CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 7077
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7082
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7083
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7084
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7085
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7085
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7085
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7085
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 7086
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7086
Bill C-359. Motions for introduction an first readingdeemed adopted 7088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7088
Bill C-360. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7089
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7089
Consideration resumed of motion 7091
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 15;Nays, 186 7095
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 172; Nays, 42 7096
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and of the amendment
7096
Consideration of motion resumed; and on theamendment 7102
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7103
(Amendment agreed to.) 7106
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6 p.m.) 7106
The House resumed at 6.03 p.m. 7107
7077
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Every so often we have an opportunity to hear
some truly magnificent Canadian voices. We are going to add our
voices to theirs. I have asked the St. Michael's Boys Choir to lead
us in our national anthem. I know that an hon. member should have
led us today, but perhaps next week he will lead us. If the choir is
ready, I invite them to lead us in our national anthem.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the national anthem was sung.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of a fantastic
international development project being undertaken by Lakehead
University in Thunder Bay.
Lakehead, the lead university in the project, in partnership with
Tribhuvan University in Nepal and the University of Guelph,
received $746,000 from CIDA to undertake a conservation and
community outreach project in Nepal.
Among other objectives, the project aims to upgrade the
qualifications and skills of Nepal's forestry professors, elementary
and secondary school teachers and practising foresters and resource
managers. Ultimately the goal is to improve current land use
practices and management.
(1405 )
This project is an excellent example of how CIDA and Canada
are helping the world to improve its environment and its quality of
life.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
renowned artist Antonio Grediaga Kieff recently very kindly gave
the town of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville one of his sculptures.
This modern work entitled ``Totem '85 with Spirals and
Triangles'' is the first piece of outdoor art to be set up around the
town. The sculpture, which is bronze and valued at $160,000 on the
international art market, measures 5 metres high and weighs a little
over a tonne.
Mr. Kieff's sculptures may be found in major art collections
around the world. Two former American Presidents, Ronald
Reagan and Jimmy Carter, are proud owners of his works. The
people of Saint-Bruno will have the privilege of admiring a work
by one of their own, who is, moreover, world renowned.
I would like to thank him for his generosity and congratulate him
on his work.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for two years I lived on an Indian reserve at Wollaston
Lake, Saskatchewan serving as the principal of the local school. I
saw the damage done by the paternalistic aboriginal policies of past
Liberal and Conservative governments.
I am deeply disappointed that the Liberals are so quick to
dismiss the equality alternative for aboriginal people. One national
newspaper concluded that the recommendations of the royal
commission would lead to ``separation, both political and
economic''. I agree.
We should replace the Indian Act with the equality for Indians
act. We should give grassroots Indian people real choices about
their future. Give them the option of the system of local
government they want to live in. Give them the option of owning
their own land or having it held communally. Give them the option
of receiving their treaty benefits directly. Give them the option of
negotiating a personal compensation package in exchange for
treaty entitlements.
7078
For the past 130 years, individual aboriginal people have been
denied the opportunity to see how well true equality works.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
we watch Liberal backbenchers led by the hon. member for
Fundy-Royal foam about credit card interest rates as if only the
banks need to be challenged on this issue instead of the Liberal
government, those of us who have served in previous Parliaments
feel like we have seen this movie before.
In almost every Parliament, government backbenchers
grandstand about credit card interest rates but are unwilling to
criticize their own government on the issue, even when as is the
case presently, the government is actively defending and repeating
the banks' position.
New Democrat MPs were glad to sign the letter challenging the
banks but we warn Canadians not to be distracted by such all-party
strategies from the fact that it is the Liberal Party that runs the
country. It is the Liberal Party that is refusing to act. It is the
Liberal Party that could act if it wanted to. Liberal backbenchers
who evade this painful truth give no credit to the political process.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
fine example of co-operation by the federal and provincial
governments and the private sector in creating jobs.
Motor Coach's recent inauguration of its luxury coach
production line christened ``La Renaissance'' has created 114 jobs
in my riding, with the possibility of another 150. The new
prestigious coach to be manufactured there represents the greatest
research and development project yet launched by Motor Coach.
The project received $5.1 million in western economic
diversification funds. It will have a profound and sustained
economic impact.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, International Nickel Company announced the
establishment of a smelter and refinery in Argentia, Newfoundland
located in my riding of St. John's West. The proposed operations
will create hundreds of jobs and is expected to inject millions of
dollars into the local economy over the long run.
I want to applaud the efforts of the Argentia/Long Harbour
Partnership for their part in presenting the region's viability and
promoting the area as the most suitable site. I would also like to
point out that the economic and environmental feasibility of the
area were central to INCO's decision.
As the member of Parliament for Argentia, any project which
creates work and jobs for my constituents is welcome but a project
of this scale is of immeasurable importance. It is a very positive
economic sign for the people of St. John's West and I am delighted
to share this news with the House.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
celebrate the visit to the House of Commons of the world famous
St. Michael's Choir School.
The school, situated in Rosedale riding in Toronto, was founded
in 1937 by Monsignor Ronan to provide a choir for the liturgical
services of St. Michael's Cathedral. Since its modest beginning the
school has grown to 374 students, some of whom are with us today.
It is now recognized as the most famous choir school in Canada.
The enthusiasm and joy of the choir school performers, which
we were privileged to share in this House today, bring great
pleasure to their audiences and speak clearly of the commitment to
excellence that is the St. Michael's Choir School tradition.
Each year the choir goes on two tours which take the boys across
North America and Europe. This spring the choir will return to
Europe with a two week tour of Italy.
Mr. Speaker, having heard them sing in the House, I am sure you
will agree with me that Canada could not ask for better
ambassadors than the fine young men of St. Michael's Choir
School.
[Translation]
We wish them good luck and bon voyage.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec
and the Fondation du cercle des femmes journalistes awarded
François Pouliot the Prix Judith-Jasmin in the short feature
category.
I will remind you that this prize is given every year to a
newspaper or television journalist based on the quality of
investigation, the originality of the information and the relevancy
of the topic.
7079
François Pouliot conducted a very thorough investigation that
eventually led him to American businessman Paul Morgan, who
was involved in the cotton deal for which Tran Trieu Quan was
unjustly sentenced to 20 years of forced labour in Vietnam.
I too want to recognize François Pouliot's outstanding job, as
well as the tenacity and rigour he has shown in unearthing the
important details of this sad story, which has already cost Canadian
citizen Tran Trieu Quan two years of freedom.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 14 Judge Campbell of the federal court in
Vancouver ruled against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in
a question of jurisdiction and fairness in allocating halibut licences.
The written decisions confirm in this case what many west
coasters believe to be widespread, that DFO pursues a senior
bureaucracy driven agenda under the cloak of consultation and
does not care how many people it hurts in the process.
This week there is a gill net mail-in ballot for fishermen holding
north coast licences with a deadline to reach Vancouver by this
Friday. This mailed ballot still has not reached many outlying area
gill netters. These fishermen are concerned about losing their vote
as part of another bureaucracy manipulated design.
I call on the minister to do two things today: one, extend the
deadline on this vote; and two, ensure that faxed responses are
allowed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the federal government takes steps to reduce its annual deficit
and low interest rates reflect the confidence of investors in its
ability to put its fiscal house in order, Quebec regions, and
Brome-Missisquoi is but one example, must seize the opportunity
to put together manpower, capital and programs to get the economy
moving again.
In that spirit of co-operation and collaboration, we are pleased to
welcome to Ottawa today the mayors and municipal councillors of
Brome-Missisquoi. Our discussions will focus on small business,
exports and tourism.
[English]
Speaking about co-operation, let me talk about the harmony that
exists between the two communities-English 20 per cent and
French 80 per cent-in my beautiful riding. Let me say how great
are our people from Lake Champlain to Brome Lake to Lake
Memphremagog.
[Translation]
I join with all my constituents in wishing everyone political
peace and true economic growth in 1997 and in wishing you, Mr.
Speaker, a very happy New Year.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 2, the Canadian government contributed $150,000 to the
Secrétariat à la mise en marché pour la Gaspésie et les
Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The role of this organization is to develop
new export markets and to provide various technical assistance
services to the region's small and medium size businesses.
The contribution made by the Quebec section of the Federal
Office of Regional Development reflects the Canadian
government's intention to give priority to community activities.
Our government is encouraging people from the Gaspé Peninsula
and the islands to take charge, so as to ensure lasting prosperity in
the context of a better economy.
(1415)
The Canadian government's contribution comes from the regular
budget of the program designed to help small and medium size
businesses. This is a concrete way for our government to contribute
to regional development all across Canada.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following the tour organized by our caucus last summer in
the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence region, I am pleased to
announce to the House that Revenue Canada has finally accepted
the arguments of the stakeholders in the customs office matter.
Indeed, the Minister of National Revenue just decided that the
customs office located in Rivière-du-Loup would remain open and
be manned on a full-time basis by a customs inspector. The
Rivière-du-Loup office will become the processing centre for
claims coming from the whole region.
Raising Revenue Canada's profile in that region is great news for
economic stakeholders.
While still complying with the need to cut costs, Revenue
Canada has just demonstrated that it is sensitive to people's needs.
7080
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems the
government is not very concerned about the safety of people
travelling to and from the Magdalen Islands.
A study commissioned by Transport Canada estimates the cost
of repairs needed to the Lucy Maud Montgomery at $12 million and
points out that there is a danger of major incidents that could lead
to loss of life if nothing is done.
In ignoring the conclusions of a study ordered by his own
department, the Minister of Transport is showing a lack of
responsibility. As for the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who said that there would be
consultations on this issue, no more has been heard from him.
Another consequence of the federal government's stalling is that
hundreds of jobs at MIL Davie have disappeared, and this is not the
only example of its inertia. It is imperative that the Minister of
Transport reach an agreement with CTMA representatives in order
to find a safe and lasting solution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
annual meeting of the Alberta Wheat Pool in Calgary, Michael
Bury, an Alberta Wheat Pool delegate, asked the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food a question about the upcoming
plebiscite on barley marketing. He wanted to know what
percentage turnout and what percentage of the vote would be
required to carry the plebiscite. The minister responded that he
would decide after the vote what turnout would be required and
what percentage of the vote would carry the plebiscite. Mr. Bury's
comment was: ``Sounds really democratic'', but I do not think he
really meant it.
A person who believes in democracy would set the rules before
the vote, but not this government. The Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food will not announce whether the plebiscite will be binding
or what percentage of voters will be required in order to carry the
barley plebiscite.
Would we not all like to be able to pick our 649 numbers after the
draw?
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
all recall that 14 young and talented women's lives were snuffed
out, gunned down at École Polytechnique in Montreal seven years
ago. This Friday we observe the anniversary of the tragedy of their
deaths on December 6, 1989 as Canada's national day of
remembrance and action on violence against women.
This reminds us of how important it is to work together and
respect each other as equals, with the goal of building an inclusive
society where there is zero tolerance for violence against women.
[Translation]
The world has finally lifted the curtain surrounding violence
against women, and in this regard Canada has played a leading role
nationally and internationally.
[English]
Let us not forget the pain and the incredible loss of this senseless
massacre. I call on all Canadians to mobilize together for action
against violence.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to address comments made by the hon. member for
Port Moody-Coquitlam and her attack on Status of Women
Canada.
The member said that Canadians do not want more spending on
what she called status of women's extreme agenda. This extreme
agenda includes: working hard to stop violence against women;
working hard on women's health issues, especially breast cancer;
working hard to recognize the value of women's work in the home
and outside, in the fields of engineering, space technology,
medicine, law, and even politics.
Status of women and this government make a difference. This
difference was recognized by the UN conference in Beijing when
Canada won the international award for the country that has done
the most for the status of women.
I am proud of Status of Women Canada, but I am ashamed of the
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
_____________________________________________
7080
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps our colleagues sense that a storm is brewing. Let
us hope so, as it is not long until the holiday season. If there is one
person who is stirring up a storm at this moment, it is the Minister
7081
of Human Resources Development. Yesterday, in fact, this minister
told my colleague from Mercier that the transition period in the
new employment insurance program had started in January. He
said:
It is time the hon. member for Mercier realized that the reason why some
provisions of the act were implemented on July 1 while others will take effect
January 1 is precisely to give people time to adjust to the reform.
