
this Chamber on Tuesday, June 18, 1996. The comments were
recorded in Hansard on page 4031. The House leader for the
separatist Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie,
then said:
-for having misled the House by making false accusations that called into
question the honesty and integrity of the member for Charlesbourg.
(1515 )
The member then went on to demand an apology from me for
having brought forth my point of privilege.
It is my understanding that it is unparliamentary language for a
member to suggest that another member has misled the House.
This morning Mr. Speaker ruled out of order another such
accusation from the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has impugned my
motives and this is reflected in the official record of the
proceedings of the Chamber.
I was not present in the House when these unparliamentary
words were uttered. This is the first opportunity I have had to
respond to bring the matter to your attention.
I refuse to apologize for defending the interests of the country
against the people whose sole purpose for being in Ottawa is to
desecrate and destroy what Canadians hold so dearly.
For his unparliamentary language, I believe the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie should be required to withdraw his remarks
and apologize for his accusations.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I used the word ``intentionally'' in reference to my hon.
colleague. Intentionally means consciously. Listening to him in the
past few days, I recognize that this was a bad choice of words. I
should not have used a word meaning consciously to refer to him. I
withdraw the word. I have to admit that he is not conscious.
[English]
The Speaker: I think that would close the matter. There has been
a withdrawal. That is it.
* * *
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question or
privilege raised on Tuesday afternoon by the hon. member for
Lethbridge concerning the text of Motion No. 1 standing on the
Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East for their participation in the discussion.
For the benefit of all hon. members, I remind the House the
motion in question contains a number of charges against the hon.
4184
member for Lethbridge relating to actions in which he participated
at the beginning of this year.
Having rendered my ruling on Tuesday on the procedural
acceptability of this motion's being dealt with under Private
Members' Business, I will now address the matter of what the hon.
member contends is a breach of his rights.
The member submitted that having this motion standing
unresolved on the Order Paper has and will continue to seriously
affect his reputation and his ability to function as a member.
Further, the member argued that given my earlier ruling and that he
felt he could seek no other remedy for the situation, he had no
option but to bring this matter before the House as a question of
privilege.
[Translation]
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by my predecessors that
parliamentary privilege is narrowly defined as being limited to
matters which affect members in the discharge of their
parliamentary duties.
For a breach of privilege to occur, a member must sufficiently
demonstrate that something has obstructed or interfered with his or
her ability to discharge duties as a member of the House.
In ruling on a question of privilege, I, as Speaker, have to decide
whether or not at first glance there has been a breach of privilege.
In this instance, I must determine whether or not the motion
sitting on the Order Paper violates the member's privileges by, in
some way, impeding him from carrying out his duties.
[English]
In the past motions regarding the conduct of members have been
placed on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business and
have been allowed to remain there, in some cases for the remainder
of a session, without ever being brought to a decision by the House.
(1520 )
I refer members to Motion No. 132, placed on notice on May 5,
1986, Motion No. 459, placed on notice on May 24, 1989, and
Motion No. 167, placed on notice on February 28, 1996. This last
motion died on the Order Paper in the first session of this
Parliament but, having been resubmitted under Private Members'
Business in this session, was subsequently drawn and debated as a
non-votable item of Private Members' Business on March 22,
1996. It was then dropped from the Order Paper without a decision
of the House.
The motion now in question, Motion No. 1, was placed on notice
on February 27, 1996. The hon. member for Lethbridge
acknowledged he hesitated to bring this matter before the House
until it had at least reached the point of debate.
While I recognize the hon. member's concern that in the near
future he will not be able to respond to the charges made against
him, I do not find the member has demonstrated his abilities to
function as a member have in any way been affected or impeded
over the course of the months that this motion has been sitting on
the Order Paper. As such, I cannot find that there has been a prima
facie breach of privilege.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Lethbridge sought guidance on how he
might be able to address his grievance were I to find this matter not
to be a prima facie breach of privilege. In the case before us, while
the House will not have to take a decision on the motion in
question, the hon. member will have the opportunity to respond to
the motion when it is brought up for debate in the House.
In addition, let me reiterate what I said Tuesday: the rules of the
House now in place allow for the proceedings on this motion to go
forward. Should the House choose to re-examine these rules, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is
empowered to undertake such an examination on its own initiative.
Might I therefore suggest that the hon. member consider
pursuing this matter with the committee.
[English]
Again, I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this
discussion.
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. earlier today I
did seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate at all stages
Bill C-45. I thought I would seek this one last opportunity before
we close to ask if the House would give unanimous consent to deal
with all stages of Bill C-45 this afternoon.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would probably find
unanimous consent to now move to private members' hour.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4184
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
debate is particularly timely considering what occurred last night.
Many of the Liberals are beginning to wonder if sparrows might
not need airports.
4185
(1525)
Taking the look at the situation we have suddenly discovered the
other place does have effect. It is effective. It can do things. In our
parliamentary system where we have a government like the current
government which attempts to run roughshod all over the
opposition parties and the concerns of many Canadians, it is good
to have a House of sober second thought that truly is effective. We
have seen that the Senate can be effective.
This motion, which calls for the abolition of the Senate, period,
end of statement, is unacceptable. That is why the member for
Vegreville moved the Reform amendment that after the word
Senate, the words ``in its present form'' be added.
It has been a longstanding position of the Reform Party that we
require an effective Senate. We require a Senate that can take a look
at bogus bills like Bill C-28.
Bill C-28 was to come back before the House today for the fourth
time, after passing through the other place, but even after all this
juggling the bill was still flawed. There were a number of
amendments to Bill C-28 which were passed by the Liberal
majority in the other place in an attempt to water down some of the
more odious aspects of the bill, but they still did not get it right, as
was shown by virtue of the fact that Liberal Senate Sparrow
decided he would do the right thing and join the other people in the
other place to vote the bill down.
