CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 12, 1997
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 8006
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8007
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8009
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8009
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8009
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8009
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8009
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8010
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8010
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8010
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8011
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8011
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8012
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8016
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8016
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8017
Bill C-81. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8018
Bill C-371. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8018
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8018
Motion for concurrence in 53rd report 8018
Bill C-60. Motion for third reading 8021
Division on motion deferred 8021
Bill C-23. Motion for third reading 8022
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8025
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 40; Nays: 111. 8031
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 8032
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 113; Nays, 40 8032
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 8033
8005
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 12, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1997 it is
expected that more than 500 Canadians will die as a result of fires.
Fire damage related costs total over $10 billion annually. Studies
show that public fire safety education not only saves lives but
reduces the risk of fire.
Today I would like to congratulate the initiatives of the
Kitchener-Waterloo Civitan Club along with the Cambridge,
Kitchener and Waterloo fire departments to invest in a first class
public fire safety education facility for the region.
The construction of the Children's Safety Village Fire Education
Centre in Cambridge will help children and adults learn ways of
preventing fires and protecting themselves from fires.
On behalf of my constituents, I applaud the civic initiative taken
by the Civitan Club for its efforts to achieve this worthwhile goal
and the ongoing dedication of our local firefighters.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is pleased to add its voice to all those who have
recognized Josée Bournival for the accomplished athlete that she
is. Josée Bournival won the bronze medal in both slalom and giant
slalom at the Special Olympics World Winter Games held in
Toronto from February 1 to February 8.
The purpose of the Special Olympics is to give persons with
mental disabilities opportunities to participate in sports. In Quebec,
some 1,000 persons with perceptual disabilities are being trained
on a regular basis.
Josée Bournival is an all-around athlete. Josée, aged 21, excels at
swimming and athletics. Her ranking and winnings at the 1996
National Winter Games in Calgary earned her a spot on the team at
the recent World Winter Games. We take this opportunity to
congratulate the 82 athletes who participated in these games and
salute the trainers for their work, generosity and dedication.
Bravo, Josée. Congratulations on your medals and your
achievements.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, amid the
uproar of the heritage minister's many flip-flops on CBC radio
funding along with the deserved hoots of laughter when she recited
the Liberal red book promise of stable multiyear funding for the
CBC, a few points have been under reported.
First the heritage minister is the person who hacked, slashed and
gouged $414 million from the CBC funding in the first place.
Giving back $10 million shows incompetence of immense
magnitude. It is not only too little too late, but it exhibits
management by crisis. She does not have a clue what she is doing.
Her chewing gum and baling wire approach to the CBC is crushing
that institution.
The Reform Party on the other hand has a rational plan for the
CBC to continue funding for CBC radio French and English
services, Newsworld, RDI and Radio-Canada International and will
privatize television and stereo.
Second, former CBC president Manera has said the heritage
minister's $10 million intrusion by cabinet direction ``amounts to a
vote of non-confidence in the CBC directors; it has turned them
into eunuchs''. I agree.
8006
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, over the last decade Conservative and Liberal
governments and the leaders of our largest corporations have
supported a series of policy initiatives that they said would create
jobs.
They said the tax burden had to be shifted away from
corporations and on to individuals. They demanded free trade and
NAFTA. They called for the GST. Deregulation. Privatization. Cuts
to social programs. That was all part of a package. Those changes
have been made, the agenda is in place, but the jobs simply have
not arrived.
Youth unemployment in Canada stands at around 20 per cent.
Since 1976 the number of youths with full time jobs in Canada has
fallen by one million. This is a betrayal of our youth and Canada's
future. Without major changes to the way the government is
managing the economy, this betrayal will continue.
The youth employment strategy announced today is a band-aid
solution and shows how out of touch this government is. As part of
its strategy the government will make available to young
Canadians virtual one stop shopping for information. Well if we do
not see a drastic change in government policies, young Canadians
will continue to look for virtual jobs. They might even be making
virtual deposits into their virtual bank accounts.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
delighted to receive the October 16, 1996 joint statement on fetal
alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects released by the Minister
of Health and the Canadian Paediatric Society.
FAS has widely been recognized in Canada as one of the leading
causes of birth defects and developmental delay in children caused
by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The statement
acknowledges that even casual use of alcohol during the early
weeks of pregnancy may adversely affect the health and well-being
of the child to be. Accordingly the joint statement recommends:
``The prudent choice for women who are or may become pregnant
is to abstain from alcohol''.
That caution is an important one. I hope that Health Canada will
quickly implement a strategy to educate all Canadians on the threat
that alcohol poses to the unborn child.
(1405 )
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to
note the small business conferences and information fairs that are
occurring in 22 locations across Canada.
I have encouraged entrepreneurs in
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington to attend the event
being planned for February 17 in Kingston. It is a fantastic
opportunity for those who are working to start and grow their
business and to talk with government officials about programs and
services available to them.
Having come to the House from small business, I bring an
intimate knowledge of the challenges that entrepreneurs face. I
have been honoured to serve on the jobs and small business task
force and have both learned from the experience and contributed to
its work. In my riding I have worked with others and formed
coalitions to share information about federal programs and
services, to build networks among existing businesses, and to
stimulate awareness and growth for new business endeavours in
our area.
Industry Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada
deserve recognition for organizing this series of events across
Canada. Thank you to the Minister of Industry for his leadership
and for this important activity that connects the government with
the people.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for Muslims
in Canada and throughout the world, last weekend marked the end
of the holy month of Ramadan, a month of fasting in order to gain
self-restraint and foster inner strength and fulfilment with God.
The end of Ramadan is celebrated with Eid-Ul-Fitr, one of the
most joyous occasions in the Muslim calendar. Over one billion
Muslims worldwide, including nearly 500,000 here in Canada, use
Eid-Ul-Fitr to give prayers of thanks, celebrate with friends and
family, and rejoice in the love of God and of course Islam.
On behalf of this House, I extend our warmest best wishes to the
Canadians of Islamic faith on the conclusion of Ramadan and on
the occasion of Eid-Ul-Fitr.
I also want to take this opportunity to remind members here in
this House and in the other place that they are warmly invited to
join members of the diplomatic corps and Muslims who are
gathering here on Parliament Hill this evening for an Eid-Ul-Fitr
celebration.