Now, there is a little problem; it would be hard to have
something in application since January 1, when the act was passed
in June. The minister has a problem. In the spirit of fair play,
however, I will give him the chance to correct himself today.
Yesterday he told us that there would be changes to the regulations,
which he described as minor, in order to effect the transition
between the old and the new systems.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
that these minor changes to which he referred include a hypothesis
that, effective January 5 and for the application of the new system,
weeks worked prior to December 1996 are all deemed to have been
35 hours in length for the purposes of eligibility for the new
system? Can the minister tells us whether or not this measure
exists?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday on the
employment insurance reform is that, for several months, our
government has been working very hard to inform Canadians so
that they may adjust to the new system.
We have run a national advertising campaign for Canadians
since this past July 1. We have set up a 1-800 line so that Canadians
can get information on the conditions of this employment
insurance reform. We have printed a leaflet announcing passage of
the legislation, which was mailed out to all recipients in July. We
have, therefore, fully done our duty in informing people about the
new system to start this coming January.
What we want is for Canadians who work part time to be
covered, starting January 1, from the first hour worked, because we
see this as a reform of considerable interest to a great number of
Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have a big problem here in the House, and the minister
has a really big one. The minister tells us that the government is
doing its best to inform Canadians. Could the minister start by
informing the House, since he is being asked questions.
I will ask him very, very precisely what we want to know. I
cannot speak to him directly. I will do it through yourself, Mr.
Speaker; however, I would like him to listen in order to understand
the question. Can the minister tell us whether he is, or is not, in the
process at this time of examining the hypothesis of a transition
which would consider all hours worked during 1996 as 35-hour
weeks? Is he, or is he not? That is the only thing we want to know.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not my habit to comment on
each and every hypothesis which could have been presented to me
on what the Leader of the Opposition tells us.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what we are talking about is a system which represents the
bread and butter of a good many Canadian families starting in
January.
(1425)
Huge numbers of people are in danger of being excluded from
the system by the transition rules, which would appear to require
35-hour weeks. Huge numbers of people will no longer have access
to the employment insurance plan. They would qualify under the
old system, they would qualify under the new one, but they would
not qualify under the transition rules.
First, is the minister aware of this and, second, will he take this
into account when making a decision?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the opposition be
opposed to a system which, in Quebec alone, will enable 73 per
cent of employment insurance contributors working for under 35
hours a week at the present time to be eligible? Is he aware that
127,000 Quebec part time workers will, in future, be covered for
the first time? Does the opposition not accept a system which will
enable 500,000 more Canadians to be covered by the employment
insurance system, including 270,000 women? That is what the new
system starting up January 1 will be like.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Either the minister does not understand, although there are
enough officials in his department to explain the matter to him, or
he does not want to understand, which is unfortunate for the
Canadians and Quebecers who depend on his judgment. I will try
two simple questions.
Does the minister realize that if there are no transitional
measures to transform weeks under the old system into hours under
the new system, in other words, one week of work equals 35 hours,
a young person who worked 26 20-hour weeks in 1996 will not be
entitled to employment insurance on January 5, if he loses his job?
Does the minister realize that without transitional measures, this
young person will go on welfare?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the opposition
in fine fettle, despite its lack of programs, especially constructive
programs. We will try to do better than the opposition, which is
7082
simply there to obstruct but has nothing to do, obviously, because
it will never have to run this country.
What Quebecers want and what all Canadians want is an
employment insurance system. A-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish explaining to
the opposition that we have five active employment insurance
measures aimed at helping people adjust to the new labour market.
The transitional measure happens to be one of these five active
measures.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 5, a pregnant woman goes on maternity leave and reports
to a human resources centre after having worked 30 20-hour weeks.
According to the legislation in effect in 1996, she qualifies for
special so-called pregnancy benefits. Without transitional
measures, on January 5, this woman will not be entitled to her
pregnancy benefits. The minister can hardly say this is
unimportant, that these are minor measures. This is important to
the life of the average person. Does the minister realize that?
(1430)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I realize, first of all, is that
a woman in Sydney, Nova Scotia who works 14 hours a week in a
department store does not have insurable employment at the
present time. Under the new employment insurance system, she
will be entitled to benefits after 30 weeks.
A father in East Montreal who has three jobs, each of which
takes up 14 hours a week, adding up to 42 hours, does not have
insurable employment at the present time.
This system wants to encourage people to work and will insure
them starting with the first hour worked.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since the beginning of the Canadian Airlines crisis, the
Reform Party has called on the government to intercede to ensure
the democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines.
The government has responded by saying that the rules do not
permit it to do that. I would point out that those rules are made
here.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of
Labour now ready to intercede and set in place rules that would
permit those workers to resolve this issue and to ensure that other
people caught in this situation in the future do not have to go
through the same pain and anguish that Canadian's unionized
employees have been going through?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on numerous occasions during the last few days, I have
urged all parties involved to go to the negotiating table with the
Canadian alliance and find a negotiated solution.
Unfortunately, we are at an impasse and 16,000 jobs are at stake.
That is why I directed the Canada Labour Relations Board to
organize a vote for the employees of Canadian Airlines who are
members of the Canadian automobile workers union. I directed the
board according to the authority given to me under article 17 of the
Canadian Labour Code.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the government has seen fit to end this problem.
I hope that in the future, if these kinds of problems come up, that
collectively we will act quicker to save that same pain and anguish.
There is still more to this. I have a question I would like to direct
to the Minister of Finance. The package that the federal
government has provided to Canadian does help. I am pleased to
see that something is there, but it is based on the fuel tax. That fuel
tax is twice as high in Canada as it is for the American competitors
that all Canadian airlines must compete against under open skies.
Will the government reconsider the method by which it is
helping and go instead to a straight reduction of fuel taxes so that it
applies to all airlines? In that way we do not solve the problems of
Canadian and transfer them on to someone else.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when one looks at the taxation of any entity, one has to take a look
at the full range of taxes: payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise
taxes and anything else. The taxes levied on Canadian transporters
are quite competitive and do not in any way inhibit their situation.
Furthermore, on international routes, the federal government
does not impose undue taxation. What the hon. member might want
to do is to take a look at the level of provincial taxation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking at provincial taxation. However, I was sent
here to represent people at the federal level and not slough it off to
the provincial governments.
I would point out that the Minister of Finance certainly started
out very correctly when he gave a long list of the taxes that the
government levies against companies like Canadian Airlines.
(1435 )
Rather than tell us what we already know, that Canadian pays a
lot of taxes in a lot of categories, will the minister re-examine the
7083
tax on aviation fuel and go for an across the board reduction in the
name of fairness to all Canadian aviation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two questions here. One is the question of fuel
taxes and taxes generally which has been answered by my
colleague, the Minister of Finance.
However, it is important for us to remember, including the hon.
member whom I commend for his interest in this issue, that
Canadian Airlines is not yet in a position where it is assured of
success. Ten organizations, five of them unions, three of them
governments and two companies are on side. We trust that a vote of
the members of the auto workers union who are employed by
Canadian Airlines will have a positive result. Of course we are not
sure. We do not know how they will vote.
I would remind all members of the House that this company has
had five weeks of uncertainty. It has had five weeks of problems,
ranging from creditors on the one side to bookings on the other. If
Canadian is to survive it needs the co-operation of all parties to
move forward with the restructuring proposal to turn from a
company which had chronic losses that totalled over $1.3 billion to
one in the black which makes money.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources is refusing to admit that
there will be transition measures in the implementation of the new
employment insurance program. He refuses to admit it. He is also
refusing to respond regarding very the specific cases put to him by
my colleague for Mercier. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is like a barrel organ: you can request any tune you
like, but, when you turn the crank, the tune is always the same.
To continue with his example of the woman in Sydney, I would
ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain how
this person will manage to qualify for employment insurance, when
no employer recorded the number of hours worked in 1996?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was explaining that we have a
new system where we are trying to break with the old methods. Can
the opposition not accept the fact that we are really trying to adapt
to a new labour market and that, necessarily, the new system is
much fairer and more equitable in our opinion, because it will
insure people from the first hour, from January 1, 1997.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us take this calmly and explain matters to the new
minister. In the example he himself gave us a few minutes ago, the
minister said that the woman would now be eligible for
employment insurance on the basis of the hours she worked. We
know that her hours have to be indicated in order for the Canada
employment centre to process her application.
In 1996, no employer was equipped to count the hours
employees worked. The application was based on the number of
weeks worked. How will they know this woman worked 720 hours?
There is no way of knowing.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who are covered by
employment insurance in 1996 will continue to be covered and will
not lose their coverage as of December 31, 1996. I think this is
important.
On the other hand, we can also inform. The opposition claims I
am not familiar with the system. I can tell you that the woman in
Sydney working 14 hours in a department store will be insured
after 30 weeks.
(1440)
The young father of a family in Montreal East, whom I
mentioned earlier, holds three jobs and works 14 hours a week at
each and is not insured. He will be, after the 11th week. The system
is much more suited to things as they are at the moment and is far
and away more interesting than the old system the opposition
clings to in its retrograde reveries.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
August 1984 health department officials sounded alarm bells about
the dangers of AIDS and legislation was drafted to protect the
blood supply. The Turner government and the Mulroney
government which followed ignored those warnings and simply
shelved the legislation.
The Krever inquiry and the victims of tainted blood want to get
to truth. I ask the Prime Minister, who was deputy prime minister
in August 1984, will he release all the documents and the draft
legislation from 1984 to Justice Krever, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has replied to that question
many times in the House of Commons. We were very unhappy with
the situation that existed at that time. There is an inquiry which we
hope will be able to report soon. Then improvements can be made
to the legislation so the same mistakes will not be repeated.
As far as the cabinet documents are concerned, according to the
law of the land there is a limit. I did not pass this law. The law is
there and we will respect the law. I am very surprised that the
member is asking us not to respect the law.
7084
The minister at the time, Madam Bégin, said that she is willing
to testify. I do not know why the release of cabinet documents,
if they exist, will help. I think the judge has all the things he needs
to make a report and help us ensure the problems do not recur.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
Prime Minister is hiding behind excuses. First of all, the Canada
Evidence Act is discretionary. He could choose to change that and
release those documents if he wanted to. It is as simple as that.
Second, when he talks about Monique Bégin, she has already
said, and documents were uncovered yesterday, that the Deputy
Prime Minister was incorrect in that. She said that she had refused
frankly to testify. So those excuses simply do not wash.
Justice Krever wants the documents and tainted blood victims
want answers. That is all there is to it. That is all those people want.
It is up to the Prime Minister now to decide whether he will release
those documents or continue to hide behind those flimsy excuses.
Will the Prime Minister release the documents or will he
continue to hide the truth. Just like John Turner in 1984, you have a
choice, sir.
The Speaker: Colleagues, you will address yourselves to me,
please, in all the questions. I will permit the Right Hon. Prime
Minister to answer if he so chooses.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Turner was the prime minister for three months and
Parliament was not in session at that time. After that it was Mr.
Mulroney. I am not here to protect anybody in that.
There is a law of the land that protects cabinet documents. All
the documents the law authorized us to give to the judge were given
to the judge. We hope he will be able to report and make the
recommendations needed so we can improve the situation.
The Minister of Health in collaboration with his provincial
colleagues already moved on the problem even before the judge
made his report.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is treating
us to fine rhetoric and outlining interesting concepts. But what we
want is an answer to some simple and specific questions. Let me
put this one to him as if I were a constituent visiting him at his
riding office.
A young worker loses his job on December 31, 1996, having
worked 26 fifteen-hour weeks. The minister must know, at least I
hope he does, that this young man is eligible for employment
insurance. Right? His neighbour loses his job on January 5, after
working 26 fifteen-hour weeks.
(1445)
I would like the minister to tell us whether or not this person will
be eligible for employment insurance. This is not too complicated:
Will six days make a difference in the way these two employees of
the same company will be treated, yes or no? That question is clear
enough, I hope.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the interest
shown by the opposition today. This is indeed a system I want to
draw attention to.