Bill C-28 attempted to retroactively cancel a contract. It went
directly into the teeth of the privileges and the rights we have as
Canadians. Whether we are individuals or corporations, it makes
no difference, we should have the right to have access to a court of
law. What the Liberal government was attempting to do was shut
down due process in Canada.
We recognize there was a tremendous amount of money
involved in this process. Because of the Prime Minister's promise
during the 1993 election, he has placed the people of Canada
directly in the way of at least a $600 million loss. This is
unconscionable on the part of the Prime Minister. It was only the
Liberals in the other place, with the exception of Senator Sparrow,
who would put this through. They would not use their conscience.
They would follow the direction of the former minister of
transport.
There is a process in Canada which we all understand. There is a
process within the House of Commons. The legislation from the
House of Commons, when passed, goes to the Senate. The Senate
should be effective, and it has been shown to be effective. The other
place is to be there as a place of sober second thought and also to
represent the regions.
We recognize there is some tremendous difficulty within the
Senate at this moment. I speak as someone in business. The
predecessors to this Liberal government, yet another Liberal
government, brought us the great and wonderful national energy
plan.
We had in western Canada, based out of Calgary, our very own
made in Canada depression. It was made right here in Ottawa with
bogus thinking, with centrist thinking that Liberals consistently
possess. Sixty-five billion dollars was sucked out of western
Canada and brought back to Ontario.
That would never have happened had there been an elected
Senate. It is for that reason that we have put forth the amendment
that yes, the Senate should be abolished, but in its present form. In
other words, there is a place, there is a time, there is a function for
the Senate and we must see that it remains. However, the problem
is it is not elected and is totally unaccountable.
(1530 )
The Reform Party has been attempting to bring some semblance
of order, some accountability to the Senate, in spite of the fact that
the Prime Minister has said he will appoint the Senators he wants,
who will represent his party and just on and on. He is the past
master at manipulating and controlling the parliamentary system.
In addition, the Liberals will not let us make the Senate
accountable for dollars and cents. They will not let members of the
House of Commons, who are the duly elected representatives of the
people of Canada, hold the Senate accountable for the $40 million
plus that they are currently spending.
From the executive summary of the auditor general:
We found that the Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated clear
responsibility to management, nor has it made clear for what to hold
management accountable. We recommend the Senate should more clearly
define the mandate of the committee on internal economy and subcommittees,
and establish clear accountability relationships with its senior staff.
This is the most important part.
The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or
human resource management performance and does not possess sufficient
information to enable it to do so systematically.
It is the Liberal Party of Canada that wants to make sure that the
Senators, its friends in the other place, are not going to be
accountable to this place. Should we throw out the Senate? No,
because as we have seen when there has been an odious bill such as
Bill C-28, the other place from time to time will actually get it
right.
We saw what the Progressive Conservatives did when they were
being thwarted in bringing in the GST, the gouge and screw tax.
Former Prime Minister Mulroney ended up padding the Senate so
that he could manage to get the GST through the House of
Commons. The Senate just broke up into bedlam with kazoos and
all sorts of other exciting things.
4186
The way the Senate is currently conducting itself, and
occasionally showing itself to be effective, should give the people
of Canada at least a glimmer of insight to how the parliamentary
system in Canada should work. Why will it not work that way?
Because the Prime Minister has made no less than 16
appointments to the Senate, every one of them patronage
appointments. In some cases, the people who have been appointed
have directly and clearly admitted that they were appointed as a
result of patronage.
The second to last person appointed from the province of Alberta
clearly stated: ``I recognize that I am being appointed to the Senate
as a result of the longstanding service that I have done for the
Liberal Party''. The Prime Minister was very happy to have him
there.
The last person who was appointed to the Senate admitted that
she should have been elected, to which I say that if she would do
the honourable thing she would resign.
The Liberals are noted for half measures. I suggest to them that
this might just fit. If Liberal members, in good conscience, were to
vote in favour of this motion, as amended by the Reform Party, at
least we could start along the process of seeing some changes
happen to the other place because truly they must happen. The
Reform Party stands for a Triple E Senate, elected, effective and
equal.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
citizen of Quebec, as a representative of a Quebec riding, and as a
member of the Bloc Quebecois, I have absolutely no hesitation
about taking part in the debate today in support of the motion by
my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, calling for the abolition of the
Senate.
The reason I have no hesitation is because I know that a large
majority of Quebecers no longer want the Senate, and have not
wanted it for some time now. We know that during the period
surrounding the Charlottetown negotiations the consensus was
generally in favour of abolishing the Senate.
(1535)
This consensus had been reached much earlier, however, in
1980, the year of the referendum. At that time, the key federalist
players, as represented by Claude Ryan in his beige paper, were
calling for the abolition of the Upper House. So the nasty
separatists were not the only ones to have had this idea.
A little background is necessary. I would like to remind you of a
speech given in this House over two years ago by my colleague, the
member for Richelieu, in which he gave a very interesting history
of the institution known as the Senate. It is worth repeating briefly.
My colleague reminded members that the other House was a
vestige of colonialism, that it had been created to protect rich
landowners from the more populist sentiments of elected
representatives. As proof of this, he mentioned the $15,000 one
was required to have. Do we realize how large an amount this was
in those days? Of course, only the rich had that much money. They
protected the interests of their rich fellow citizens, a practice that
has by no means been suspended, far from it.
Of course, the role of the Senate has evolved. However, as with
many other institutions, theory and practice are often poles apart.
Rich landowners were replaced by faithful political servants.
Abuses of all sorts have been abundantly recorded and publicized.
There is no need to go over them all again. The work of members
has more to do with the political agenda of the major parties than
with pure research. The Senate has become the means the
government uses to avoid contradicting itself publicly, to protect its
reputation when it finds it has made a mistake. It has become a
discreet but oh, so faithful, tool for the elected members of the
major parties.