8007
As-salaam alaikum.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for months now, the official opposition has been making
very loud noises about the fact that the method used to determine
claimants' benefits acts as an incentive for workers to join the
underground economy.
Workers' rights groups reached the same conclusion and made
this very clear in a demonstration in opposition to the employment
insurance reform, which drew 5,000 people in Rivière-du-Loup.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is finally
smelling the coffee. He has just noticed one of his reform's many
flaws. The minister is now scrambling for solutions.
Perhaps he could ask the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development to look immediately into all the blaring
inequities resulting from his reform.
One year ago, committee members suggested potential
solutions. Unfortunately, there was an absence of political will.
Yet, the quality of life of seasonal workers was at stake then and
still is today. Now is the time for the minister to show what he is
capable of.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to expose some myths the finance minister is
likely to float in the con job due out next Tuesday.
Myth: Liberals did not increase taxes. Thirty-five tax increases
totalling $25 billion in tax revenue increases in just four years.
Myth: Liberals, the defenders of medicare. A 40 per cent cut in
medicare transfers to the provinces.
Myth: Liberals concerned about child poverty. Seven billion
dollars in cuts for health, education and welfare.
Myth: Jobs, jobs, jobs. There are 1.5 million unemployed and
two to three million underemployed, the worst record since the
great depression.
Myth: Good times for all. Record bankruptcies and consumer
debt.
Myth: Getting the federal House in order. At least $10 billion of
new debt, $600 billion in total debt and 90 per cent spending cuts in
downloading to the provinces.
What Canadians need is a fresh start.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, health care in
this country and specifically in my province of New Brunswick has
seen major cutbacks in funding from the federal government. This
Liberal government cut the Canada health and social transfer by
$2.5 billion last year and is scheduled to cut $4.5 billion this year.
What has happened in the province of New Brunswick? Premier
McKenna has now told our seniors that if they have to go into a
nursing home and they own their home, he is going to take their
home and all of their assets and he is going to sell them to cover the
cost of putting them in a nursing home. They have lost their
dignity.
Enough is enough. The cuts have gone too far. The measure of a
country is in the treatment it extends to its vulnerable citizens: the
young, the old, the sick and the poor. On all of these accounts this
Liberal government has failed.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are
taking the initiative in strengthening the economic vitality of their
local communities.
The Sales and Marketing Resource Network, a volunteer based
organization, was founded by a group of local business people in
my riding. It assists young entrepreneurs and new small businesses
in developing effective marketing strategies.
Because of the network's mentorship program, many businesses
have experienced renewed sales growth. In one example a local
equipment dealer experienced an increase in sales from $1 million
to $1.8 million. They attribute this growth directly to mentorship.
It is encouraging to note that so many successful business people
are prepared to volunteer as mentors for younger and less
experienced entrepreneurs. Building upon this mentorship model
and pooling expertise and ideas will ensure our future
competitiveness.
In this regard, I want to congratulate members of the Sales and
Marketing Resource Network not only for their dedication and hard
work, but for providing us with a practical, innovative and effective
approach to improving our local economy.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to draw attention to the 4.2 Canadian
women who die each day from a silent killer. I speak of ovarian
cancer, which is fatal for 70 per cent of its victims. This mortality
8008
rate has not improved in over 30 years. There is no known cure, yet
less than .2 per cent of basic cancer research goes to ovarian cancer.
Corinne Boyer was a victim of this silent killer. Her dream was
to raise funds for ovarian cancer research, to find a cure and to
change these fatal statistics. I am proud and pleased to tell the
House that Corinne's husband, Patrick Boyer, took up her cause
and today launched the Corinne Boyer Fund for Ovarian Cancer
Research.
On behalf of women globally, I thank you Patrick for your
commitment to fight this disease and your leadership in raising the
profile of women's health. Together we will find a cure for ovarian
cancer. Together we will fulfil Corinne's dream.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the Bloc Quebecois falsely claimed that the
federal government has been unfairly collecting taxes in Quebec
since 1986, to the tune of 75 to 100 million dollars per year.
The Bloc's claim was based on an old federal-provincial
agreement concerning a tax abatement and a 3 per cent surtax that
Quebec taxpayers had to pay when calculating the provincial tax
abatement.
This alleged new injustice to Quebec by the Canadian
government never took place. In fact, it is the Bloc members' little
cousins in the PQ government who set the record straight for them.
Now that the truth has come out regarding this issue, the authors
of the phoney report should explain to the public why, six days
after that gross mistake was uncovered, they have yet to make a
public apology.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, the youth wing of the Quebec Liberal Party said that not
all Quebec federalists want to campaign for the Liberal Party of
Canada. Quebec's young Liberals are concerned that their party
might join forces with the LPC. Who, in Quebec, could possibly
want to campaign for the current Prime Minister of Canada, who
did not make good on his most important 1993 election promises,
and who let down those who believed in him in the last Quebec
referendum?
The current Prime Minister has made a political career out of
saying no to Quebecers. The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
has become an embarrassing ally for Quebec federalists, who still
believe a reform of the Canadian federal system is possible.
The president of the Quebec young Liberals, Jonathan Sauvé,
confirmed what we already knew: the federal Liberals and their
leader are out of touch with the Quebec reality. One does not need
to be a sovereignist to realize that.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
honour of the upcoming Academy Awards, I would like to offer
Reform's nomination for the parliamentary Oscars.
The best dramatic role for a male: the Prime Minister in ``The
Shawinigan Strangler''.
The best dramatic role for a female: the Deputy Prime Minister's
tearful performance in ``Shooting from the Lip''.
The best director: the defence minister in ``The Somalia
Whitewash''.
The best special effects: the Prime Minister's imitation of
``Dante's Peak'' at the CBC town hall meeting.
The best supportive role in a short comedy: the justice minister
in ``Airbus''.
The best performance by a junior minister: the Secretary of State
for Training and Youth in ``A Fistful of Dollars''.
The best non-performance by an underachiever: the Minister of
Health's tobacco saga ``The Butt Stops Here''.
(1415 )
The best song in an undemocratic nomination feature: ``I did it
my way'' by the Prime Minister again.
The best sports video: the best of all, the entire Liberal team for
its role in the golf documentary ``True Lies''.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to welcome yesterday's announcement by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage of $10 million in additional funding to CBC
radio.