What this worker will get when he meets with his employment
officer at the HRD centre-I wish to acknowledge the excellent job
these people are doing in all our ridings-is someone who will
have enough common sense and skill under the regulations we are
developing to be able to assess the number of hours of work
accumulated in the past year.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this officer will certainly have more sense than this
minister, I have no doubt about that, because the minister is unable
to answer a question in this place.
He would not be fit to do the job of a government employee,
who, I am sure, will be able to answer questions, provided that the
minister has given him clear instructions, which does not seem to
be the case. Either no instructions were given, or the minister is not
aware of them.
I would like to put another question to the minister, since I did
not get an answer to the first one. If a person who juggles three
jobs, three 16-hour jobs, as mentioned by the minister, has to quit
one of them, because working 48 hours a week at three jobs is not
easy, is it not true that this person will be disqualified for quitting
his or her job? Yes or no? I ask him to answer me as a government
employee would, not as a Liberal minister.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): There we have it, Mr. Speaker. The
opposition has objected to any change to an employment insurance
system that is much more interesting. Those people voted against
spending $800 million on active measures to help workers get back
to work.
This is a government that adjusts to the modern economy. The
opposition party, on the other hand, has rejected every effort to
reform the system, when we were trying to include the part time
workers the people opposite are referring to. That is what the
opposition is capable of.
7085
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the
current Prime Minister was the deputy prime minister. New
regulations were placed on the cabinet table and somebody in that
government said ``no way''.
The tainted blood tragedy could have been prevented by those
regulations.
The Prime Minister says he has nothing to hide. All we ask is
that he put those documents on the table so he can prove that he has
nothing to hide, because the law gives him discretion.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the law is clear. We do not have the right under the law to
make public cabinet documents produced under previous prime
ministers. The law is very clear on that.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Evidence Act clearly gives discretion to the Prime Minister. It does
not preclude those documents being released at all.
In fact, Krever tried to get Monique Bégin to testify at the
inquiry. Her lawyer said ``no way''. Let us get that excuse out of the
way as well. Now the Prime Minister, as we look for open
disclosure, is saying ``no way''.
Will the Prime Minister make the right decision this time and
release those documents of truth to Krever?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already replied to that question.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development. I hope to have more luck than my
colleagues in getting an answer from the minister.
In its report tabled in October, the Liberal task force on people
with disabilities recommended that the federal government
continue to financially support national organizations for people
with disabilities. In its report, the group said that the federal
government's commitment in that respect should include, but not
be limited to, core funding totalling $5 million per year.
Can the minister tell us if this recommendation means that the
financing of all organizations promoting the rights of people with
disabilities will be restored to pre-1994 levels?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before answering the opposition
member's question, I should first congratulate the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury, and all the members of his task
force whose exceptional work contributed to a greater
understanding of people with disabilities.
I must tell you that the Minister of National Revenue, the
Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and myself were
impressed by the quality of their work. The recommendation
regarding the financing of organizations for people with disabilities
was taken under consideration and we will follow up on it at the
earliest opportunity.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. I have never seen such a
bad performance in the House before. The minister can
congratulate his colleagues, he can tell me to get lost, but when it
comes to people with disabilities, we expect action from the
government, not just lip service.
Let the minister wait. I am not through with my question. In any
case, we are in no hurry, because we will not get an answer. Will the
minister admit that his inaction amounts to shelving the report of
his Liberal colleagues and confirms his contempt for the needs of
people with disabilities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, comments by the opposition
accusing us of showing contempt for people with disabilities are
totally uncalled for. The reason people have so little respect for
politicians is because we do not debate issues more intelligently. I
am sorry, but this sanctimonious tone by people who do not even
have an agenda is totally uncalled for.
What I can tell you is that I was very proud, last week, when the
ministerial council on Canada's social union, which is co-chaired
by Minister Stockwell Day, representing the provinces, and myself,
made the plight of people with disabilities a top priority. We are
looking at the reality faced by these people, because Canada needs
their full commitment.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Against all democratic principles, the Serbian government has
refused to honour the local elections that recently took place in
Belgrade and other cities. Citizens have taken to the streets to
demonstrate to show their outrage over abuse of authority.
7086
Could the secretary tell me what our government is doing to
defend the rights of citizens of the federal republic of Yugoslavia
in order that they may enjoy free and democratic elections?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is deeply
concerned that Belgrade has chosen to ignore accepted
international norms for conducting democratic elections.
Today in London at the peace implementation conference for
Bosnia, where Serbian leaders were present, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs voiced Canada's concern that opposition
candidates in Serbia have been deprived of their rightful places on
local councils.
(1455)
He also drew attention to the closure by the council of the federal
republic of Yugoslavia of independent radio stations, an affront to
democratic principles.
In Belgrade Canada's ambassadors conveyed to the government
of the federal republic of Yugoslavia our serious concerns. Are you
listening?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): They urged
authorities to exercise constraint in dealing with peaceful
demonstrations. Canada will continue to follow with great care
developments in Serbia. We have made it clear to the government
of the federal republic of Yugoslavia that its failure to respect the
democratic process and ensure full media freedom could have an
impact on the pace and content-
The Speaker: Wonderful Wednesday.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, after three years of waiting farmers now see the
agriculture minister's totally inadequate blueprint for changes to
the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farmers wanted a more accountable, flexible and transparent
wheat board, one they could govern and call their own. Instead, the
minister is proposing a powerless, partially elected board where the
minister calls the shots.
Ontario wheat boards have had their own farmers direct the
boards for many years and, believe it or not, have been able to
manage their own affairs.
Why does the minister show such blatant disregard and lack of
respect for Canadian farmers by not proposing that they run their
own wheat board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have put
before the House of Commons does in fact provide for a more
accountable, more flexible, more transparent Canadian Wheat
Board, to use the language of the hon. gentleman.
It does call for a majority of the board of directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board to be elected by farmers across western
Canada and of course the board itself will be accountable to that
new board of directors including a producer elected majority.
The fundamental difference between this government and that
party is that party has an agenda with respect to the Canadian
Wheat Board that would utterly destroy the institution and this
government will defend it.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister has read his own bill.
The primary reason to reform the wheat board was to allow
farmers to actually manage the board that they pay for. Instead, the
minister wishes to retain his tight leash on the board by handing out
the key management positions himself. He will appoint the
chairman of the board. He will appoint the CEO of the Canadian
Wheat Board. Can the minister not see that farmers want a board
that is accountable to them and not to him?
Why does the minister feel that a farmer elected board of
directors is incapable of choosing its own chairman and selecting
and hiring its own CEO?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point is that the
direction and control of the Canadian Wheat Board will be placed
in the hands of a board of directors, the majority of which will be
producer elected across western Canada. The hon. gentleman
fundamentally misunderstands corporate governance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the revenue minister.
For a number of months now, the disabled have run up against
the inflexibility of Revenue Canada officials in the application of
the disability tax credit and a number of other tax measures
affecting them. The official opposition voted in favour of a Liberal
motion that should serve as a guide to the government if it truly
wishes to respect the disabled.
Given the obvious and urgent need to review all tax measures
that affect the disabled, what recommendations will the minister
make to her colleague, the Minister of Finance, in order to resolve
this unacceptable situation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the disability tax credit.
As I have mentioned several times in the House, my department is
7087
working proactively and co-operatively with people who have
made applications for that particular credit. The advice and
direction has been given to our tax centres across the country to
deal in a humane and compassionate way with individuals who
have had complexities and difficulties with the department on this
particular tax credit. But we apply the law as it stands right now.
(1500)
As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, mentioned just a few moments ago, he along with
the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and myself will be
responding to a very good and thorough report presented to us by
members of our caucus with specific focus on ways to improve
those programs that we have to help Canadians with disabilities to
participate actively and as full citizens in our country.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
decision a federal court judge found that the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans manipulated a consultative process in
establishing halibut quota in B.C. He also stated that a DFO
official's unwillingness to face the obvious meaning of his own
words caused the judge to doubt the reliability of the evidence
offered in defence of the minister's, DFO's and his own position.
The judge found that DFO rigged the vote to get the result it
wanted. He said that rules were simply broken because it was
necessary to do so to reach the planned objective.
Does the minister condone the actions of his officials and, if not,
what is he going to do about it?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and this House know that this is a
court ruling and I am not going to comment on that.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
media release the Reform critic for the status of women said that
the women she talks to despise the notion of equality used by the
status of women, that the Department of the Status of Women is
forcing society to change in ways that most Canadians would not
choose for themselves.
Could the secretary of state tell the House how status of women
is helping Canada become a better society for all Canadians?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only that but the critic also
said that she did not think women needed special programs.
This is a country in which 90 per cent of families headed by
women are poor. This is a country in which one woman is shot
every six days.
The hon. member does not even understand the status of women
in this country. Canada is a country that believes in removing the
barriers to every individual so they achieve their potential and be
able to be independent contributors to society.
This is what status of women does. It is a pity that Reform Party
members do not even understand that fundamental value.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Louise Comeau on behalf of people everywhere
who are concerned about the future of the planet pointed out that
Canada is not going to meet its international commitments on
climate change. It appears that federal and provincial ministers will
do nothing to rectify this deplorable situation when they meet on
December 12.
Will the Minister of the Environment reaffirm his personal
commitment today and tell the House and the people of Canada that
on December 12 he will acknowledge that Canada is not doing
enough and that he will talk about concrete measures which will
actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ensure Canada meets
its international obligations by the year 2005?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question. It was the
federal government at the recent CCME meeting of
federal-provincial ministers of the environment that put climate
change on the agenda in preparation for the meeting that my
colleague, the natural resources minister, and I will attend.
We have been very clear and transparent with the Canadian
public that we made international commitments in 1992, as did the
international community, and it is time that the international
community meets its obligations.
We have also said that Canada, together with most of the world,
is falling behind in meeting those obligations. It is imperative that
the federal government, together with the provincial government
ministers of the environment and energy try to do everything in
their power to come up with new initiatives to improve the
voluntary program so we can, together with the world, meet our
obligations together with industry and the NGO community.
7088
(1505)
[Translation]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Her Excellency, Carme Sala Sansa,
Minister of Education, Youth and Sport for the Principality of
Andorra.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw your attention to the question asked by the member for
Nepean and the response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period today.
I would also like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to
Standing Order 37(1) which states:
Questions on matters of urgency may, at the time specified in Standing Order
30(5), be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that, if in the
opinion of the Speaker a question is not urgent, he or she may direct that it be placed
on the Order Paper.
The Order Paper allows, immediately following question period,
for the tabling of documents and statements by ministers.
It was quite obvious from the question posed and the response by
the parliamentary secretary that this was a pre-planned and
orchestrated question and answer to get the information out on the
floor of the House of Commons. I do not think that it was a matter
of urgency if it was orchestrated and pre-planned, as it obviously
was.
Since we are now moving into Routine Proceedings, that would
allow the government to table that particular document. I think this
type of information should be tabled at the appropriate time and
question period is not the appropriate time.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
the greatest of respect, I would submit that is not a point of order. If
the member wishes to have a better read of what was offered by the
parliamentary secretary he could read Hansard tomorrow. It will be
there word for word verbatim.
The Deputy Speaker: Urgency is something in the eye of the
beholder. The ``blues'' will be available and as there has been a
change in Speaker I will ask that the ``blues'' be referred to His
Honour the Speaker who was here earlier during question period.
7088
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 three
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Standing Committee on Industry has the honour to
present its third report.
[English]
In accordance with its order of reference on Tuesday, October
29, 1996, your committee has considered Bill C-57, an act to
amend the Bell Canada Act, and has agreed to report it without
amendment. A copy of the relevant minutes to the proceedings
relating to this bill, issue No. 3, which includes the report, is tabled.
* * *
(1510 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-359, an act to establish a national register of
pedophiles and to provide legislative authority for the
administration of the Canadian Police Information Centre by the
RCMP.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present this private
member's bill. It is in keeping with the activity I have been
undertaking over these past long months to ensure that the
protection of our children becomes a priority of the government.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-360, an act to amend the Criminal Code (chemical
neutralization of pedophiles).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill follows in accordance with my
ongoing work in the whole area of child protection and is seen to be
a treatment process for those who are deemed to be pedophiles in
our community and a great threat to our children.