A very good example of this is the process used for the bill on
electoral boundaries readjustment. That time, the process was so
flagrant that several members condemned it here in this House. As
recently as yesterday, we were given proof of how undemocratic
the very existence of the Senate is. All the newspapers reported that
the Senate had refused to adopt the bill on Pearson airport. There
can be no better example of the arrogance and power of the Senate.
How can it be acceptable that people who are appointed, not
elected, not answerable to the public, can decide on their own
initiative that a bill which has been seriously examined and debated
for a number of hours in the House of Commons can be shoved
aside just like that?
Even if I were opposed to the bill, I would still be disgusted to
see that these people appointed for political services rendered, to
either the Liberals or the Conservatives, and others who have no
obligations to anyone, could take it upon themselves to decide the
future of the biggest airport in Canada?
How do the members of the party in power, the members of the
same party which made sure it had a majority in the Senate, feel
today, now that they know that even the people they appointed to
carry their colours in the other place have contributed to the
undoing of a bill the vast majority of them in this House were in
favour of?
How do they feel knowing that, instead of proposing
amendments, the other House simply rejected the bill? That is not
very flattering for the Liberal members, is it Mr. Speaker? This is
the
4187
best example of the absurdity of the Senate and the best reason for
calling for its immediate abolition.
Despite their wishes Quebecers are paying the cost of an
institution they no longer want. The cost is huge. In 1995-96, the
budget is over $42 million. What about the unemployed whose
benefits have been cut so the federal government can save money
on their backs? What about women who are single parents living at
the edge of poverty facing the possibility of having their welfare
cut, because the provinces' money is being cut by the federal
government?
(1540)
What about young men and women looking for a first job and
being hit with the repercussions of a lack of job creation policy.
What about old people, whose pensions may well be cut. Imagine
the frustration of all these people, who know that huge amounts of
money are being spent each year to provide a sumptuous lifestyle
for an institution that no longer fulfils its primary purpose and for
which they have long had no use.
And then we wonder why Canadians opt out? Why they have
become so bitter toward their politicians? How can people not see
that Canadians feel they are not being listened to? Canadians are
right. That is why, in supporting the motion by my colleague
calling for the abolition of the Senate, I want to have heard the
voice of those not listened to.
Power must be given back to those it belongs to-the
voters-who, as my colleague for Kamouraska said, see the Senate
as nothing more than the symbol of Parliament's inefficiency and
ineffectiveness. I know the Liberal government has no intention of
considering the abolition of the Senate, because we have been told
there are other priorities.
It should be one of the government's priorities if we are to end
duplication. With an elected House, I see no need to pay for another
House to do the same work. We were elected and we are
accountable to the people. We must be accountable, whereas the
other House can intercept a bill without being accountable to the
public. This is why I strongly support the motion by my colleague
from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I wish to remind the
hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that, as members
of Parliament, we have a responsibility to work for the common
good of our country. We have a responsibility to adequately
represent the public and to serve its interests as best as we can.
The interests of Canadians have to do with economic prosperity,
jobs, equality, justice, safety within their community and national
reconciliation. The issue of whether or not the Senate should be
abolished is not a priority for them right now.
The government listens to Canadians. Its response is clearly
reflected in the measures announced in the throne speech and in the
budget. These measures seek to improve relations between
governments and to meet the concerns of Canadians. According to
a Gallup poll, unemployment has been at the top of the list of
concerns for Canadians, including Quebecers, for 10 years already.
This is the issue they want their government to tackle.
During the first half of its mandate, our government took
measures to create conditions promoting sustained economic
growth and job creation. It launched a major administrative reform,
reduced the deficit and took initiatives regarding trade and
international investments.
However, these achievements do not tell the whole story. They
do not tell that over half a million jobs were created in the
Canadian economy since we took office, that the unemployment
rate went down 2 percentage points and is now under the 10 per
cent mark for the first time in five years. Our government also
undertook to put public finances on a healthy footing.
As you know, since its election, our government has followed a
pragmatic approach regarding the renewal of the federation. It
remains focused, as always, on issues of interest for Canadians,
namely the economy, jobs and social programs.
However, it is hard to believe this is the case for the official
opposition. Instead of making a constructive contribution to help
Quebecers join their fellow Canadians from the other provinces,
the Bloc Quebecois disregards Quebecers' true interests.
(1545)
It is clearly stated in both the speech from the throne and the
budget that our focus will be on preparing Canada to meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
In fact, the first ministers' conference that will start in just a few
hours fits in with our commitments, as a step toward renewing the
federation.
The first ministers will be discussing how governments could
better work at creating jobs in Canada, preserving our social safety
net and developing a joint program of changes aimed at renewing
our federation. Those are the issues that concern the people of
Canada. Those are this government's priorities. These should also
be the official opposition's priorities, because what do Canadians
from all provinces want if not for their governments to work in
co-operation to bring in changes that will have a direct and positive
impact.
First of all, we have promised to limit the federal government's
spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The
government will no longer use its spending power to develop new
shared-cost programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is the
first time in our history that the federal government offers to limit
its own powers outside a formal constitutional negotiations setting.
This is a milestone in the evolution of federalism. We believe that it
4188
is through this spirit of co-operation with and respect for the
provinces that we will promote Canadian unity.
At the social level, the government promised to ensure that
Canadians can continue to rely on a secure and sustainable social
safety net. Again, we will work in co-operation with the provinces
to preserve the kind of social programs Canada is famous for. That
is what our government's commitment to social solidarity is all
about.
The government also made a commitment to clarify, in
co-operation with the provinces, the respective responsibilities of
the various levels of government. We are withdrawing from areas
for which responsibility lies more appropriately with the provinces,
the municipalities or other stakeholders, areas like occupational
training, certain sectors of transportation, forestry, mining and
recreation.
Three weeks ago, our government announced it was completely
withdrawing from the area of manpower training. This is a fine
example of allowing the provinces to adapt programs to their
specific needs. This is an important step toward a federalism that
better meets the needs and aspirations of Canadians.