[Translation]
The government has announced stable funding for five years for
the CBC.
[English]
Starting in 1998 the government is guaranteeing the CBC stable
funding for five years. The CBC will receive a minimum of $894
million for each of the next five years. This is the first time in
8009
history that the fiscal framework will include CBC guarantees for
five years. The new funding for CBC radio will be directed to new
programming, talent development, regional reflection and future
growth into new media.
After yesterday's announcement my constituents of Hamilton
Mountain and all Canadians who are concerned about the CBC's
future can be reassured that the CBC will continue as an important
and vibrant institution in Canadian society.
I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating the
minister.
_____________________________________________
8009
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, everyone is worried at the turn of events regarding the
Government of Quebec's request for a constitutional amendment to
modify its school boards. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs has taken us all a bit by surprise with his agitation, which is
as sudden as it is unexplained.
Does the Prime Minister think that the present consensus of
political stakeholders in Quebec is enough to proceed as he should
or does he believe, as his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
does, that a consensus is valid only if it includes lobby groups like
Alliance Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Quebec indicated that it wished to
propose a constitutional amendment and we said that we were
going to examine the possibility of helping it as much as possible.
Obviously, the decision must first be taken in Quebec, and many
groups will state their views. The Quebec minister told his federal
counterpart that he wished to act on the basis of a consensus. So we
are going to see how the debate unfolds in Quebec. When there is a
consensus, fine, but I know that many stakeholders, both among
religious groups and among linguistic groups, will make their
views known to the National Assembly when the debate takes
place.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to be a bit clearer. Can he
tell us the kind of consensus the federal government feels is
necessary in order for it to respond to Quebec's request?
Yesterday, the minister talked about Alliance Quebec; the Prime
Minister is talking about various kinds of groups. How extensive
does this consensus have to be? And is the consensus of Quebec's
elected representatives, of the political parties sitting in the
National Assembly, not enough for the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just said that we will see how the debate unfolds in
Quebec's National Assembly. I hope that those who have an
interest in this question will make their views known. Afterwards,
we will assess the situation.
We are not about to reply to a hypothetical question. We are
waiting to see what resolution the National Assembly will pass and
the nature of the debate surrounding this issue. The question is
premature and hypothetical at this time.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry, but the question is not hypothetical; we are
talking about a situation that has deteriorated because of the
inappropriate, unexpected and absolutely incomprehensible
intervention of the ineffable federal Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. It is not hypothetical. He has stirred up discord in this
affair, and that is a fact.
(1420)
By creating the impasse that may prevent the creation of
linguistic school boards in Quebec, was the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs not himself responsible for the
constitutional dead end in which we will again find ourselves?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are waiting to see what the National Assembly's
resolution will be, the nature of the debate, and then we will review
the situation. That was how we proceeded when the government
received the Government of Newfoundland's request.
On that occasion, we analyzed all the circumstances, and then
the House made its decision. The same approach will be used to try
to find a solution to this problem.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On September 5, 1996 the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration made a statement to La Presse that Ottawa will not
wait for Quebecers to reach unanimity on amending section 93 of
the Canadian Constitution.
Does the Prime Minister not acknowledge that the approach of
his colleague, the former Quebec Minister of Education, is far
more positive and would make it possible to settle the matter,
unlike the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' proposal, which
is aimed only at stirring up division and adding fuel to the fire?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no contradiction here. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has said that unanimity was not required. As for
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he says that it will
require a
8010
consensus. A consensus is not unanimity. So both ministers have
said the same thing.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I really wonder why the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs will not merely respond to what the Government of Quebec
is asking of him.
Why will he not agree to settle the problem? Why does the
minister want to join forces with Alliance Québec and stir up strife
and discord between the two communities in Quebec? What is he
really after?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something in reference to
yesterday. We know there is probably a consensus in Quebec at this
time for language based school boards. The issue is to find a way to
proceed that will ensure that all components of Quebec society can
do this in confidence.
Is the Government of Quebec's proposal, the one that is on the
table, the way to go? The Government of Canada has no intention
of commenting on proposals advanced by this or that group, and is
not granting a veto to any group whatsoever.
The Government of Canada is simply saying that, if the
Government of Quebec builds a consensus on its proposal, it is
highly probable that the Parliament of Canada will be in a position
to proceed promptly with modernization of the Quebec school
system.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was asked about a report
that a former Canadian prime minister was accusing a former
deputy minister of defence of participating in a cover-up of a
murder in Somalia.
The Prime Minister said that the Somalia commission had the
time and the freedom to investigate these charges. But today Mr.
Justice Létourneau, the head of the Somalia commission, had this
to say: ``To suggest, as has been done, that we have ample time to
investigate another high level cover-up and at the same time
properly complete our current endeavours is both misleading and
unfair''.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that what he said to the
House yesterday about the freedom and the ability of the Somalia
inquiry to investigate these charges was misleading and unfair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, what I said is that this inquiry has been going on for more
than two years. There were three extensions. It had the time to call
all the witnesses it wanted. It still has a month and a half to call the
witnesses it wants and it is up to the inquiry to decide.
(1425)
We did not intervene. We gave it a clear mandate a long time
ago. It accepted that mandate with a time limit. We have given it
three extensions. The minister of defence gave very good reasons
in asking it to complete its work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says the government did not intervene.
The head of the Somalia inquiry also said clearly this morning that
the government had interfered with the conduct of an independent
public inquiry. What he could not say was whether the government
had interfered for political reasons.
I ask the Prime Minister directly did his government interfere
with the Somalia inquiry for political reasons. Is there a political
reason why the Prime Minister does not want the inquiry to get to
the bottom of a high level cover-up in the Somalia affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was clearly no political intervention by the
government. We have let the commission operate for more than
two years. The minister of defence gave some very good reasons
more than a month ago to terminate the inquiry by the end of June,
following the advice of the leader of the third party who was
inquiring and asking the government to close it as quickly as
possible so there would not be anything not judged by the
commission before the election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that answer is not good enough for Canadians. Justice
Létourneau said this morning that the government's decision has
precluded the possibility of effectively investigating any cover-up
at the senior level. He said the government understood clearly that
this would be the impact of its decision to terminate the inquiry
because they had informed the privy council of this implication
before the decision was taken.