7089
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, from residents of the constituency of The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
The petition notes that 38 per cent of the national highway
system in Canada is substandard, that the national highway policy
study identified job creation, economic development, national
unity, saving lives and avoiding industry, lower congestion, lower
vehicular operating costs and better international competitiveness
as benefits of the proposed national highway program.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise on behalf of the
constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to present a
petition.
The petition contains thousands of signatures from my riding,
from Canadians who are concerned about rising violent crime
among young offenders.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
change the Young Offenders Act to reflect the concerns of citizens
of Canada by lowering the age limit, transferring those accused of
crimes of violence to adult court and publishing the identity of
violent criminal offenders.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition from 41 constituents of Peace River.
The petitioners call on Parliament to create a national child care
program based on the principles of accessibility, affordability, high
quality, comprehensiveness and accountability for funding use.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from constituents in Newfoundland who
concur with me that we need to establish a pedophile registry to
better protect our children and to better protect the citizens and
parents of this country in so doing.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 140 citizens who are
concerned that all levels of government should demonstrate their
support of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on
reading materials.
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table petitions signed by the constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas, which have been
duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order
36.
(1515 )
The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact
legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the
voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to
the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people in western
Canada who are opposed to applying the GST to reading materials.
The petitioners point out that education and literacy are critical
to the development of Canada and this tax on reading material
handicaps that development. They urge all levels of government to
demonstrate their support for education and literacy by eliminating
the sales tax on reading materials, including the new procedures
under the so-called harmonization of the GST with provincial sales
tax.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition from residents throughout Nova Scotia.
The petitioners state that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of
Canada announced he would work toward diverting the Sable
Island gas pipeline to Quebec City; that it is unacceptable for the
Prime Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia natural gas
without consulting Nova Scotians; and that Nova Scotians assert
their right to control the destination of Sable Island gas and demand
that the federal government cease tampering in this issue.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to recognize
the right of Nova Scotians to control the destination of Sable Island
natural gas.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present. The first one comes from Burnaby, B.C.
7090
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They
also state that in many cases the families of officers who lost their
lives in the line of duty are left without sufficient means to meet
their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts
and bequests for the benefit of the families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
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 upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition I wish to present comes from Sydney, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon 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. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today.
The first one is with regard to criminals profiting from crime and
is signed by many petitioners from in and around my riding. They
ask that Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon.
member for Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity so as to
provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a
crime.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from many constituents from in and around my riding
who believe that the application of the 7 per cent GST to reading
materials is unfair and wrong. They urge all levels of government
to demonstrate their commitment to education and literacy by
eliminating the sales tax on reading materials.
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST. They also ask Parliament and
provincial governments to zero rate reading materials under the
proposed harmonized sales tax and that the Prime Minister carry
out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove the
federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. Q-81 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 81-Mr. Bergeron:
In connection with the move of the Atomic Energy of Canada offices from
Montreal to Ontario, could the Department of Natural Resources indicate how many
direct and indirect jobs will be lost in Quebec?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of National Ressources, Lib.):
Regarding Atomic Energy Canada Limited, AECL, except for
seven individuals who have accepted transfers to another AECL
location, there have been no direct jobs lost in Quebec as a
consequence of AECL's June 1996 announcement to reorganize its
workforce throughout the company to achieve increased cost
efficiencies and effectiveness. EACL is not aware of any indirect
effect of these seven transfers.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7091
7091
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from December 2, 1996, consideration of
the motion:
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment
to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly
of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His
Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance
with the schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the
Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
``17. In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act 1867, the following
shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland:
In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive
authority to make laws in relation to education but
(a) except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), schools established, maintained and
operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class of
persons having rights under this Term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to
have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the
children of that class in those schools, and the group of classes that formed one
integrated school system by agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under
this Term as a single class of persons;
(b) subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools
specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools,
(i) any class of persons referred to in paragraph (
a) shall have the right to have
a publicly funded denominational school established, maintained and operated
especially for that class, and
(ii) the Legislature may approve the establishment, maintenance and operation
of a publicly funded school, whether denominational or non-denominational;
(c) where a school is established, maintained and operated pursuant to subparagraph
(b) (i), the class of persons referred to in that subparagraph shall continue to have the
right to provide for religious education, activities and observances and to direct the
teaching of aspects of curriculum affecting religious beliefs, student admission
policy and the assignment and dismissal of teachers in that school;
(d) all schools referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall receive their share of
public funds in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis
from time to time by the Legislature; and
(e) if the classes of persons having rights under this Term so desire, they shall
have the right to elect in total not less than two thirds of the members of a school
board, and any class so desiring shall have the right to elect the portion of that
total that is proportionate to the population of that class in the area under the
board's jurisdiction.''
Citation
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of
proclamation (Newfoundland Act).
and of the amendment.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this complex and difficult issue.
(1520)
It is an issue that is complex and difficult for Newfoundlanders
and for Canadians, but less so for Quebecers. That having been
said, I can understand that members across the way, who are
particularly concerned by the effect that a vote in the House of
Commons could have on the recognition of the rights of minorities,
of native peoples, in the Constitution, may be thrown into disarray
by the House's approval of the amendment proposed by the
Province of Newfoundland.
This needs to be acknowledged, and the Senate has given us an
opportunity to take another look at this issue. I would note in
passing that it is unacceptable for an unelected Chamber to be
permitted to do what it has done, and the Bloc has made this point
on a number of occasions.
But, back to the main item. The opportunity we have been given
to take another look at this issue allows us to bring out a number of
facts: the fact that the Newfoundland referendum was not won by a
large majority, quite the contrary, allowing us to say that the groups
affected-and I am not calling them minorities-in this case, the
various denominations, gave their approval. It is clearly a decision
by Newfoundlanders regarding the organization of their schools,
irrespective of the original provisions of the Constitution.
Some people may have language concerns, but we know that for
most the primary issue is denomination. You know that this is an
extremely sensitive issue in Quebec, and that the Constitution of
1867 provided guarantees, which at the time were supposed to be
guarantees for anglophones in Quebec and francophones in
Ontario, and later in other provinces. But back then, as
denomination and language were largely, not exclusively, but
largely linked, the guarantees given denominations were largely
language guarantees.
Today, urged on by a large percentage of the public, by
extremely urgent constraints, the Government of Quebec wants to
reorga-
7092
nize the entire school system on the basis of language, rather than
denomination. But it is prevented from doing so by section 93.
(1525)
Obviously, Quebecers who would like to change their school
system and thus change the guarantees given in the Constitution to
religious denominations are extremely interested in this vote, this
referendum that was held in Newfoundland and in the amendment
requested by the Government of Newfoundland.
It is important to realize that the rights affected here are not
those of an internationally recognized minority. These are
guarantees given to religious denominations for which the province
is, in the end, responsible.
When this measure became before the House, the Bloc
Quebecois voted in favour of the motion because it recognizes the
right of the people of Newfoundland to organize their schools as
they see fit, and also the fact that the people of Newfoundland
would give religious denominations the guarantees they felt were
required by law.
In Quebec-and I say this quite frankly-using section 93 is
more complicated because to do so we would have to accept the
Constitution of 1982 which was imposed on us, and when I say us, I
mean the people of Quebec and the National Assembly. This
Constitution of 1982 is considered internationally as a denial of the
fundamental right of the people of Quebec.
Although the Constitution of 1982 that was imposed on us by
force does not apply with any legitimacy, we nevertheless refer to
the possibility of using section 93 as a way to deal with this urgent
matter of reorganizing our school system.
I would like to explain how urgent the problem is. You probably
know that about 90 per cent of immigrants who settle in Montreal
and become Canadian citizens in Quebec still remain largely in
Montreal and the surrounding area. This means that the proportion
of francophones has gone down steadily and that, since the
guarantees provided under the Constitution prohibited us from
organizing school boards along language lines, we have this absurd
situation where the children of immigrants are required under Bill
101-which became Bill 86-to study in French. That is the only
thing left of the bill.
However, many children do so in Protestant and therefore
anglophone school boards, although they have French classes.
However, in these French classes-and I have heard many
comments from teachers and parents who send their children
there-it is clear they are not part of a francophone whole but of an
English-language organization that provides classroom teaching in
French.
(1530)
It is public knowledge that when these young people graduate
from high school and are no longer under the obligation to study in
French, most of them end up in one of the anglophone CEGEPs. So
this is a problem for all of Quebec, but it is mainly concentrated in
the Montreal region.
The Montreal region has to live with the problem of the
permanency of these guarantees which actually no longer
guarantee anything at all as far as the Protestant religion is
concerned. Since there are so many denominations, there is a
tendency to teach religion outside of school, while the schools will
teach ethics, but they will still have a so-called religious,
anglophone organization.
On the French side, there are parents in Montreal who want their
children to go to Catholic schools, although as we saw recently in a
survey, the majority is not in favour, so certain distinctions must be
made.
The important question is to find out whether the Montreal
component of Quebec society will be able to integrate the children
of immigrants and of new citizens of Quebec, which is vital to
maintaining, if not improving, the position of the French language
in Quebec.
Accordingly, and I would like to come back to the nuances I
mentioned, parents clearly want their children to continue to be
educated in religious history and in religion in school. They do not
want their children to remain ignorant about the existence of
religion, authority, the Bible and the Gospel. On the other hand,
they are very aware that, if schools are to teach religion, there will
have to be schools for all the denominations that make up the
religious mosaic of Montreal.
This issue is therefore both complex and delicate. For
Quebecers, and especially those in Montreal, it means that, if the
Constitution as it stands is not changed, it will be impossible, for
all intents and purposes, to reorganize the schools so as to promote
integration.
There was an attempt by the previous government to have the
Supreme Court interpret a bill that did not pass, through a change to
section 93. The result was ludicrous, because it split up school
systems by maintaining the religious elements and tacking on
French or English elements to them. The resulting fragmentation
would be extremely expensive, but would not serve the
fundamental needs I mentioned earlier.
(1535)
As a Quebecer, I can easily understand what the people of
Newfoundland want, especially since they worked so hard for
something that was imposed on Quebec, namely the patriation of
the Constitution.
For the rest of Canada, for francophones outside Quebec, whose
assimilation, which is on the rise and alarmingly so in some cases,
seems a tragedy, the fact that the House of Commons can, by a
majority vote, change what was guaranteed by the Constitution--
7093
not to the minority but to certain groups-seems to pose a serious
danger.
Would this House vote for the elimination of the constitutional
provisions that protect francophones in one western province or
another?
I know that, whether they speak French or English, my
colleagues opposite who are concerned about this strongly oppose
this measure and I can understand why.
The result of this alarming assimilation rate in some parts of the
country is that the rights of the francophone minority in Canada are
being and will continue to be trampled. In this respect, the vote on
this motion has set a precedent, not because it concerns religious
guarantees but because it concerns guarantees entrenched in the
Constitution. I can understand my hon. colleagues when they say
that a line may have been crossed.
We fought with all our energy for francophones outside Quebec.
Our history-and there is no doubt about this in my mind-is the
reason why the Official Languages Act exists. As a historian by
training, I have no hesitation in saying that the Official Languages
Act would never have seen the light of day, had it not been for the
tumultuous language debates that took place in Quebec during the
sixties.
Had these debates not taken place, Prime Minister Trudeau
would never have had any reason to impose on the whole country
an act which a large number of Canadians did not want. This act
was passed because people believed it would settle the Quebec
issue. They were bitterly disappointed when they realized that this
was not what Quebec wanted. What Quebec wants is to eventually
have all the powers. It does not want an official languages act
imposed from coast to coast.
So this is an important vote. It was an important vote the first
time and it is an important vote today.
I believe that the existence in a mostly French speaking,
sovereign Quebec of an English speaking minority would also help
protect the French speaking minority in Canada.
(1540)
Again, for the time being, I understand the hesitations of the
members opposite. I understand them because, in spite of the very
disappointing and shallow comments made by the heritage
minister, life for francophones outside Quebec is not easy. These
people have to perform daily heroics, as I have frequently seen
during trips to the western provinces, Ontario and, occasionally,
Acadia.