At the economic level, the government will continue to work in
co-operation with the provinces to reduce barriers to domestic
trade and manpower mobility.
This is how our government is renewing the Canadian
federation: by proposing constructive and practical solutions to the
issues concerning Canadians, moving step by step in a climate of
dialogue and respect.
I urge my colleagues in the official opposition to co-operate with
our government in helping Canada, and especially Quebec, move
forward.
Ever since I started my speech, Bloc members have been asking
me: What does this have to do with the motion before us? I would
like to quote from an editorial by Pierre Gravel that appeared in the
June 5 edition of La Presse. This editorial, headlined ``Temps
perdu'', ends like this:
-the harshest critics of the Senate finally realized that attacking this institution
is totally futile under the current Constitution, which requires unanimous
approval for any change at that level, something that is not going to happen
tomorrow in Canada. Any member who tries to revive this debate must have
nothing better to do. But the most troubling in all this is that his leader is letting
him go ahead.
That is why I chose to use my time to show Canadians that we
have a lot of work to do and that abolishing the Senate would not
help us in any way to renew federalism. What Canadians really
care about is employment and social security.
(1550 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to say a few words about abolishing or
not abolishing the Senate and the value of a Senate.
I feel that the original motion which was to abolish the Senate is
not good enough and we could not support it. However, I feel that
by adding the amendment to the motion, in its present form,
definitely has some merit. After having abolished the Senate in its
present form, we replace the Senate with a representative body that
is equal across the land from province to province, that is effective
and that is elected.
Imagine a Senate where the people of Canada get to vote for its
members. Imagine a Senate where there are three representatives
from each province, or the territories when they get in, and they are
elected by the people. Imagine a Senate that is so equal that it could
now concentrate on its effectiveness in representing the regions of
the country. Imagine a Senate which is allowed to protect the
interests of the Atlantic provinces. Imagine a Senate that is allowed
to protect the west. Imagine a Senate that is allowed to protect
Quebec. Imagine a Senate that is allowed to effectively represent
the province of Ontario.
Imagine if we elected senators who were effective and equal
across the land, a Senate that could have some powers and truly be
a chamber of sober second thought, that could send back to this
House legislation which is ineffective or distorts the balance across
the country or which unduly or unfairly, because it perhaps was
overlooked by the House of Commons, hurts one region of the
country too much while maybe helping another region of the
country.
We are a country with five or six distinctive and different
regions. We have a House of Commons which is elected on the
basis of representation by population. Sometimes we miss, distort
and hurt certain parts of the country because of that. Representation
by population is a sound and the basic fundamental of democracy.
It is necessary, important and must always be upheld.
However, there has to be a balance brought into rep by pop
through regional representation. The only effective way that can be
done is through the Senate. However, the Senate, in its present
form, that is appointed by a Prime Minister who appoints only his
political cronies and friends and then says ``your there to represent
my party'', like this Prime Minister has said, is not the purpose of a
Senate.
I am not questioning the quality of some of the people in the
Senate. I am questioning how they get there. I am questioning
whether their loyalties are to the party that is in power or to the
4189
region and communities they come from, where they have grown
up, made their living and have many friends. Would it not be far
more effective and reasonable to have senators representing the
areas they come from because they know those people and
understand them?
It would enable them to send bills back to this House if they
unduly affect the francophones outside of Quebec who are afraid of
being assimilated. Could not those three senators from Quebec
stand up and look at the Official Languages Act or an official
languages bill and say: ``Look, this bill is not good enough for
Quebec and this is why. We want to send this back until the House
recognizes why this is not good enough for Quebec.'' Would that
not have a better balance of power than we have right now?
Our system is weak. It is weak that we freely elect a dictator
every four years, somebody who, with his or her little cabinet, can
do at will whatever he or she wants to do. That is democracy at its
worse if it is abused. We have opposition members and
backbenchers to keep them in line. However, we can swing the
pendulum too far in one direction.
What we need is systemic change. Imagine a democratic system
where Canadians could finally have a system of government, which
we are close to having now, that would truly be effective, one
which would not only have the principles of representation by
population, which is fine the way we have it now as our electoral
system is good, but one that would contribute and add a Senate that
would be equal, effective and elected across the land so that we also
know that these people have some strength, some force and some
say.
(1555 )
What about effectiveness? What powers should senators have?
The House of Commons should be supreme. Representation by
population should be supreme. As a check or a control and a
chamber of sober second thought, just in case, however
inadvertently it may happen, something comes into the Senate
which the senators know is wrong for the people whom they also
represent, something that the masses of the House of Commons has
ignored or overlooked, they then look into a bill.
Hypothetically they say: ``On this bill, we say that this language
act is unfair to Quebec and therefore we need to protect the
francophones outside of Quebec a little better and this is how we
recommend you do it''. They make an amendment. They send it
back.
Let us say that the Senate holds free votes. If two-thirds of the
Senate says no a bill would come back here. We fix it. If the House
then says: ``No, we disagree'', it goes back again. Then both houses
will have listened to the debate and everyone understands everyone
else.
On money bills, however, the House of Commons should be
supreme. Senators would not have the right to deny the funds that
the federal government needs to spend, which it thinks on behalf of
Canadians is the way it wants it. The Senate could not affect money
bills or money bills would need a higher percentage of votes to
send them back in case the government is doing something that the
Senate feels is unfairly hurting one region.
On money bills the Senate should have no say or need a higher
percentage of votes to send them back. However, the budget is
another matter. Bills that affect an allocation of funds and on other
bills like gun control, Pearson airport, Official Languages Act or
anything like that, senators would have the right to improve them if
they need improvement. What would be wrong with that kind of
system?
Imagine a system where we had a second check or control and
that chamber of sober second thought said: ``This is a good bill.