What political reason did the government have for terminating
this independent inquiry when it was specifically forewarned that
the effect would be to prevent effective investigation of the
cover-up at the top?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader
of the Reform Party certainly understood this process a lot better in
September of last year than he does now.
I think it is fair to say that Canadians who have observed the
commission now doing its work since March 1995 understand very
well what has taken place there and understand very well what has
happened in Somalia.
If the hon. leader of the Reform Party really wants to know what
motivated the government to provide a third extension to the
commissioners to conclude their work by June 30 it is very simple.
It is a motivation that I hoped would have been shared by the leader
of the Reform Party. I know it is shared by some of the members of
his party who understand that it was time to get on with doing the
8011
work that is required to allow the Canadian forces to do the work
they are doing today, the work they have honourably done for a
hundred years in this country and the work that Canadians expect
them to do on behalf of Canada in the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking a big risk by leaving the hon.
member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in his position as Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is like appointing a pyromaniac
head of the fire brigade: he fans the flames.
Today, the Prime Minister is trying to play down the
inflammatory statements made by his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. The government tells us: ``We will wait
and see what Quebec wants''. Well, Quebec has wanted to settle
this matter for the past 20 years. There was a consensus. All
political parties in Quebec agreed.
Did the Prime Minister change his tune to avoid embarrassing
his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who created the problem
in the first place with his inflammatory statements?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said it before and I say it again: we will wait until we
have the wording of the resolution to be tabled in the National
Assembly by the Government of Quebec.
(1430)
We will listen to the debate that I hope will take place in the
National Assembly, and also to the people who make
representations, and we will inform you accordingly. That is
exactly what we did in the case of Newfoundland, and we will do
the same in the case of Quebec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that he
rejected the idea of swapping the constitutional amendment for
something else and that there would be no swap, that he failed to
see how the government could win points by acting like a used car
salesman and that it would lose votes in the process.
Was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not acting like a
used car salesman himself when he gave Alliance Quebec the
impression that its agreement was necessary to get the
constitutional amendment, thus giving it the clout it did not even
know it had?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said this several times but I will say it again,
because the Leader of the Official Opposition may be somewhat
hard of hearing. As I said time and again, I did not give a veto to
any organization whatsoever.
The question that must be asked is this: Is the official opposition
saying that even if Quebec's anglophone community, which has
more than one voice, had strong reservations about the
government's proposal, it would be necessary to proceed
regardless? That is a question the opposition should answer.
I have a second question for the opposition, and I will close on
this: Does the opposition consider the anglophone community as a
pawn, as incapable of making up its own mind? Does it really
believe the anglophone community would let itself be guided by
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that it cannot make up
its own mind?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has finally been
revealed that the government knew, prior to shutting down the
inquiry, that Fowler, Anderson and Campbell could not be called to
testify.
According to the head of the inquiry, the government's
suggestions that Fowler and gang could testify have been
erroneous, unfair, not realistic, impossible and misleading.
Would the Prime Minister agree with Commissioner Desbarats
that his government, through its political interference, is trying to
make the inquiry part of the Somalia cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been
extremely careful since coming to this responsibility not to
comment on the agenda of the commission.
Let me say that immediately upon becoming Minister of
National Defence I said at that point that I hoped and we expected
the commission would report by March 31, as its mandate called
for. That should not have come as a surprise to anyone.
Subsequent to that, based on a request by the commission, the
government for the third time extended the hearing period and has
asked it to report by the end of June. There is no question that if the
commissioners decided they were not going to call certain
witnesses then obviously they could not appear to testify.
The decision always rested, since March 15, 1995, with respect
to who would be called and what would be done with the
commissioners and not the government. They chose the road they
8012
did and they were completely at liberty to do that. However, the
government did make the decision that it was in the best interest of
the Canadian forces in turning the corner on what we have to do to
ask the commissioners, after three extensions, to report by June 30.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that sounds like
more question avoidance. The Prime Minister and the former
defence minister said we would get to the bottom of this. The
minister said he would not get involved. He certainly got involved
by shutting it down.
The inquiry chairmen say that the government used them to
solve its political problems. They say that the government
precluded the inquiry from investigating a high level cover-up.
This is unprecedented and shameful political interference.
(1435)
My question, as it was yesterday, is what is the Prime Minister
trying to hide.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one is trying
to hide anything.
Is the hon. member and his party suggesting that when an inquiry
is begun in this country it should run until such time as all the
commissioners, all the parties thereto and all the lawyers involved
in the procedure are satisfied that every witness has been heard,
that every document has been recovered and that every question
has been answered?
If that is the position of the hon. member and his party, that from
here on in this country when an inquiry begins it is appropriate to
ask for extensions and it is not interference when we say yes but it
is when we say no, then the hon. member and his party should go
on record and say just that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On June 20, 1996, the Minister of Justice told the Senate
committee on legal and constitutional affairs that the bilateral
amendment of term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland
with Canada did not apply as clearly in the case of section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
Would the Minister of Justice, the protector of Canada's
Constitution, confirm the remarks of his colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, and that section 93 may be amended
bilaterally by the Quebec and federal governments according to the
proposal Quebec made last Friday?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under section 43 of the amending formula of the
Constitution Act, 1982, we can confirm without hesitation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is still for the Minister of Justice, a real
lawyer, who knows about the Canadian Constitution.
Given what he said yesterday in the scrum, will the Minister of
Justice confirm his objection to anglophone Quebecers obtaining
protection above and beyond that already accorded under section
23 of the 1982 Constitution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Government of Canada to comment
on the proposals that will be made by the various groups in the
debate that has just started on the modernization of the Quebec
school system.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the chairman of the Somalia inquiry has accused both the Prime
Minister and the defence minister of political interference with the
inquiry, interference unprecedented in Canadian history.
Before the decision was even made, the chairman had advised
the privy council that such interference would cause a whitewash,
yet the Prime Minister proceeded to shut down the inquiry anyway.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime
Minister choose a whitewash over the truth by closing down the
inquiry? Are his interests in the Canadian forces or are they strictly
political?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I
am astounded by the tone of the question from my hon. friend.