Daily heroism is not conducive, among other things, to
maintaining the enthusiasm of young people. We know that
assimilation is rampant and almost a normal phenomenon when
these young people marry English speaking persons. It must be
noted that the assimilation rate in Ontario is 38 per cent, and rises
to 76 per cent the further west you go. The situation is getting
worse, not better, and is a cause for serious concern.
It will not be by refusing to pass the amendment sought by
Newfoundland, which is facing an educational and denominational
organization that is very difficult and complex for a small province,
or by preventing Newfoundland from resolving this problem that
the growing assimilation in western Canada will be halted. I think
this issue will be, not resolved, for it is too late for that, but at least
affected by energetic measures that we have yet to see, which will
focus attention on the problem and slow down the rate of
assimilation.
One thing I would like to point out, and this still falls within the
area we are talking about, is how many functionally or totally
illiterate francophones there are outside Quebec, and how rare and
inaccessible the measures are to help them learn to read in their
own language. My point is that, in order to protect the future, we
need to take active, energetic steps, rather than stand in
Newfoundland's way.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
debate triggered by Resolution No. 12 in this House on term 17 of
the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada has, as the hon.
member for Mercier said in her speech, brought to light all the
misgivings we may have concerning constitutional change,
particularly when it appears that a category of persons protected
under the Constitution will find its rights diminished, if not done
away with altogether, without its consent.
(1545)
The question before us is not a partisan one, but a matter of
analyzing the protection of categories of persons.
I do not wish to interfere in the matter of the administration of
Newfoundland's schools, but I can still analyze the situation.
Obviously, their school system is a complicated one. To all intents
and purposes, term 17 gives the legislator of the province of
Newfoundland, what is, after all, a limited power over education in
that it cannot legislate unless the various religious denominations
are respected. Strange situations occur, like having six different
school buses picking up children of six different religious
denominations in one small locality, because these denominations
must be given equal treatment. Perhaps, in 1996, this needs
reviewing.
A position definitely needs to be taken, when all is said and
done. The more the debate progressed-and I have listened
attentively, either in my office or in this House, to my hon.
colleagues who have spoken on this-the more it struck me that it
was not all that obvious that, in the September 5, 1995 referendum,
each and every religious denomination constitutionally protected
by term 17
7094
of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada had given
consent.
I cannot state the contrary, either, that every religious
denomination refused to consent. In some parts of Newfoundland,
people voted massively against the Newfoundland government's
proposal, while in others they voted massively in favour. The vote
was very divided, and the final vote was also very divided. So
much so that basically, it is up to those who are primarily
concerned to pass a final judgement on this issue. The
Newfoundland government, rightly or wrongly, thought that on the
basis of a referendum held on September 5, 1995, it had a mandate
to pass a constitutional resolution to amend term 17 and ask the
governor in council to refer the same question to this House, which
is what happened.
History will have to realize we did not initiate these proceedings,
that the Newfoundland legislature acted first, and that the
Government of Newfoundland drew its conclusions from the
outcome of the referendum. I respect its decision although I have
quite a few questions.
It will be up to the voters of Newfoundland, if the government or
the legislature did not act wisely, to pass judgment on their elected
representatives who adopted the constitutional resolution before
the House today.
The situation that will be created by the vote in this House is not
irreversible, in that a new legislature in Newfoundland, with
different concerns, may request a constitutional amendment to
revert to the previous legal position.
In that respect, we are not doing anything irreparable. It would
not be like amending the Canadian Constitution to say that from
now, bills and court rulings will be in English only. That would be
irreversible. So there is still a certain amount of flexibility here.
In the end, although we are extremely reticent, because this is a
mine field and we might be accused of having created a precedent
today, in the end perhaps we can, by stretching our tolerance to the
limit, accept the resolution before the House.
However, this precedent should not be used to attack the rights of
Franco-Ontarians or the rights of francophones in Manitoba or
anywhere else, but especially in those two provinces where they
enjoy constitutional protection, as in the province of New
Brunswick, which subsequently protected its francophone
minorities.
The question is of course a sensitive one where Quebec is
concerned, as the hon. member for Mercier said earlier.
(1550)
We know that in Quebec we have provisions governing schools
and minority rights, which are now out of date. The only way to get
around this would be perhaps to have section 93 of the
Constitution amended, while ensuring that those protected under
this section are in agreement. There are ways to do so and these
ways have already been used in other circumstances.
I also understand the reticence of the Government of Quebec to
apply under the amending formula of 1982, which it and all
political parties in Quebec never recognized. I can understand its
reticence in not joyously rushing, with honour and enthusiasm, to
pass a resolution to call on this House to pass one as well to amend
section 93, which would make things so much simpler in Quebec,
as the hon. member for Mercier pointed out earlier, by enabling us
to update our system of education.
However, the Government of Quebec has not acted in order to
show how touchy constitutional change is with respect to
minorities, because a fairly strong consensus is emerging in
Quebec. There is of course the 1982 padlock, which is more of a
yoke than a padlock, obliging us to live with this situation.
Those like me who were raised in a rural municipality of
Quebec, where, two or three times a year, a collection was taken up
in school for the survival of French-the hon. member for Mercier
must remember that-get a little nervous when there is talk of
taking rights away from classes of persons protected by the
Constitution.
That is why, as this debate draws to a close, I am telling you that,
because of this uncertainty and in spite of all the misgivings I have,
in the end, I could probably vote in favour of the proposal before
us, while at the same time expressing the wish that the provisions
contained in the Constitution that protect minority rights not be
changed without first obtaining the consent of the minorities
concerned.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the hon.
member's speech reflects how sensitive this issue, which appeals to
people's principles, really is.
The whole debate, at least on our side, has led us to the
conclusion that, in spite of some reservations, there are enough
guarantees for the French speaking minority which, again, is not
the one affected, and we can understand and accept why
Government of Newfoundland made this request, to which the
federal government has acceded.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
7095
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 194)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Cummins
Duhamel
Epp
Hanrahan
Hayes
Kerpan
Lincoln
McTeague
Nunziata
Steckle-15
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Alcock
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-186
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Daviault
Dubé
Eggleton
Gauthier
Kirkby
Langlois
Lee
Massé
Pomerleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1640)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion.
7096
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
division:)
(Division No. 195)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Alcock
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Irwin
Jacob
Johnston
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-172
NAYS
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duhamel
Duncan
Epp
Grose
Hanrahan
Hayes
Hopkins
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Lincoln
McCormick
McTeague
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Peric
Schmidt
Skoke
Steckle
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Wappel
Wood -42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Daviault
Dubé
Eggleton
Gauthier
Kirkby
Langlois
Lee
Massé
Pomerleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1650)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk-Endangered
species.
* * *
The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act,
the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts, be
7097
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When debate was
interrupted, the hon. member for Wild Rose had the floor. I should
advise the hon. member that he has nine minutes remaining in his
time.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I
was speaking yesterday evening I was talking about the loss of jobs
that the harmonization plan is going to create.
(1655 )
If the finance minister needs evidence that this policy will kill
jobs, all he has to do is read the study from Ontario. It stated:
``Harmonization would remove $3 billion from the Ontario
economy, and kill jobs and economic growth''. That is why Ontario
did not agree to harmonization. It knew this policy will kill jobs,
jobs, jobs and not create them.
In order to kill jobs, jobs, jobs in the Atlantic region, the Liberals
will kill jobs, jobs, jobs in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. The Liberals
will remove over $300 million each from the Ontario, Alberta and
B.C. economies to bribe the Atlantic premiers into signing on to
harmonization.
Have the Liberals no understanding of economics? Do the
Liberals not know that if Canadians feel insecure in their jobs they
will not spend and purchase more than absolutely necessary? This
failure to create retail sales will kill jobs, reduce federal income
and force higher expenditures from federal tax dollars to finance
unemployment insurance and social services. All this adds up to a
bad deal.
The Liberals will cost taxpayers more, create fewer jobs, stifle
government revenues just so they can claim to have fulfilled a
broken promise from their Liberal dead book.
Since the Liberal policy will lower sales, end jobs and give
companies leaner profits, the self-fulfilling prophecy of less retail
sales will be reinforced.
Again the Liberal understanding of economics is suspect. An
increase in subsidy money acts as an increase in regional money
supply, increasing inflation. The bribe money of a $1 billion is a
regional subsidy that will further harm regional job creation
through inflation. The Liberals have stated many times that
inflation is a job killer, yet they will increase regional inflation,
killing more jobs, just to keep this Liberal dead book promise.
The Halifax Chamber of Commerce said that harmonization will
increase new house prices by 5.5 per cent. Consequently that is
going to lead, according to many experts, to much higher property
tax within the area, this in an area that has difficult economic
problems because of past government policies.
The Liberals will do anything, regardless of the effect on
Canadians, to try to prove that they have integrity, even though all
Canadians know, thanks to the Liberal dead book, their integrity is
very, very low.
The finance minister will argue his harmonization policy to
falsely fulfil a Liberal promise will not kill jobs. I would like to ask
the finance minister if this is so, why is Greenberg stores closing
five stores even before harmonization takes place? Greenberg has
run a cost benefit analysis. It knows this policy will reduce profits
and have acted accordingly. What cost benefit analysis has the
finance minister conducted and will he release this information to
Canadians? I think not because it is obvious he had done none.
When the harmonization policy takes effect it will increase the
cost of doing business to Atlantic province retailers. This much is
already confirmed and known by the studies done in the provinces
agreeing to harmonization.
This will simply drive consumers near New England states to
cross the line, purchase their goods where taxes are lower and add
further problems to our current balance of payments. If the Liberals
would only wake up and listen to Reform policies and try to
implement something that would be far reaching from sea to sea,
involving each and every province, then Reform would gladly have
a look at their proposal. But they do things in a piecemeal fashion
and cause all sorts of problems, pitting one province against
another. It causes nothing but grief. It is no wonder that we are
having difficulty in this land, trying to bring unity and
understanding.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I listened
to the hon. member's comments I wonder if he is aware that when
we harmonize two taxes that what happens is there are adjustments.
That means some commodities go up and other commodities go
down.
(1700)
The Reform member talked about those things which are going
up. He did not talk about the reality that in all of those provinces at
different rates, 5 per cent in Newfoundland, 4 per cent in Nova
Scotia and 4 per cent in New Brunswick, the total quantum of taxes
being collected by government has been reduced. The reality is that
money is being added to the pockets of consumers. The bottom line
is there will be more disposable income for consumers which will
create jobs. The whole philosophy that the member used, that it
will kill jobs, is erroneous.
The member talked about the Greenberg company. Its
representatives have indicated that many of the Greenberg stores in
the maritimes were marginal. They were losing money. They are
talking about closing some of them. However, the bottom line is
they were going to go out of business anyway. It has nothing to do
7098
with the implementation of tax, but hon. members opposite want to
use that as some kind of analysis.
The member did not talk about the positive things. One of the
positive things is one collection authority. Right now each
individual province has an administration to collect the retail sales
tax and the federal government has an administration to collect tax.
Why can the Reform Party not see that it makes sense to have only
one administration collecting those taxes? Why can Reform
members not see the great economic benefit that will be extended
to the maritime provinces because they will not have to incur those
costs?
Yesterday I talked to a fellow accountant in St. Anthony,
Newfoundland. He said it was one of the best things he has ever
seen happen in the province. The province of Newfoundland will
save millions and millions of dollars. That money will go back into
an economy which as we know is very weak. That is a positive
benefit of this legislation.
Right now, small and medium size businesses, the job creators in
this country, have to fill out forms for the retail sales tax and forms
for the GST. There is not one of those small businesses that would
not say that just having one form will be a tremendous
improvement. Why is it that the Reform Party cannot see that?
Then there is the business about pitting one province against
another. We have three provinces now, which is three more than we
had a year ago. A couple of years from now we will have twice as
many as that again, including my province.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer a question
that was a speech but I will try.