This helps everybody across the country''. Can you imagine the
harmony, Mr. Speaker, and the unity and the national pride that we
would create with a system where both houses work together as a
team? I know, Mr. Speaker, your son knows a lot about teams and
teamwork. That is what we have to do in this country.
We are creating a system that is divisive. We are supporting and
defending a system that pits region against region. The funds that
we are trying to redistribute to help those people who need help are
not being spent in a way that gathers and earns respect. Why do we
not look at the system and change it?
Here is an opportunity for people who believe in democracy to
throw partisan politics aside and to think what is in the best
interests of all Canadians. I would suggest it is a system that works.
It is a system that Canadians could support. We need that. Even in
the House of Commons we can do some systemic changes here to
improve things. That is not the issue here today. It is the Senate.
We need to have an equal, effective and elected Senate, have the
best Constitution and have the best legal minds work together on a
parliamentary system that would complement this House of
Commons, not fight the House of Commons.
I am sick and tired of making fun of the Senate. I should not have
to make fun of the Senate. I do not want to make fun of the Senate.
However, I will as long as we have a Prime Minister who abuses,
misuses, misrepresents and openly, defiantly tells Canadians: ``I
will select whomever I want to select and he will represent my
party over there''. That is not what a senator is supposed to do.
I would be embarrassed to be the senator so named. I would want
to come from Alberta as a senator and say: ``I represent Alberta. I
am glad the Prime Minister appointed me but I am going to
represent Alberta, even if, like Senator Sparrow, I have to vote
against a Liberal bill''. That is effectiveness. If something is wrong
with a bill, send it back here and we will look at it to see what is
4190
wrong. Take this Pearson airport bill. It would be our job to fix it,
get it through, so it is in the best interest of all Canadians.
That is what democracy is all about. That is what we should be
working toward instead of this strict, biased, prejudicial,
narrow-minded, self-serving, democratic dictatorship that we elect
freely every four years. We pretend that it is working but it is not. I
challenge all of those in this House, the 295 members of
Parliament, to look at our democratic system and put their best
efforts, put their thoughts into how it can be improved.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to the motion of my colleague, the
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
History has shown us that, from the very beginning of the
Canadian federation, the need for the Senate has been constantly
questioned. At the time of union, as I was mentioning the other day,
the Fathers of Confederation could not agree on whether it should
be elected or appointed, because, since 1856, they had had an
elected legislative council.
Therefore, the united Canada which came into being in 1840 was
more advanced than the institutions we know today. We took a step
backward in 1867, with an appointed Senate with responsibility for
protecting the regions, minorities, and, although this was not
spelled out, the general public against the abuses and excesses that
might be committed from time to time by the House of Commons.
It was perhaps justifiable in 1867 to think that the House of
Commons might, in the heat of the moment, take measures
requiring some control by the Senate. This is no longer true today,
with the advent of universal suffrage. We must remember that
women in Canada did not have the vote until 1919-20. Limitations
on the right to vote were abolished and any Canadian citizen aged
18 and over is now entitled to vote.
Accordingly, the reasons set out in 1867 for having another
House no longer obtain. Almost all Canadians are agreed that the
Senate is no longer necessary, and that it should be reformed or
abolished, but almost everyone agrees that that will not happen.
I was listening to the speech by the member for Calgary Centre a
little earlier, in which he gave a perspective of the Senate of Canada
quite different from mine. Personally, as an elected representative
from Quebec, I am not interested in having a stronger Senate, an
elected Senate, in Ottawa. What would be the result? This Senate,
of course, would acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If the
24 senators from Quebec were elected by the public, it would
strengthen the central institution. It would be one more House to
reinforce the power of the federal government, to the detriment of
provincial governments, and it would take up a position somewhere
between the provincial first ministers and the Prime Minister of
Canada. It would be just one more obstacle, not to the Reform party
but to distribution, to the proper operation of the system.
Some time ago we reached the conclusion that the Senate was
not reformable, since everybody wants reform but nobody wants
the same reform. The Reform members want one that is elected,
equal and effective, suggesting six to ten senators per province,
regardless of population, in a Senate that would have the same
powers as the House of Commons and be elected by universal
suffrage.
Liberal members, or rather the Liberal Party, stated in the red
book that the Senate would merely be elected, so already there is a
divergence between the two. And what do we want? Basically, we
are here to promote Quebec sovereignty. We are therefore not
fighting to reinforce federal institutions, but to reform this
institution, theoretically, in a way which might be desirable. If
indeed we were here to reform federal institutions that might be
possible, but that is not what we are here for. As well, any
reinforcement of federal powers will take away from the powers of
the provinces, Quebec in particular.
Reform members have chosen to influence Ottawa by reforming
institutions. They said: ``If the provinces were properly represented
in an equal, elected and efficient Senate, that would be one way for
them to exercise more power''. We take a different approach,
knowing that we will never have a majority in this country, but that
we will have a majority in our own space, which is: ``Let us
withdraw from the Canadian federation''. It will probably be easier
for Quebec to withdraw from the Canadian federation than it will
be to reform the Senate.
So I have a hard time with the amendment by the member for
Vegreville, who proposes to abolish the Senate in its present form.
In principle, I could say yes, knowing nothing would come of it.
Earlier, the member for Vaudreuil said, getting back to the
relevance of the debate, in his last two sentences, that an editorial
had said the unanimity rule was required. It has not often been
raised in the context of amending the Constitution to permit the
abolition of the Senate.
(1605)
In my opinion, section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the
seven and fifty rule, would normally apply with, in my opinion, the
mandatory approval of Quebec, since sections 23 et sequentes of
the British North America Act of 1867 contain provisions on
4191
senators with respect to Quebec specifically. I think Quebec should
be one of the parties assenting to the abolition of the Senate.
However, speeches in election campaigns and here in the House
and perhaps the inability to do anything have prevented anyone
from taking the initiative. Fortunately, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has taken this initiative, which
will at least shed some light on things, following the latest events.