As I have often said in this place, the hon. member had a
distinguished career in the Canadian forces. Surely if he is staying
in touch with his colleagues who are still serving in the Canadian
forces both in Canada and elsewhere around the world he would
know that what we are doing is construed by many as being
absolutely essential to the future of the Canadian forces because we
have to get on with doing the things that are required.
8013
The one thing I will say in response to my hon. friend's question
is that we have not interfered nor do we have any intention of
interfering in the process that involves the Somalia inquiry.
I have as much respect for the judicial process and I am sure the
hon. chairman of the Somalia inquiry has for the political process
and the need to keep the two very separate all the time.
(1440 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
served for 36 years in the armed forces and I was proud of that.
Incidents that have happened since Somalia have caused me to
question whether I can still be proud of it. I wonder if the minister
realizes the impact of the inquiry.
The Prime Minister, the defence minister and the justice minister
all admit to being lawyers, but now their appointed lawyer, Justice
Létourneau, has accused them of political interference in the
process of the Somalia inquiry. He said that in future judges may
have to think about whether they will accept serving on an inquiry
because of political interference.
Has it been worth it: a cover-up, a whitewash? Is it worth
sacrificing judicial independence for selfish political gain?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has
touched on a question that is of vital importance, as I indicated in
an earlier response this afternoon.
If judges or other Canadians called on to participate in this form
of inquiry make it a pre-condition that once the inquiry begins they
be allowed to continue as long as they wish to ensure that
everybody is heard, that every question is addressed and that every
document is examined, then that is a legitimate question.
We need to know from my hon. friend whether the commission
or anyone else in this place, or anyone else who is observing this
scene, agrees with that kind of a prospect, that once a process
called a commission of inquiry has begun that not only is it a
whitewash, it is a carte blanche.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Time and time again, the Prime Minister has told this House that
the Somalia commission can hear any witness it wants concerning
the cover-up in the Somalia affair, although Justice Létourneau said
this morning that the government had in fact been advised that
imposing a June 30 deadline would prevent the commission from
hearing a number of key witnesses, including Ms. Campbell.
How can the Prime Minister maintain that it is business as usual
for the Somalia commission, when, this morning, Justice
Létourneau described the Prime Minister's statements as
``misleading and unjust''?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chairman of
the Somalia commission of inquiry made a statement this morning.
Thus far, I have refrained from commenting on the evidence heard
by the commission, and I am not about to comment on remarks
made by the judge who has judicial authority over the whole
process.
I think it is very important, in such matters, to always try to
strike a balance between the role of the players in a judicial inquiry
and the role of the government. Not only is it a custom and a
tradition but it is also a Canadian reality that I intend to respect.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this role
is viewed by the public as government interference in a
commission trying to shed light on the matter.
I must point out that, last April, the former Minister of National
Defence announced that the worst was still to come in the Somalia
affair. Clearly, this government knows things it does not want the
commission and the public to know.
Is the deadline imposed on the commission by the government
not designed to ensure that the public will never know what the
worst is?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am convinced
that the Canadians who have been following the commission's
proceedings realize full well that, the incidents in Somalia that
resulted in the death of a number of Somali are basically
unacceptable to the people of Canada.
What is of interest to me in the hon. member's question is
whether he thinks that, while the commission has already heard in
excess of 100 witnesses, we really must comment on the witnesses
who were invited to testify? Or that we should have set the
commission's schedule?
The hon. member is no doubt aware of the fact that, originally,
hearings were scheduled to conclude by the end of December 1995.
The government has agreed to extend the commission's mandate
three times already. And, the last time, it was extended to the end of
June.
(1445)
If the hon. member and his party believe that commissions of
inquiry should have carte blanche and that, once they have begun,
they should carry on until everyone is happy, the hon. member
should propose this to the Canadian public and see how it reacts.
8014
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
communities across Canada there are a large number of young
people, university graduates, who cannot find jobs and who are
seriously underemployed. At the same time, companies in my
riding cannot fill job openings because the right skills or the right
trades are not available.
My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
[Translation]
While recognizing and respecting provincial jurisdiction over
education, can the minister tell the House how the federal
government can get involved to find a solution to this thorny issue,
and what it intends to do in this regard?
[English]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for his excellent question. This morning, along with 13
of my colleagues, I had the very great privilege of announcing the
strategy for youth employment that we are offering to Canadian
youths who face a very challenging situation in entering a complex
and difficult labour market.
We are working very hard at plugging these young Canadians
into the new economy. This morning we created a web site to give
them information on all available programs. We are doing this in
partnership with the private sector and non-governmental
organizations.
They will have internships in the growth sectors of the economy
that will allow them to get jobs. We are building on programs that
have been demonstrated they work well. Sixty-eight per cent of
young people who have participated in an internship program have
got a job within six months.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is a summary of this case to date. There was a murder. There
was a cover-up of that murder. The Prime Minister and the Minister
of National Defence are contributing to the cover-up and the
whitewash by ensuring that the Somalia inquiry cannot complete
its original mandate.
Why would ministers of the crown contribute to the obstruction
of justice in a cover-up, as Justice Létourneau has said?
The Speaker: I think your questions are going a little over the
line with accusations. I would ask the hon. member to rephrase the
question please.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, my question is, why would they not let
justice be done by letting the Somalia inquiry finish the mandate it
was given originally?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member is capable, and I am sure he is an honourable member, I
would appreciate if he would step outside, not like his hon. friend
who wanted to step across the floor last week because I am too
timid for that kind of activity.
I would like to see him come outside and accuse me of
obstructing justice. I would like to see him do that. He is very free
with words. It is obvious from the line of questioning he has been
using in the House for some time now that it is not justice that is
being obstructed, it is just the area above his shoulders.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whether the hon. minister wants to hear what I have to say or not,
he should listen to the words of Justice Létourneau. Justice
Létourneau said that he and the Prime Minister both knew ahead of
time that shutting down the inquiry would result in a cover-up and a
whitewash. What more does he want to know? There is a murder
involved. There is a cover-up and he is involved in the cover-up.
Why does he not just let the Somalia inquiry do its job so that it can
get-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: I judge that question to be out of order and I am
going to pass. The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In a judgment delivered this morning, the Quebec superior court
prohibited the transfer of international flights from Mirabel to
Dorval, and ordered that the work under way at Dorval airport be
stopped. Mr. Justice Pierre Viau feels that the decision made by the
firm Aéroports de Montréal is illegal and even constitutes an abuse
of power.