It is ridiculous for any member of this House to say: ``What are
you talking about? This is something which Canadians want. After
all, we got three provinces this year and two or three years down
the road we will get a couple more and another five years down the
road we might get one more''. What kind of a planning strategy is
that?
What about offering a package to all the provinces and give them
a chance to study the issue and respond? No, not from the dictators
that we have in this place. It is better just to throw it out there and
say: ``This is a good deal. If you do not believe it, just ask us and
we will tell you''.
The Ontario studies have said it would cost that province $3
billion. Ontario is not interested. I am surprised the member who is
from Ontario would not take that into account. He should talk to a
number of people in his own riding. Obviously a number of people
in Ontario are extremely opposed to this.
And the Liberals say that things are going to be cheaper overall.
Add up the things which a family with an average income has to
buy, like children's clothing, heating oil and other necessities. All
of a sudden they will have to pay more for those items. Those
families do not buy luxuries by any means; they try to make ends
meet. I am talking about the bulk of the people, the people who
pack their lunch, put their head down and go to work every day.
They have a terrible time trying to make ends meet because of the
taxes they have to pay. If the member does not believe that, he
should ask anybody who is out there working how well they are
making out.
To me this whole thing is a sham. It is a cover-up for a dead book
error. The Liberals were going to scrap and kill the GST. They
made big, brave statements in the campaign, but when push came
to shove they did what we see today. It means nothing. If the
Liberals want to make a proposal to the country as a whole, if they
want to take Canada into consideration for the good of all
Canadians, then they should show us something that does that and
they should stop piecemealing around.
(1705)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there is only a little time so I will ask the member a very
direct question. The member and his party have stated that they are
opposed to the harmonization of the taxes. They keep pushing
about killing, abolishing and scrapping. Is the Reform Party
proposing that the current GST simply be eliminated totally?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious what we have
said from the very beginning. Let us have a responsible
government, let us balance the books, let us stop spending more
than what we have. Get the balancing effect into place, then start
giving some people a break in taxes and maybe the GST would be
an excellent place to start.
The Liberals are bringing in a harmonization plan that only
affects a small number of Canadians in three provinces. It does not
address the real issue all across the land. Other provinces are
saying no to the plan and some are saying that they do not think so.
What kind of decision making is that? Let us get this act together.
It is time the Liberal government started consulting Canada
instead of its caucus.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's presentation and
to the subsequent questions and comments which came forward. I
wonder if the hon. member is aware of three relevant points to this
debate.
One point relates to small business. I have talked to a number of
small business people in Atlantic Canada. They have said that with
the harmonization they will have one set of records to keep, one
cheque to issue, one auditor to review their books and accounts.
This will replace the current two sets of books, one for provincial
sales tax and one for GST, two cheques to issue, and two auditors
coming in from time to time to review their accounting systems.
7099
They have said this is a tremendous cost saving to them in the
operation of their businesses.
Second, in my home province the current provincial sales tax is
11 per cent and the GST is 7 per cent. Is the hon. member aware
that currently there is 7 per cent and 11 per cent on top of that 7 per
cent on purchases of such items as automobiles, refrigerators,
stoves, paper towels, Kleenex, bathroom tissue, paper supplies, all
the normal things that we use day in and day out? To harmonize
that into one system with a single 15 per cent tax is a savings. There
is no question about it.
According to the GST listing there are other products that will go
on. For some of those a credit system will come forward but overall
there will be a tremendous savings for the consumer and the
business person. This proposal is supported by the majority of
people in Atlantic Canada.
(1710 )
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, it is questionable how much
support there is when I see petitions bearing 16,000 signatures of
people who live in these provinces and object to the harmonization
plan. I find it unusually strange that there has been some careful
analysis done by some companies which were going to open new
stores in 1997 but decided not to because of what was happening,
that it was not good for business.
There has been a very careful analysis regarding retail sales.
Many retailers have come to the conclusion that retail sales would
be way down. We all know that whenever retail sales are lost there
is a good chance of job losses and the overall effect is not good.
I think a very careful analysis has been done by both sides, not
just on the cost savings because of the harmonization but also the
increase in other problems that may arise. It has all been carefully
done by those who have the expertise to do so.
I would ask the hon. member to remember that statements are
coming from people who have a great concern about this, people
such as those at the Retail Council of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but
the hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson: I thought if I was asked a question, I would
have time to give the answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue on
debate.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am going to speak
about improvements to Canada's federal goods and services tax.
There are over 130 improvements and the government is
introducing them to simplify the GST and to increase its fairness.
These changes do go a considerable way toward replacing the GST
as we know it with a better system.
The GST as we know has been a source of much controversy.
There is nothing as topical as something everyone dislikes and no
one likes taxes. That is not surprising.
It was not long ago in this country that nobody paid taxes
because there were none. At the turn of this century there were no
national income, corporate or sales taxes for anyone to pay, rich or
poor. Believe it or not, in 1900 Ottawa got most of its revenues
from customs duties. I suspect that this could be the reason our
political ancestors promoted Canada as a great trading nation.
But we live in a different time and in many ways a much
different country, a country cited as one of the finest in the world in
which to live. One of the distinguishing features that makes this
country of ours the envy of others is the priority we place on quality
of life. We are known the world over for social programs we have
devised to ensure a decent quality of life for everyone.
Taxes unfortunately are the duties and dues that we pay for the
privilege of membership in this country and this society. The taxes
we pay ensure a common richness. And let us face it, the GST is a
tax that brings in $18 billion a year, or 13 per cent of the total
federal revenues. Without a tax like it, our social programs would
be in jeopardy, our debt problems would be deadly, and our
national advantage as an international economy would be at risk.
Having said all this, I want to say also that the government has
been correct to criticize the GST as it was. In so doing, we were
responding to what Canadians told us. Canadians told us that the
GST was poorly conceived. They told us it was an outrageous
example of overlap and duplication that came out of bureaucracies.
They told us that the GST was cumbersome and that in particular it
cost small business too much time, too much energy and too much
money.
The legislation being introduced now both simplifies and
clarifies the application of the GST and also streamlines the
administration. In doing this it introduces a greater fairness in the
system and lays the foundation for a national harmonized sales tax.
Taken together, the measures that we see in the bill represent a
major step toward replacing the GST as we have known it. They
respond to what Canadians have been telling us.
In looking at alternatives to the GST, the all-party finance
committee of the House went to Canadians for advice. It listened to
nearly 500 witnesses and read more than 700 briefs from
consumers, professionals, businesses and individuals. What did the
Canadian people tell us?
Canadians told us to do what is sensible. They told us to fix the
problems that were there. They told us not to run off and create
some other new or strange scheme to adjust to, to do the same job
as the GST and risk the same complexities. They said: ``We need
the $18 billion, we understand that. The thing is in place now so fix
the problems and get rid of the irritants. Fix the duplication and
create sales tax harmonization. Fix the headaches that we have by
7100
clarifying the rules and making it simpler and fairer''. This is
precisely what this legislation starts doing. In so doing, it shows
what can be accomplished by simply responding to what Canadians
have told us to do.
(1715)
Our other colleagues in the House will speak to the issue of sales
tax harmonization which is in the legislation respecting three of the
maritime provinces. Today I do want to comment more on the
measures that address the headaches that affect all Canadians in
this legislation and which are also being dealt with at the same
time.
In developing the changes, many of which are technical and
sector specific, this government went straight to many of the
groups, organizations, sector leaders and professional associations
affected by the tax. We told them we had the tax and asked them
what we could do with it to make their life somewhat easier. We
wanted to know what we could do to fix their problems with this
legislation.
What we heard in response resulted in this legislation with about
130 different changes affecting multiple sectors of our society. The
package introduces measures to simplify the operation of the tax
for many businesses and non-profit organizations. It introduces
measures that make compliance easier and clarify confusing
aspects of the tax. It also introduces measures to improve the
fairness of the tax both for the consumers and for businesses.
I wish to elaborate on a few points. First, well over one-third of
these proposed modifications are aimed specifically at
simplification. These include streamlining the tax treatment of
charities and non-profit organizations. They include a simplified
calculation of employee and shareholder benefits for Canadian
businesses. Businesses can now make a one step tax calculation
using the same information they use for their income tax purposes.
The modifications include measures which simplify transactions
related to used or second hand goods, which have become a
significant part of the economic activity in this country.
The package also includes proposals to clarify the application of
the tax and, in particular, to ease the burden of compliance for
small businesses. These changes were done to ensure that there is
more precision in the application of the GST and that it does not
complicate administration unnecessarily.
They clarify certain educational services such as those provided
and what we are now defining as public colleges and vocational
schools as well as universities. They involve streamlining the
administration of tourist rebates, something that is very important
in this country as an industry, and extend the eligibility to these
rebates to non-resident businesses.
There is also the much needed clarification of the GST in areas
relating to financial services, to trusts and estates and changes to
existing partnership rules.
Finally, this package of measures restructures the GST to make it
fairer for all Canadians. This is accomplished by ensuring
competitive equity among businesses and applying the tax equally
to all consumers. A variety of modifications restores the
international competitiveness of Canadian service providers,
equalizes the tax treatment of health care services and introduces a
fairer application of the GST to housing rebates.
The themes are simplification, clarification and greater fairness.
These have all been the guiding principles in developing these
changes. Many of these measures being proposed are technical and
strategically aimed to deal with specific problems in certain
sectors.
In the amount of time I have here today it would be impossible
for me to review each adequately or in sufficient detail. I know all
the members have access to that material. Consequently, I would
like to draw the attention of the House to some general examples of
the improvements which are in this legislation.
I should first remind the House and its various members of the
invaluable contribution being made to the well-being of our
Canadian society by Canadians and Canada's charitable
organizations. However, when the GST was established the rules
were developed to address the activities of the largest charities.
Many smaller charities have found these rules to be too onerous for
their use. Yet combined together these small charities, precisely the
smaller charities, do much of the charitable work in the country.
(1720)
This legislation proposes new and simpler rules for all charities
but, in addition, new rules were specifically designed for smaller
charities which will simplify compliance for the GST for the
smaller charitable group. As a result of these changes significantly
fewer charities, about 10,000 fewer to be exact, will have to
register for the GST at all. For those that do remain registered, 10
to 12 per cent of all charities, the rules will be simpler, particularly
for fundraising activities, for filing returns and for claiming
rebates. I think that is very important and very positive. This will
help our charity sector increase the range of its activities in a time
that fiscal restraint is forcing many to become more dependent on
the network of goodwill that exists among our volunteers and our
community based organizations.
Further, a number of changes are proposed to make the federal
sales tax system fairer in its application in the health care sector.
We all know especially with our aging population how important
7101
the health care sector is to Canadian society and how much more
important it will be in the future.
There will be changes to the treatment of services provided by
health care practitioners who are not medical doctors or dentists. A
greater degree of fairness is being introduced to exempt from GST
the services these practitioners provide. For example, the list of
exempt health care practitioners will be extended to include
dietitians who meet the criteria for health care professionals in five
provinces. As a result, using that example, dietitians will be able to
provide their services exempt from federal sales tax to individuals,
health care facilities and public sector bodies starting January 1,
1997.
An added advantage of this measure is that it increases
professional regulation of health care practitioners who are
requesting an exemption. This makes their services more
financially accessible to the public.
A number of changes are also proposed to extend or clarify the
zero rating provisions as they apply to certain medical devices and
associated services. For example, the zero rating of hospital beds
will be extended to purchases by all health care facilities, including
long term health care facilities. Currently the sale of hospital beds
is zero rated only when purchased by a hospital or by an individual
with a written order from a medical practitioner. I think we can see
that there are positive elements in the legislation.
The zero rating of the cost of modifying a car, for instance, to
meet the needs of an individual using a wheel chair will also be
expanded. Orthopaedic devices will be zero rated when they are
made to order for an individual or when they are supplied under
prescription.
These are sensible changes which are being introduced at an
appropriate time, as I said before, when the needs of an aging
population are increasing. I do not think there would be any
argument in this House that these are beneficial to certain segments
of Canadian society.
I go to another sector, the municipal sector. We used to have
various complications concerning the GST, for instance, garbage
collection. These will be alleviated under this new legislation. The
collection of garbage will now be exempt from GST when it is
provided by a municipality or by a government.