Yesterday, for example, the bill on the Pearson airport was defeated
by a House that is not accountable to anyone for its actions. Before
that, there was Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries. A bill of this
elected assembly which had been developed in committee for one
of the first times in the history of Canada's Parliament was
defeated by the Senate. It does tend to stop you in your tracks when
people who have not been elected come and tell you how to get
elected. Some things just do not work.
My colleague, the member for Beauce, said the other day that, in
his riding, three voters out of four favoured abolishing the Senate.
In my riding, the proportion is probably slightly higher.
In 1978, I was 30 years old and did not even have $4,000 worth
of belongings-had I, though, and it does not take long to
accumulate if you know you are headed for the Senate, you can get
a loan-but had Prime Minister Trudeau been in my riding and said
to me: ``My fine young man, you would be an asset to the Liberal
Party of Canada, would you be interested in being a senator in
Canada's Parliament?'', I might have said yes at the time. I would
have been here for 45 years, because the Prime Minister liked my
smile or enjoyed a brief conversation. There are no selection
criteria, other than pleasing the prince of the moment.
I prefer the more difficult, demanding and valid rule of going
before the supreme court of the electorate every four or five years
as we do. This is what makes you and me and the members of this
House, wherever they sit, responsible for our actions. This is what
we have in common.
It is not just because our name appears on the ballot every four or
five years, but it is generally because people reach us in the riding,
because we see them. The calls come in, the letters come in and we
are in constant contact with our electors, who judge us. However,
98 per cent if not 99 per cent of the time our electors are unable to
identify the senator representing them.
So when it comes time to vote, I will see whether I will support
the motion of the member for Vegreville, that is, the amendment.
As for the motion by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, I will certainly support it,
particularly because the hon. member is currently circulating a
petition addressed to the House of Commons in most ridings in
Quebec seeking the abolition of the Senate.
I would suggest that voters lucky enough to be represented by a
member of the Bloc Quebecois sign this petition. Those who are
not, whose member is from another party, should ask their member
or another one to have it sent to them. We would be happy to send
it. It will be no easy job abolishing the Senate, but we have always
said that the first step in such an undertaking is particularly
important.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish you a fine and restful summer.
You look tired; come back refreshed in the fall.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my
intervention.
I think the motion presupposes that the government, by a stroke
of a pen, would be able to abolish the other place. That speaks to
the ignorance of the Canadian Constitution.
There is no system of law making in any country that is perfect,
but before we belittle the other place let us remember that in the
history of our Confederation, with the two Houses in place, we are
still the number one nation in the world in which to live.
With respect to the work that is done by the Senate, we have to
recognize the thoroughness with which some special projects have
been undertaken, the excellent research, the excellent reasoning
and policy formulations which have made a great impact on the
country. As well, we have seen some of its legislative work and
even involvement in some of the diplomatic activities.
(1610)
It is very important to remember that today the Senate is still the
forum for regional concerns. On that basis it has a lot of merit. It is
indeed a Chamber of second thought and second mind. I believe
there will be a time when we will have an effective, equal and
elected Senate.
The process of election of members to the other place is not the
ultimate criterion for legitimacy. Let us recall that members of the
Supreme Court of Canada are appointed to that body, yet nobody
has questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Canada and
the justices who sit in that highest court. It is fallacious to conclude
that because the process is by appointment it is not legitimate. In
other words, it does not make the process necessarily negative.
I believe the challenge to all of us is to have quality in
appointments. I am proud that the Prime Minister of Canada has
seen to it that the quality of candidates is truly excellent. That they
happen to be Liberal does not detract from that quality. The
Canadian people in 1993 entrusted their confidence in the Liberal
Party of Canada.
4192
And so we have to respect the other place. We have a sample
of Canadian ingenuity and Canadian genius when one body is
elected and the other body of Parliament is appointed. On that
note, I would like to have an improved other place. However, we
have to show continuing respect for that other place.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Motion No. 221 which calls for
the abolition of the Senate. I am particularly delighted today to
speak to it because of what happened yesterday when the Senate
rejected the Pearson airport bill.
If this motion were a bill that would lead to the abolition of the
Senate, if it were put before the House today and put to a free vote,
I think the bill would pass. The general feeling in the House after
what happened yesterday is that the Senate has walked on its own
grave, it is time for the Senate to go. In the next general election I
expect every major party to have a platform on the Senate because
of what happened yesterday.
Why is it so significant? The Senate has rejected a piece of
legislation that was passed by this Chamber, a Chamber which
represents the people of Canada. Every member in this Chamber
was elected by the people of Canada. The bill went to the Senate
and it was rejected by a House, another place, whose members are
not elected but appointed.
It is immaterial whether the senators are Liberal or Conservative
or what their political affiliations are. The important point is the
Senate interfered with a fundamental democratic process, which is
that the House of Commons is supreme. When legislation leaves
this place it cannot be rejected by the other place. It can be
corrected, it can be amended. The Senate has an important role to
examine legislation for flaws but it does not have the right to kill
legislation, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The Fathers of Confederation saw it as a Chamber of second
thought that would step in should the elected assembly go
completely out of control, but only in the most exceptional
circumstances, a constitutional circumstance perhaps or a charter
of rights circumstance, not in bread and butter legislation, which
the Pearson bill was. It was totally inappropriate and the
government is now in the position that it has to consider what its
next move is to be.
I am only a backbencher and so I fortunately do not have to
speak for the government, but I can provide an idea of the types of
choices the government is facing.
(1615)
We will obviously not back down on this. There is $600 million
in taxpayer money at stake, so the government has to move on this.
It has two choices, as I see it. It can redraft and make certain
changes to the bill, run it through the House of Commons process
and then back to the Senate.
The other option is to prorogue Parliament and have a new
speech from the throne. Then the bill can be reintroduced exactly as
it is.