8015
What does the minister have to say, now that a judge has ruled
that the transfer could not take place without changing the lease
between ADM and the federal government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As the member
pointed out, the judgment was just delivered this morning, in
Montreal, by the Quebec superior court.
I have not had an opportunity to take a look at it. This decision
must be analyzed in depth and in detail before I can comment on it.
I certainly hope to do so in the coming days, and I have already
instructed my department's officials to take a thorough look at the
judgment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister intend to hold public hearings to consult
with stakeholders from Montreal, as the Bloc Quebecois has been
asking, and as was suggested by the judge in his ruling, so as to
make a legal decision regarding this issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion but, before
making any decision, I must first look at the judgment handed
down this morning in Montreal.
I will do so and so will my officials. Once this review is
completed, I will immediately inform the hon. member
accordingly, and we will take any action required. However, let us
not forget that ADM is a local administration and that the Montreal
airports come under its responsibility and not that of the federal
Department of Transport.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in their responses today neither the Prime Minister nor the
defence minister has acknowledged the seriousness of the charges
made against the government by the Somalia inquiry
commissioners, a commission that they themselves set up: charges
of political interference with an independent tribunal, charges of
making misleading and unfair statements on the work of the
tribunal, and charges of contributing to a whitewash.
Has the government no response to these serious charges other
than to ignore them?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a great
respect for legal procedures. I have great respect for the judiciary. I
have been, as the hon. member well knows, very meticulous in
never commenting on how the commission conducts its business,
what witnesses it calls or what testimony is presented by witnesses
before that commission.
I respect the tradition that governments have responsibilities and
commissions of inquiry and commissioners who are members have
their responsibilities.
(1455 )
I have no intention on behalf of the government of responding to
the comments that were made this morning by the commissioners. I
fully understand they can be frustrated and concerned about the
way they are going to have to do their work over the next several
months.
I think I can say on behalf of many Canadians, both inside and
outside the military, that some people may have had some concerns
about the way the commission has gone about its business. I am not
one of them who is going to comment on it today.
I hope the hon. member will understand that at the end of the day
we can do all the squirming and twisting about what he meant in
September, he can do all the kinds of exercises that he and his
colleagues are going through here today, but he had better decide at
some point whether or not he is interested more in the next election
or in the future of the Canadian forces. Canadians know where we
stand on that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the net result of all that the minister has said is that he is
choosing to ignore the charges made by the commissioners against
the government: charges of political interference, charges of
making misleading statements and charges of participating in a
whitewash.
That being the case, how can the public possibly believe that the
government will respond to the final report of the commission
when it is already ignoring what the commission is saying about
interference, deception and cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member changes his approach to this whole question as often as he
changes his hairdo. The whole problem is whether or not he
understands what is going on.
If the hon. member is asking us to get into a public debate with
commissioners conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry, what would he
then say about what we were doing? Would he say that it was
political interference or does he understand the concept of
separation between what the judicial process is about and what
government is about?
8016
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
According to a recent Globe and Mail article, the Indian
government alleges that many Canadian based organizations are
funding militants in Punjab. However, the RCMP indicates that this
is not the case.
Could the minister comment on these allegations by the Indian
government and explain to the Sikh community why he is setting
up a working group on terrorism with the Government of India?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last several months we have seen the tragic
consequences of terrorist activities around the world. One way of
dealing with terrorism is to increase the co-operation between
Canada and a number of countries to ensure that we share
information and work together.
Last summer at the meetings in Paris on terrorism we agreed that
we would undertake to enhance these kinds of relationships.
The working group between Canada and India is simply to
improve our co-operation. In no way is it tied to any one specific
group. In no way is it tied to particularly the Sikh community,
which we see as making an enormously valuable contribution in
this country. It is so valuable that this January we opened an office
in the Punjab so we could take advantage of the enormous
opportunities for trade and investment in that area between the Sikh
community in Canada and their counterparts in India.
It really is an opportunity for us to expand and develop a new
relationship where the Sikh community can make an enormous
contribution to Canada as a result.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
He will know that the red book indicated that jobs were going to
be his number one priority. In October 1993, 1.5 million Canadians
were out of work and today 1.5 million Canadians are out of work.
He will also be aware that a number of organizations today
presented an alternative budget with specific recommendations on
job creation.
Would the Prime Minister consider carefully these
recommendations on how to create jobs in the next number of
months before tabling the next budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to create more jobs and any good ideas to that
effect will be considered by the Minister of Finance, who will
make, as he has made in the past, job creation a number one
priority.
We are disappointed that unemployment is still too high.
However, the reality is that in the last three years and four months
more than 700,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. We wish
it would have been more than that. All the private forecasters
predict that next year is going to be a very good year in terms of
growth and job creation. We will have job creation as the number
one priority and results in 1997.
(1500)
The Speaker: Colleagues, during question period I ruled a
question out of order. I want you to know why I ruled it out of order
because I am going to take it one step further.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said that the minister is
involved in a cover-up. I judge that question to be out of order.
More than that, an accusation like that in my view cannot be
allowed to stand. I would appeal to the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East to withdraw those comments.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was repeating, I thought, the words-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I remind all hon. members that we cannot use
other people's words to say in this House what we ourselves cannot
say. It is for that reason that I judge the question to be out of order
and it is for that reason that I put the question directly to the
member for Fraser Valley East. I ask him to withdraw those words
which I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will reluctantly withdraw.
The Speaker: There are no conditions to a withdrawal. I appeal
to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, a respected
parliamentarian. I simply put the question. Will the hon. member
withdraw, yes or no?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw.
* * *
(1505)
The Speaker: My colleagues, in the exchanges in question
period and in debate I know many times we are caught up in the
debate. Many times there are many pressures on us to do one thing
or another.
I am going to appeal to an officer of the House who knows full
well the extent of whatever his decision will be on all members.
The hon. whip of the Reform Party is, as I said before, a respected
member. This is no longer between the hon. whip, whom I do
8017
respect a great deal, or anybody else in this House. It is for the
Speaker of this House, to whom you have conferred this authority,
to judge that which is acceptable and unacceptable in this House.
In view of that, I ask the hon. member to please reconsider. I ask
him again if he will simply withdraw the statements that he made
which I, as your spokesperson in this House, have judged to be
unparliamentary.