Similarly, services to remove snow, ice and water, maintain
water distribution, sewage or drainage systems or repair and
maintain roads and streets and sidewalks, these all will now be
exempt from GST when they are supplied by the municipality. This
government proposes also that the collection of recyclable
materials be included in the exempt provision for the collection of
garbage. That is important when we are trying to help our
environment in this country. These efforts, simplification and
clarification in the application of GST, will have a beneficial effect
for the environment and for different levels of government, namely
the municipal level.
There is another sector this provision has a beneficial effect on,
the agricultural sector. Here again the list of zero rated supplies is
being expanded to include automated and computerized feeding
systems, specified mulchers, crop shredders, transportable
conveyers and elevators, and certain wagons and trailers.
(1725)
It is always important when we develop legislation that we treat
all the sectors across this country, whether it is industrial,
agriculture, municipal levels of governments or health care sectors,
that there is something that is going to help a number of the
organizations in this land.
There are changes to the existing rules for the benefit of builders
of subsidized residential complexes to ensure that they also have
equitable treatment for themselves as builders, together with
non-subsidized housing.
There is a broader range of goods and services relating to
international transportation which can and will also be zero rated,
as will services provided by purchasing representatives to
non-resident businesses.
These things are technical. I do not think they are the most
exciting but I know to the people who are concerned with this
legislation they are important changes. They will have a benefit in
areas where people were complaining to us before. I know the
members of the finance committee heard these complaints, and this
legislation is the response.
There are many other proposed changes to the tax treatment of
international transactions that will improve the administrative
efficiency and the competitive advantages of Canadian businesses.
I could go on with more examples but these changes address the
inequities, the complexities and the unnecessary obstructions that
have made the GST so unpalatable to Canadian citizens, Canadian
businesses and different levels of governments.
They bring needed simplicity, clarity and fairness where issues
sometimes were cloudy. In making these changes, this government
has responded in large measure to not what a government wanted,
or the government side of this House wanted, but what Canadians
told us were problems.
In addressing these technical amendments to the GST, we are not
talking only about the harmonized provinces. We are talking about
across Canada. It is a response to the irritants in a system of a badly
designed tax and we are trying to improve it. This is not a perfect
world. There is no legislation that is perfection that I have ever
seen in this House any former House or probably any future House.
But we are moving forward with improvements.
7102
That is what legislation does. That is our job as responsible
people trying to administer fair taxes, simpler taxes and equitable
taxes in a country.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Barnes: It is incredible to listen to people heckling while
one is trying to complete a speech but that is part of standing up and
debating in this House.
We have to understand that this bill accomplishes a major step in
replacing the GST as it was. In my opinion it is moving toward a
better system. I would like this country at some point in time to be
a fully harmonized system but life is not perfect, we as members of
this House are certainly far from perfect, and other legislatures are
far from perfect also.
What we do is make improvement and gradually things move in
the right direction and maybe one day we will have the perfect
solution for people who think there are perfect solutions. Right now
we are working toward improvements.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will allow a
very short question and a very short answer. There is one minute
left in this debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have a very brief question, and I hope the answer will be
equally brief.
I listened to my colleague, the member for London West, speak
of her pride in being associated with such a bill. I would like to ask
her what about this bill she is proud of. First of all, it is costing
Canadians $1 billion in political compensation for a political
agreement, when Quebec had already gone ahead with
harmonization at no cost to the federal government.
Second, how can she be proud of her government, when the
promise that it made-and that was part of the reason it won the
election-was to scrap the GST, not to conceal it in the price, not to
conclude harmonization agreements with the maritimes at a cost of
$1 billion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I am very
proud of my government because it responds to the needs of
Canadians. It has travelled across the country and has listened to
people. If the hon. member had listened to my speech, many
examples were given to him. There are 130 exact examples in this
legislation which he can read. Constituents in all ridings, I do not
care in which province, will benefit from this legislation.
7102
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the
motion; and of the amendment
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, along with many of my
colleagues in this House I have been lobbied by firefighters from
right across the country with respect to the need for a Canadian
Operation Respond test site.
Therefore, it is my privilege to rise in the House, on behalf of the
Minister of Transport, to announce the government's support for
the private member's initiative undertaken by the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway. The Government of Canada agrees with the
principle that, wherever it is reasonable to do so, full support
should be provided to firefighters as well as to other emergency
response personnel. M-241 has this goal in mind and, for that
reason, we support it.
I should, however, clarify some of the terms used in the motion.
Let me begin with the title ``Operation Respond''. In the early
1990s the International Association of Firefighters in both Canada
and the United States proposed that a system be established to
provide firefighters with immediate information on contents of
trucks and railway vehicles.
The essential elements were: first, each means of transport
intended to carry dangerous goods must be assigned a unique
identification number.
Second, on loading dangerous goods the operator of the means of
transport report to a central computer the identification number and
details of a load. On delivery, the operator would report a second
time to have the entry deleted.
Third, computers, similar to those used by police forces for
direct access from their vehicles to centrally located computer files
be provided to fire department vehicles so that at the scene of a
transportation accident the firefighters could access the central
databank to find out what was carried in the involved means of
transport.
A study conducted in 1993 by the U.S. National Research
Council, under the guidelines of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, concluded that the generation and handling of the data
needed to give effect to such a system for all dangerous good
shipments was too expensive to justify the implementation.
However, it was noted that some companies, notably railways,
already had the necessary data in computerized form.
7103
The decision was taken in the U.S. to support the development
and use of software which could access such existing data. The
organization established to do this is Operation Respond Institute
Inc.
Since Operation Respond began in 1992 its software has been
established in 40 locations. Companies whose data can be accessed
using the software currently comprise two trucking companies and
16 railway companies.
Operation Respond is a program established through contractual
agreements between Operation Respond Institute Inc. and data
providers such as railway companies and between Operation
Respond Institute Inc. and data users such as fire departments.
We agree that Operation Respond, as operated in the United
States, be demonstrated right here in Canada.
(1735 )
With respect to the statement that the Minister of Transport
should move rapidly to establish a Canadian test site, there are no
regulatory roadblocks or initiatives required in order for Operation
Respond to operate in Canada as it operates in the United States. It
would appear from the motion that what is wanted is a champion to
promote the initiative.
I can advise that the Minister of Transport will act in this role for
the establishment of a demonstration site. To promote the
establishment of the demonstration site, the Minister of Transport
will request CN and CP to participate in the program. They will be
asked to make available their data on the contents of railway cars in
the manner required by Operation Respond software.
Further, the Minister of Transport will assist financially in the
establishment of Operation Respond software in a Canadian
location which includes installation and training. In selecting the
Canadian test site referred to in the motion, we considered past
accidents in communities which have significant rail and highway
traffic. I can advise the House that an informal agreement has been
reached between the Burnaby Fire Department and Transport
Canada to establish the Canadian demonstration site in Burnaby,
B.C.
Although Burnaby, B.C. has not had frequent accidents, it has
had a higher rate than similar communities. I am sure the member
for Burnaby-Kingsway would agree that a Burnaby test site
would be highly appropriate. The Minister of Transport supports
the establishment of a Canadian demonstration site for Operation
Respond. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the
private member's Motion No. 241.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Motion No. 241, a motion
which the Reform Party supports. It was put forward by the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
The motion deals with the protection of firefighters and other
emergency health personnel who are often confronted with
dangerous situations. In particular, this motion deals with
hazardous materials.
The situation that exists currently is that in the event of an
accident, firefighters can get their information from CANUTEC.
Unfortunately, it takes about eight to ten minutes for this
information to be available. This is valuable time that can be used
to save firefighters, the surrounding public and the communities
where the hazardous situation has arisen.
What the member for Burnaby-Kingsway proposes is that we
have a test site for a rapid response situation where information can
be determined on site within a minute. All a firefighter would have
to do to get information on a vehicle or train that has crashed is put
it into a computer system. The computer will then be able to tell
them immediately what hazardous materials are actually sitting in
the train or truck. The availability of this information will save
lives.
The condition of support of this motion is that it does not cost
more money and that it does prove to be a more efficient way of
protecting firefighters and other emergency health care personnel.
The good thing we have right now is that the software is already
available because it is being used in the United States. The
Americans are prepared to give that to us free of charge.
Firemen also have laptops and modems available to them.
Therefore, it is not going to cost more money. Indeed, it will be
interesting to see what the outcome will be of the emergency
response situation.
Firefighters all over the country have been doing a lot of work in
pursuing this idea and, in particular, Ed Pakos, the president of the
Victoria Fire-Fighters Society and firefighters on Vancouver
Island. The motion is supported by the International Firefighters
Association, the Canadian Police Association, the United Transport
Union and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs.
I would also like to speak on an ancillary topic which is very
much related to this issue and involves the protection of firefighters
and other emergency personnel. This is something that firefighters
have been pushing forward for a long time. It involves the
disclosure of the health of individuals if the emergency personnel
are confronted with body fluids.
(1740 )
For example, in the case of a car accident, the firefighters, police
officers and medical personnel attend to the victims on the site.
Glass can be present. Body fluids are around. When emergency
personnel come into contact with those body fluids they run the
risk of acquiring some potentially lethal diseases such as AIDS
through HIV transmission or hepatitis B or C.
7104
The government ought to put forward a bill that will ensure that
good Samaritans and emergency health care personnel have a right
to this information, a right to know whether the people they are
helping are carrying a deadly disease. The government voted
against this, much to my shock and disgust, when members of the
Reform Party put forward some very strong and persuasive ideas
on how we can protect the health of all emergency personnel.
This idea has the support of firefighters, police associations and
medical personnel across the country. It seems absolutely unfair
that when good Samaritans and emergency personnel respond to an
emergency and come in contact with body fluids, they must have
the right for their safety and the safety of their families to know the
health status of the individuals in need.
The government believes that good Samaritans do not have the
right to this information. It believes that protecting the individual
who is sick is more important than protecting the individuals who
help them. This is not a situation where the rights of sick people are
abrogated. This simply makes good common sense.
When Motion No. 241 was put forward, when firefighters came
to us with suggestions about the motion, they also suggested ideas
for legislation that could be used by them to get information on the
sick or injured people they may be dealing with and whose body
fluids they may come in contact with.
Unfortunately, we have not seen any motion to that effect put in
the House. I believe it is essential for protection of all individuals
involved in emergency health care procedures to have the right to
know the health status of individuals they are dealing with when
they are exposed to the body fluids of these people. As I said
before, these body fluids can pose a significant and sometimes fatal
risk to the good Samaritans and health care personnel.
The Reform Party supports Motion No. 241, on the condition
that it does not cost the taxpayers any more money and that it will
improve the current situation. We hope that it will because we
believe that the protection of these hard working firefighters,
police officers and other emergency response teams who are
confronted by these hazardous situations must be protected. They
are courageous and honourable people who protect all of us and we
in turn must do the same to protect then.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 241. I would
like to thank the member for Burnaby-Kingsway for bringing this
to our attention today.
As I have talked about this issue with a lot of firefighters and I
have learned a lot about firefighting. The reality is that firefighting
is not exclusively about fighting fires. It seems that less than 50 per
cent of the time is spent in conventional firefighting and the
balance in attending accidents.
The motion is on the movement of hazardous materials and as
our society seems to be getting more and more sophisticated, it
seems to be happening more and more often.
About a year ago January I was in British Columbia. I took the
train through the Rocky Mountains and I probably passed close to
the member's riding. I discovered that there had been a tremendous
number of derailments out there. It must be very difficult for
firefighters who arrive at the scene not to know what the contents
of those cars are or exactly how to deal with them.
(1745)
In an era of technology and software development it appears
very appropriate that we develop Operation Respond, which
already exists in the United States. As some other members have
said, it is very easy to clone that system in Canada.
The minister has been very supportive in requesting that our two
major railways participate in that plan. That minister is willing to
provide funds toward the purchase of the software and the training
of those people who will be engaged in the test site in Burnaby.
It is not just about the contents of these carriers. There is also the
issue of training personnel in the evacuation of communities based
on what sort of hazardous material is on these carriers.