I suggest the government will probably be considering that very
seriously as a point of principle. To change the bill even slightly as
a result of what happened yesterday in the Senate would be a
concession to the Senate in a way that I do not think the
government should do.
The government still has a problem. If the bill goes back through
the process, it will cost countless thousands of dollars in the time of
this Chamber, the clerks and all the people who are behind the
preparation of the legislation. Even if it goes back through this
House and to the Senate again, there is a risk of the same thing
happening of a tie vote and the legislation being rejected.
The government has to look ahead and consider how it can
guarantee the bill will go through the Senate the next time around.
It has the option, as did the previous government over another bill,
to create eight more Senators. The Prime Minister has the power to
go to the governor general and create eight more Senators.
When the previous Prime Minister did that it caused quite an
outcry. It was regarded as the Prime Minister's interfering in the
Houses of Parliament. People did not see that the Prime Minister of
the day had just cause, in my view. He was facing the problem of
legislation which had gone through the entire democratic process
and had been blocked by an unelected body.
The perception of creating new Senators underscores even more
the uselessness of the institution when it comes to interfering in the
proper procedure of the House of Commons. I do not think that is a
good option. I do not think it would go down well. The government
has to make a very serious decision about what to do with the
Senate. Obviously we cannot allow it to go forward to have this
incident occur a second time.
The motion put forward by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is a good motion, and the
government should seriously consider it. We should abolish the
Senate.
One of the objections raised by some members who spoke on
this issue is that the motion does not define what we replace it with.
I certainly have some thoughts about that, and the hon. member for
Calgary Centre had considerable thoughts.
There is the suggestion of the three Es: elected, effective and
equal. The problem with that scenario, an elected Senate, is we will
have the same type of situation as in the United States of two
democratically elected bodies. That would actually paralyse
Parliament. It would not be effective at all.
4193
We already have an efficient system. What we have to do is
return the Senate to the original idea of the Fathers of
Confederation. As mentioned during the Meech Lake accord
discussions, it should represent the regions of the country. We
should find a formula where the Senators are appointed for a very
short term but reflect regions of the country. That would be a big
step toward addressing some of the concerns of my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues.
The motions simply says abolish the Senate. I agree. Let us do
that first and then we can talk afterwards on the new formula for the
Senate. I feel very strongly in light of what happened yesterday, the
interference with the decision of the elected body, the House of
Commons, that the other place should now become no place.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, time is going by
rather quickly and I will probably be the last speaker on this topic.
When there is discussion, things can change. The Liberal colleague
who just spoke was shaken by the arguments of the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, but also by something that took
place last night in the other House.
(1620)
In fact, it is quite strange and unexpected that we should be
discussing this today of all days. What happened yesterday was
very serious. For lack of one vote, the House has been brought to a
halt. As the member just said, if nothing changes and the
government wishes to maintain its position, it will have to present a
new bill and the same thing may happen all over again.
However, we should perhaps qualify this. It seems that what we
saw yesterday was a certain laxity on the Liberal side of the Senate.
Apparently a Conservative senator was not present at the start and
would not have been able to vote, and that could have made all the
difference. There was a lack of vigilance, such that the situation in
which we find ourselves was avoidable. The system cannot bear the
whole blame, but the situation is nonetheless amusing.
Coming from Quebec, as I do, and having discussed this many
times with the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-it is
rather the opposite, the member for Bellechasse is right, we often
alternate, particularly at the end of session. I think this is the
ninetieth time I have risen to speak since the throne speech.
I do not, however, agree with my other colleague, the member
for Vaudreuil when he says there is no point in discussing the topic.
We cannot accept the comments of the member who just spoke,
whose riding I have forgotten, Hamilton-Wentworth I believe. In
question period, I saw the Minister of Transport upset at what had
happened yesterday, and he was right to be upset.
The member for Vaudreuil spoke about everything under the sun.
He seemed to be practising for the campaign trail. If his
performance is any indication, we can expect an election this fall.
He really seemed to be practicing a campaign speech. He said that
it was useless to speak of it, that it cannot be changed, that
unanimity would be necessary and cannot be obtained-a fine
admission of powerlessness by a member of the House of
Commons under the current federal system.
I agree, it is true that it is hard to change. I would even say
virtually impossible. It is impossible for us here to abolish the
Senate, we cannot. It seems that some sort of stratagem will have to
invented somewhere if it is to be done, for it has become frozen in
time.
Frozen in time since 1867, and this change cannot be made,
although it translates the desires of many, in Quebec and elsewhere.
No way of changing it. Talking Constitution or changes in Quebec,
no way either, it requires unanimity. For the past 30 years, we have
seen constitutional rounds come and go and we always end up in
the same dead end. One day, something will have to be done.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think that, as far as Quebec is
concerned, what is needed is for the rest of Canada to accept
Quebec's becoming sovereign and to discuss with it an offer of
economic and, yes, political partnership. I think that would make a
huge change and would be along the lines of the formula of Upper
Canada and Lower Canada, which was in place before the Union
Act. That formula is worth re-examining, not just copying, for
times have changed. That could bring about a change.
Along with the hon. member for Bellechasse, I am telling the
people of Quebec and elsewhere who agree with us that the Senate
should be abolished, because it costs $43 million a year and cannot
be touched by the voting public, that they ought to sign a petition
asking that the House of Commons abolish the Senate. This is an
institution that is no longer of any use. I have nothing against the
people individually, some of them are extremely decent people, but
that is not the issue. When we do not have to be answerable to the
voters for our actions, I think that the exercise of a modern
democracy is not possible.