My colleague, I address myself to you directly. I ask you to
withdraw those statements made in question period which I ruled to
be unparliamentary and unacceptable.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do respect the Chair and I mean no
disrespect but I did try to reluctantly withdraw. You would not
accept that. I will not withdraw further.
The Speaker: It is more with sadness than anything else that I,
as your Speaker, name Mr. Strahl. It is with regret that I have to
name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this
day's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Strahl having withdrawn:]
(1510)
The Speaker: To the hon. member for Lethbridge, before I
entertain your point of order, I have to ask you if it pertains to the
incident which has just occurred. If so, I will not hear your point of
order. Is it on that incident?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the matter is with
regard to the subsequent action of my colleagues with regard to this
matter.
The Speaker: With respect, my colleague, I will not hear that
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to ask you
something about what has just happened, in order to prevent any
recurrence? May I ask you a question?
The Speaker: Dear colleague, what happened here in the House
is quite simply that there was a situation in which language was
used that I judged to be unparliamentary.
I can tell you that if I judge something to be unparliamentary
today, it is with respect to this particular case. A case that arises a
month from now will not necessarily be the same.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, my point concerns not the substance
of the question but the procedure.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, if you wish to discuss the
procedure with me, I invite you to do so in my office later. I will
then be available to talk about the procedure.
8017
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to table in the House today, in both official languages,
a number of order in council appointments which were made
recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
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 responses to 50 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of
the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to a national
highway renewal strategy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion on the
interim report by the Standing Committee on Industry.
(1515)
We have a few recommendations which I would like to briefly
explain. I have always promoted research and development, but I
must advise the government to be careful about its marketing of R
and D. When it speaks of a future coast-to-coast strategy, I must
also warn the government that this policy has not worked in favour
of Quebec on the tokamak project. We find the coast-to-coast
aspect extremely alarming.
8018
Some of our other recommendations have to do with the fact
that Canada has made more cuts to research funding than any other
G-7 country. We also know that Quebec obtains only 19 per cent
of federal funding for R and D.
We must therefore point out to the government that there are few
recommendations regarding the report it is submitting to the
Minister of Finance.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 53rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 53rd report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to implement
the Canada-Chile free trade agreement and related agreements.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-371, an act to amend the Department of Justice
Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the bill so named calls for the
establishment of an oversight committee to oversee all proposed
legislation and policy and existing legislation and policy that has
an actual or potential effect on children. The enactment makes the
Department of Justice the central co-ordinating body of this
committee.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, I move that the 53rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the House
today be concurred in.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion, including with the support of the independent members of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1520 )
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present three petitions on behalf of many of my
constituents in Trinity-Spadina. The petitioners, Voice of Positive
Women and AIDS Committee of Toronto, call upon the
Government of Canada to ensure dedicated AIDS funding at least
at current levels beyond March 1998 and to renew the national
AIDS strategy.
On behalf of my constituents I humbly submit these petitions
with my full support.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
have the honour of tabling in the House two petitions signed by
residents of La Prairie, my riding, and various communities on
Montreal's south shore.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to urge the federal
government to co-operate with provincial governments on
improving the national road network.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition which asks Parliament not to increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget that will be tabled
by the Minister of Finance on February 18.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting petitions today from the Yukon from a number of people
who are concerned about the recent case of Susan Klassen who was
murdered by her husband.
As deeply concerned citizens, the petitioners believe that the
provocation defence that is currently used in wife slaughter cases
inappropriately and unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial
from the behaviour of the accused and his intention to murder to
the behaviour of the victim. Therefore the petitioners are calling
8019
upon Parliament to review and change relevant provisions of the
Criminal Code to ensure that men take responsibility for their
violent behaviour toward women.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to present this petition.
[English]
This petition is being presented on behalf of citizens who
represent the views of many thousands of Canadians throughout the
nation.
The petitioners request that Parliament eliminate or reduce the
right of landing fee for immigrants. They also ask that Parliament
relate the payment of the landing fee to the wealth of the applicant
and that it be paid only upon acceptance of the visa.
I am pleased to give my support to this request.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate your kindness.
Over the last three years I have introduced petitions containing
the names of tens of thousands of Canadians who have supported
the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, the provision that
allows convicted killers to apply for early release or to have their
parole ineligibility reduced.
Again, I would like to present petitions. I should note that I am
flanked this afternoon by the hon. member from Trinity-Spadina
and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, both of whom support
the repeal of section 745, together with the petitioners on this
particular petition.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition relates to the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer and as a Speaker, you know that there is
considerable concern in the country with respect to the provisions
of the Young Offenders Act. It is felt that the Young Offenders Act
does not adequately deal with crimes committed by people under
the age of 18. Accordingly the petitioners call upon this
Parliament, this government in the precious few days that remain
before the next general election campaign, to bring in some
meaningful amendments to the Young Offenders Act so that
Canadians across the country can regain some of that lost respect
and support for the criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table a petition from my constituents in
Quebec-Est in which they call upon Parliament to urge the federal
government to co-operate with the provincial governments on
improving the national road network.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour today to present, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, a petition to the House of Commons signed by residents
of my constituency from the city of North Battleford and other
communities like St. Walburg, Cut Knife, Lashburn, Cochin,
Wilkie and Marsden, Saskatchewan.
(1525 )
The petitioners note that 38 per cent of the national highway
system in Canada is substandard. The national highway policy
study identified job creation, economic development, national
unity, saving lives and avoiding injury, lower congestion, lower
vehicle operating costs and better international competitiveness as
benefits of the proposed national highway program.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the
federal government to join with provincial governments to make
the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first comes from Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
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 are killed in
the line of duty are often left without sufficient financial 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 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 Simcoe, Ontario.
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.
8020
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to assist families that 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 comes from Mulgrave, 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. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Thousands of Canadians have signed this petition. I suspect many
of them are from Kingston, although I have not been able to
identify them specifically.
The petitioners point out that corporate contributions to the
public revenues of Canada are already the lowest among the seven
major economies of the world. Whereas the corporations' share of
that has fallen to less than 10 per cent, the share borne by
individuals has skyrocketed. The petitioners also draw to our
attention a number of problems with the existing tax system,
including the GST.