I would like to thank the Oshawa firefighters, the Clarington fire
department, the Scugog fire department, which is a volunteer fire
department, and also the one in Oxbridge that brought this matter
to my attention.
We talked about this time and time again. I have sent many
letters to the minister and so forth. I am very happy that the
government and the member for Burnaby-Kingsway have been
able to come to an agreement. It shows how a government can work
with the opposition. All parties in the House can work together to
come to very sensible conclusions and to develop good legislation
for the protection of our people.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to private member's
Motion No. 241, brought forward by my NDP colleague from
Burnaby-Kingsway. He has worked very hard on this important
motion to bring it to our attention for which I congratulate him.
Motion No. 241 deals with a subject matter that I also have been
supporting and have done a lot of work on over the years. That is
why I want to say a few words today. It is important to note that
another one of our colleagues from the New Democratic Party, the
member for Winnipeg Transcona, has worked very hard on this
7105
issue. We all thank the parliamentary secretary and the minister for
responding in the way they have.
The motion essentially deals with the establishment of a
Canadian test site for Operation Respond, a computerized database
of hazardous materials that would improve safety for firefighters
and help save lives and property.
There is no question in my mind that this is a critical motion
which every member of this House should support. At the same
time the Minister of Transport should be as we speak preparing to
establish this test site. As the parliamentary secretary indicated a
few minutes ago, I believe that is what he is doing. I am very
pleased to hear that tonight and I recognize the support the
government has given to this motion.
This is an issue that is most important to Canada's firefighters. It
was first brought to my attention by Saskatchewan firefighters
during one of their lobby days on Parliament Hill. The firefighters
annual lobby effort is one of the most effective I have been subject
to in my eight years in Parliament. I congratulate the firefighters on
that.
I also want to congratulate Doug Coupar who was the Canadian
director of the International Association of Firefighters. His efforts
were instrumental in the success of this lobby. During that lobby
they told me that firefighters dealing with incidents involving
hazardous materials need to know precisely what chemicals are
present and how to handle them. The faster they can obtain this
information the more effectively they can protect their own safety
and that of the community around them.
The situation today is not adequate. Operation Respond, on the
other hand, is a system that gives firefighters firsthand access to
information that they need by use of a laptop computer and a
modem installed in their emergency vehicles. They simply enter a
number which has been assigned to each load travelling on the rails
or highways into that laptop and within one minute they can know
exactly what materials are onboard that vehicle which may have
been involved in an accident. They will know what safety
precautions to take and how to contain the incident they have
encountered more effectively.
(1750 )
Compare that to the 10 minutes to several hours that it
sometimes takes under the existing system. The sources of the
information for Operation Respond are databases kept by the
carriers. The system is applicable to all forms of transportation in
its ideal usages, trains, trucks, ships and aircraft. I hope we will be
able to find a way to ensure that this happens. Operation Respond
makes a tremendous amount of sense.
In May of this year I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport. I
stated: ``I have recently met with Canadian firefighters who are
interested in securing a Canadian test site for a program they refer
to as Operation Respond. I know you are familiar with the proposal
and I think you were supportive of the concept prior to your
appointment as Minister of Transport.
``The concept of identifying hazardous materials in transit is a
very important one because the most dangerous aspect of
firefighting is responding to incidents involving hazardous
materials. Firefighters in Canada are especially hampered, they
say, by a lack of information available at such incidents, especially
within the critical first minutes upon arrival at the scene.
``Firefighters in Canada are urging you to make Operation
Respond's Canadian test site a priority of your government by
committing staff and resources to the project immediately. I am
writing today to say that I agree with the firefighters' request and I
trust that you will make this commitment without delay''.
That was the letter I sent to the minister after the Saskatchewan
firefighters along with their colleagues from across Canada visited
me here in Ottawa.
In June the minister responded to my letter. A major part of his
response to me was that the CANUTEC system, the system in place
today, seemed to be working just fine but there was always room
for improvement. The minister said there were Canadians currently
in the United States monitoring the Operation Respond system and
he suggested that perhaps this fall there might be recommendations
coming forward to change the way the Canadian system operated.
I am very pleased to see today that perhaps the experience in the
United States has had an effect here in Canada and it is as a direct
result of the firefighters lobby and their request that these matters
take place.
In light of how important this issue is and in light of how
supportive of change the firefighters are, I think it is time that we in
Canada took action.
The motion in front of us today gives every parliamentarian in
Canada a chance to confer with the minister, the cabinet and the
department and say that firefighters know what they are talking
about. By voting in support of this motion today we may actually
be doing something that will one day prevent a serious human
accident and perhaps even save a life.
I was proud to support the call of firefighters in May and I am
proud to support this motion today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 241 which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Transport should proceed
rapidly to establish a Canadian test site for Operation Respond, a computerized
database of hazardous materials, that would improve safety for firefighters and help
save lives and property.
7106
The previous member mentioned and I would like to repeat that
the International Association of Firefighters has done an excellent
job of making its case to members of Parliament on all sides of
the House. It has provided exceptional information. It has made
its arguments clearly and it has asked us to consider its request
for this test site.
We are often approached by many groups that would like to see
certain initiatives or changes made in legislation. If they all
followed the model that the International Association of
Firefighters followed, we would achieve many more constructive
amendments to legislation if that model were followed.
I want to also commend Doug Coupar, who was the then director
of the IAFF. I also had an opportunity to deal with Mr. Elliot
Hastings who has been carrying on on its behalf.
(1755)
There was some concern in the first hour of debate some weeks
ago that there was a position being formed. I can assure all
members and certainly firefighters that the points raised even in the
initial debate had been carried back to the minister.
I know the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, listened carefully and
advocated on behalf of this motion because it was the right thing to
do. Who else would now better what they can do than the
firefighters themselves?
I understand as a result of the advocacy of members on all sides
of this House that there is an intent today to have this debate close a
little early. That would allow us to have a vote today and not in one,
two or three months from now. I believe now, as a result of the
work of all the people, including the firefighters, that the case has
been made very clear and the very right thing to do is pass this
motion and get on with it.
I would like to make one final announcement that the firefighters
and the police officers of Canada will be pleased about. Yesterday
there was another draw in the private member's process and a
motion that I had submitted has been drawn for consideration by
the House. That motion is another of the recommendations of the
IAFF. It is to establish the public safety officers compensation fund
which would establish a fund to receive gifts and bequests for the
benefit of families of officers and firefighters who have lost their
lives in the line of duty. That will be coming before this place when
we return after the Christmas break.
On behalf of all members I want to thank the IAFF for the
excellent job it did to make its case convincingly and to earn the
respect and the support of members of Parliament.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have followed this debate rather closely and I would like
to add a couple of words that I have not heard arise in the debate
yet.
Firefighters in Surrey have brought to my attention that their
main problem was the time element, the time element of getting to
the scene, identifying what they were dealing with and taking the
appropriate response.
The second point I have not heard in debate and one I would like
to put on the record for consideration when this is activated is the
nature of the elements they are dealing with. On occasion there is
the transporting of more than one particular hazardous chemical.
The second one may not be hazardous in itself but when these mix
they are dealing with a totally different kind of response than they
would if they were dealing with one on its own.
That was stressed very clearly to me by the firefighters that
sometimes that entails a second call, a wait and this kind of thing. I
would like to bring that to the attention of those who would be
addressing this situation in the future to certainly keep that in mind,
that this operation or program would certainly cut down that time
element and address that issue.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
amendment carried.
(Amendment agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt this motion as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion as amended carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I would ask the consent of
the House to suspend the sitting of the House a few moments so
that we can move on to adjournment proceedings.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6 p.m.)
7107
The House resumed at 6.03 p.m.
7107
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act, is
the first federal piece of legislation dealing with listing protection
and recovery of a variety of endangered species to fall within
federal legislative jurisdiction. It covers migratory birds, fish and
marine mammals, species that cross international boundaries and
all species found on federal lands or within Canadian coastal
waters.
The bill prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capture, taking
or possession of an endangered or threatened species as defined in
the bill, as well as the destruction of residences of individual
members of such species, including their dens or nests. It creates
several means of enforcing its provisions, including citizens' rights
to take civil actions in some circumstances and penalties for breach
of the offence provision such as fines of up to one million dollars.
(1805)
The bill is intended to put the federal government in a leadership
position in a national endangered species regime that will involve
the provinces in a number of key areas. Four provinces already
have endangered species legislation in place but may have to
update it to meet the obligations which the governments have all
agreed in principle to meet under the National Accord for the
Protection of Species at Risk signed at Charlottetown on October 2,
1996.
In the accord the provinces and the federal government have
agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs to
provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout
Canada, including the provision of protection for habitat of
threatened or endangered species. Also agreed was their
participation in the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation
Council which would be established under Bill C-65.
The bill reflects many years of hard work by environmental
groups and other stakeholders who have advocated the adoption of
federal legislation to protect endangered species as part of an
approach to conserving biological diversity within Canada.
Witnesses representing the agricultural community have made an
important contribution to the debate.
There are currently 275 species of wildlife included in the
COSEWIC list, which is an organization that identifies species
which are endangered or threatened. Ten of these 275 species are
extinct and 11 are extirpated, which means they no longer live in
the wild.
For a number of years opinion polls have shown that Canadians
have expressed a consistently high level of concern about
endangered species. It is widely seen as an area in which the federal
government should exercise a strong leadership role.
The majority of species at risk are in trouble because of threats to
their habitat by human activity. Biological diversity, sometimes
called biodiversity, means the variety of life in an area, and the area
could be as small as a decaying log or as large as the entire country.
It includes the variety of species and ecosystems on Earth, and the
genetic differences of organisms, communities and populations.
There are many reasons to preserve biodiversity, including its
intrinsic value, the rate at which it is disappearing, its value as a
source of scientific knowledge and aesthetic pleasure, human
dependence on it for food, medicines and other products, its
contribution to moderating climate, soil conservation and pest and
disease control, and our lack of knowledge about the biodiversity
that exists in Canada and the consequences of failing to preserve it.
Canada was the first industrialized country to ratify the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity signed at the 1992
earth summit in Rio de Janeiro. The convention entered into force
in December 1993.
The bill deals with critical habitat, a concept that is key to the
American Endangered Species Act. The habitat aspect of the bill is
limited by the bill's primary focus on the residence of a creature in
a number of key areas, in that a residence is a much smaller area
than a creature's habitat and preservation of the residence alone
would often be insufficient to ensure the survival of an individual
let alone a species.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, what are the stumbling blocks
to providing more comprehensive protection for habitat and should
the bill be amended in this respect?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for his concern and for his question. He
has been a very active member on the environment committee.
The original proposal for the endangered species legislation
covered only 4 per cent of Canada's land mass. The new
legislation, Bill C-65, extends this 4 per cent coverage to 60 per
cent. While the legislation does not extend the coverage to 100 per
cent,
7108
from sea to sea to sea, it is important to note that the legislation is
part of a larger framework.
In October 1996 the federal Minister of the Environment and the
provincial ministers responsible for wildlife protection agreed in
principle to a national accord to protect species at risk. Under this
accord the provinces and territories are co-operating with the
federal government to ensure that complementary legislation and
programs are put into place.
The member asked if there are stumbling blocks to
comprehensive habitat protection. I would prefer to think of these
as challenges and opportunities.
Endangered species protection in Canada is dependent on the
co-operation of different levels of government, of the public, the
private and non-governmental sectors, of groups, organizations and
individuals.
Over 90 per cent of Canadians want endangered species
legislation. Canadians from all walks of life want species to be
preserved and to be protected. They are our most important allies.
Some Canadians may have concerns about how the implementation
of the endangered species legislation will affect them. It is
important to remind the House of the fantastic contribution that
ranchers, farmers and other private land owners have made to
protect endangered species.
The burrowing owl program in Alberta is one fine example. My
mother-in-law in southern Ontario supports habitat protection for
migratory birds. She lives on the edge of 100 acres of a heritage
wetland along the shore of Lake St. Clair.
Yes, we have challenges but we also have opportunities and
partnerships that have been long established. The Canadian people
want endangered species legislation and the Canadian people will
help us preserve and protect species at risk.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.)