(1625)
I therefore support the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup in his undertaking, which I must
say is far from pointless. If a lot of Quebecers and Canadians
support this motion, one day it will bear fruit, and we will manage
to abolish this system which costs us $43 million.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me take my turn in wishing you, and
all of my colleagues of all parties, a good vacation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. The hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
4194
now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to
the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
you will find consent to proceed immediately to the adjournment
proceedings and, once concluded, the motion to adjourn be deemed
withdrawn. I suggest the sitting be suspended to the call of the
Chair, which shall come for the sole purpose of a royal assent
ceremony.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, a clarification, are we proceeding
immediately to the time provided for Private Members' Business?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That is part of the motion
introduced by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Are there other
questions, other comments?
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, pardon me. I will reword my
question. Are we proceeding immediately to the time provided for
the adjournment debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If we have the unanimous
consent of the House, that is exactly what we shall be doing.
[English]
Does the House give its unanimous consent to the motion put
forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4194
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in the adjournment debate. A number of
questions have already been raised on the issue, but I am going to
try once again to make the Liberal government listen to reason and
review the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to stop
providing $7.2 million in funding annually to the tokamak project
of the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.
I would first like point out that people were unanimous in
condemning the minister's decision to make this cut. All those
involved opposed her decision. Neither the minister nor her
department consulted the public, the scientific community or even
the financial partners in the project.
The absurdity of the decision is so obvious that even the federal
Liberal organization in the riding of Verchères where the Centre is
located was opposed and asked the minister to go back to the
drawing board.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration along with the
minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec apparently even met representatives of the
local Liberal association to express their grave concerns over the
withdrawal of federal funding for the Varennes tokamak project.
Not only does the Liberal government not have any respect for
its partners, it clearly shows a lack of vision for the future. The
tokamak project of the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in
Varennes is a future-oriented high-technology project since it
concerns a new clean, abundant and job-creating form of energy.
By withdrawing now from the international research effort in the
area of fusion, we will deprive ourselves of the technology
transfers associated with it and we will miss the boat when this new
form of energy is finally implemented.
It must be noted that, once again, figures show a shameless
waste of public funds: not only will 20 years of research and
development work in the area of nuclear fusion be sacrificed, but
$70 million in infrastructures will be wasted, including $11 million
in equipment that has never been used. On top of that, the
dismantling of these facilities will cost $20 million.
Besides these economic factors, we must consider the losses in
terms of human resources. Without a job, these researchers,
scientists and specialists will offer to other countries the expertise
developed here with our taxpayers' money.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg because this is becoming a
general problem. In terms of the share of total research and
development funding invested by the federal government, Quebec
is once again the big loser in this federation. The figures speak for
themselves.
The minister tried to present figures in such way that it looked
like Quebec was getting 25 per cent of the total research and
development funding from her department. That is not the case at
all. Not taking into account the regional concept invented by the
minister and adding the expenditures correctly, we get a much
different result.
In actual fact, Quebec's total share of the R and D spending of
the Department of Natural Resources now stands at 17 per cent, and
the total share that Quebec would receive without the tokamak
project would drop to only 12 per cent. This does not include the
AECL budgets, because when they are added, we drop from 8 per
cent to 6 cent.
This withdrawal of the federal government is completely
incomprehensible. Why cut the only long term energy research
program, which is located in Quebec? What is the reason for this
unjustifi-
4195
able cut, the relevance of which is being questioned by all
stakeholders?
While it is maintaining funding for the neutrino project in
Sudbury, Ontario, while it is increasing by $15 million the funding
for the TRIUMF project in British Columbia, the Liberal
government has the gall to axe one of the most important energy
research projects located in Quebec. It is quite simply scandalous.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in this debate about federal government
funding of the national fusion program.
For a number of years the federal government has co-funded
research and development of fusion, the national fusion program,
in partnership with Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro.
The cost of the Quebec part of the national program, the
Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion at Varennes, has been shared
by the federal government, Hydro-Quebec and the University of
Quebec. The federal government's contribution to the Quebec
program is currently $7.2 million annually.
Since 1981 the investment by the federal government in fusion
research at Varennes has amounted to $90 million. This investment
has helped to develop scientific expertise and industrial technology
in Quebec and it will continue to pay dividends in the future.
In nuclear energy the mandate of Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited is to seek to maintain a viable, competitive business in
supplying and servicing CANDU reactors at a reduced cost to the
federal government. This will mean that AECL will no longer
conduct non-CANDU related basic science. AECL is working with
the federal government to wind up or transfer elements of its basic
science programs to other facilities if possible.
High technology industries in Quebec will continue to benefit
from the nuclear industry through contracts developed from
CANDU sales to Korea and through the good performance of the
Gentilly 2 CANDU reactor.
Consultants' studies show that a typical CANDU 6 sale overseas
could bring over $100 million in contracts to Quebec and generate
about 4,000 person years of employment. AECL expects to sign
contracts for the sale of CANDU reactors to China in the near
future and there are prospects for the sale of additional units to
Korea.
These two corporations, among the very largest in Canada, have
received a year's notice of the federal government's intent to
terminate funding for the national fusion program. The federal
government will work with them to ensure a smooth transition. We
are continuing to fund the program in the current fiscal year.
These are the principal reasons that have gone into the decision
by the federal government to end funding for the national fusion
program.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As per the unanimous
consent of the House a short while ago, the House will now be
suspended to the call of the Chair for the purpose, and the only
purpose, of the royal assent.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.34 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.49 p.m.
4195
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
June 20, 1996
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th day of June, 1996, at
6.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills
without amendment.
_____________________________________________
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable
the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
4196
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the
Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's
name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and amend and repeal certain acts-Chapter 16.
Bill C-8, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and
other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotics
Control Act in consequence thereof-Chapter 19.
Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada-Chapter 23.
Bill C-13, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program
to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions-Chapter 15.
Bill C-19, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade-Chapter 17.
Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation
services-Chapter 20.
Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on March 6, 1996-Chapter 18.
Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act-Chapter 14.
Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age
Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax
Court of Canada Act-Chapter No. 22.
Bill S-8, an act respecting Queen's University at Kingston.
It being 7.05 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the
House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 1996 at
11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)