The petitioners ask Parliament not to proceed with the GST
scheme that is now before the House, or any other plan to further
reduce the remaining corporate taxes at the expense of middle class
working individuals and families in Canada, and to undertake fair
tax reform of a comprehensive nature.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in this
petition hundreds of students at the University College of the
Cariboo point out that the House is considering the legalization of
assisted suicides. They are calling upon Parliament to refrain from
enacting any such legislation and to give priority toward making
palliative care available to all residents of Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again
pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners in this petition call
upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to
adopt all the necessary measures to recognize the full equality of
same sex relationships in federal law.
Again, these are primarily from students and faculty at the
University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 98 and 99.
[Text]
Question No. 98-Mr. Simmons:
Could the Minister of Health specify what initiatives will replace those funded
under Phase II of Canada's drug strategy when it ends in March, 1997, and in
particular, will there be an ongoing role for the Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): The
enforcement component of the strategy has been renewed. Health
Canada will continue to provide leadership and undertake national
co-ordination on substance abuse issues under the population
health approach, working collaboratively with provincial agencies,
non-governmental organizations, private sector, and multilateral
organizations. Based on learnings and best practices developed
during the second phase of Canada's drug strategy, Health Canada
will focus its prevention efforts on the needs of youth, seniors and
medication use, training needs of health professionals,
transmission of HIV and overdose deaths among injection drug
users, and impaired driving.
Recognizing the important contribution of the Canadian Centre
on Substance Abuse, Health Canada will provide a grant of $500K
for fiscal year 1997-98. The centre will continue to play a key role
in developing and disseminating substance abuse expertise in
Canada.
Question No. 99-Mr. Simmons:
Could the Minister of Health provide a detailed explanation of the effect of the
newly adopted population health approach on existing initiatives currently aimed
directly at groups adversely affected by family violence?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): The
government remains committed to dealing with the serious
problem of family violence. Health Canada's goal is to reduce the
incidence of family violence. The department's approach includes
both short and long-term elements: Health Canada will continue to
operate the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, to offer
training and education to frontline workers, to enhance the security
of emergency shelters and to improve the legislative framework
related to situations of family violence. At the same time, under the
population health approach, Health Canada will focus on
preventing family violence in the long term by expanding its
understanding of the conditions that lead to violence or that
increase the risks of violence and by acting on that knowledge.
8021
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): 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 the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers also be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8021
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-60, an act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other
acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.
(1530)
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, since question period I have been a
little disturbed by the lack of attendance in the Chamber. I notice
that a quorum is not present. I wonder if you might call for a
quorum at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Perhaps the bells could be
rung. I do not see a quorum.
(1535 )
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief
government whip the vote on Bill C-60 has been deferred until5.15 p.m. later this day.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, at the very moment when you put the
question on Bill C-60, we had a member who was in his place and
was supposed to speak, but he was not recognized.
I wish someone would explain what happened. According to
procedure, a Liberal was scheduled to speak before our member,
and our member was in his place-you saw him come in and go to
his seat-but he was not recognized.
I would ask the Chair to let us go back and resume debate on Bill
C-60.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what my hon. colleague said. In fact there was
no member in his place at the time that the question was put. I
would respectfully put to the Chair that the question was duly
called and passed at the time. I would respectfully suggest to the
hon. member that the matter has been dealt with and is closed.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, as regards Bill C-60, it is customary in
Parliament at third reading for a member of the government to
speak first and then be followed by a member of the opposition.
The Liberals decided not to present a speaker. I was on my way
to hear the speech by the Liberal member. The spirit of the rules
must be followed, but rules should not interpreted to the letter,
which would prevent us from speaking on this bill, for which we
have moved some 100 amendments and have made a number of
suggestions and which will have significant financial impact.
The House and the Liberal majority would be acting in bad faith
if they failed to recognize the opposition member due to speak on
the subject.
8022
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The Chair has heard the
arguments and I thank members on all sides for their assistance on
this matter but I think the answer is fairly clear.
A quorum call was in progress and hon. members chose to come
to the House or not while the bells were ringing. The bells were
rung for the purpose of bringing members to the House. With
respect, at the end of the quorum call naturally the Chair called for
the resumption of debate on the bill which was before the House.
Members who were here at the time the quorum call occurred will
note that the Chair had put the question on the motion and called
for debate but no one had risen to speak because the quorum called
intervened.
As your Speaker, I called for debate on the motion and no one
rose to debate the motion. I do not want to say something that I
should not say concerning the presence or absence of members
from the House, but no one rose to speak on the motion.
Accordingly, I said: Is the House ready for the question? And the
answer was, yes. I then received the document to put the question.
It may be that while the question was being put members entered
the House but no one rose to speak while I waited for the document
to put the question. I submit that the Chair has acted in accordance
with the practices and principles of the House in this matter.
[Translation]
As the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup just
said, he was on his way to the House when the question was put to
the House. He was too late. He must be here. If the hon. minister
does not want to speak at third reading, that is his prerogative, he
has no obligation to do so. For personal reasons, he decided not to
speak.
As you know, I serve the House, but, in my opinion, the situation
is as I described it. There is no point of order, and the matter is
closed.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, when you checked to see if there was
a quorum, were you not supposed to determine if there was a
quorum according to the number of members in their seat?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I counted the members in
the House. I did not check whether they were all in their seat, but I
determined that 20 members were present in the House.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, are you not supposed to count only
those members in their seats?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): With all due respect to the
hon. member, I do not think it necessary that every member be at
his own seat. It is enough that he be in the House. There were 20
members in the House when the bells stopped ringing. I counted
the members myself, and am satisfied the House Standing Orders
were followed.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that your ruling,
based on the Standing Orders, is that you can count members
regardless of where they are in this House for the sake of
maintaining quorum?
(1545)
If that is your ruling, I respect it. It is just that, in making your
ruling, I heard you say: ``I think that-'', which seemed to indicate
you were unsure. Could we please check what the Standing Orders
say?
If you tell me that is what they say, I will take your word for it.
We will do the checking ourselves.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Perhaps I did not make
myself clear enough, but the fact is that I was satisfied that there
were 20 members present in the House, and that is what our
Standing Orders call for. They were not in the galleries, they were
here, in the House. I counted 20 members, so that is the end of the
matter.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased
to speak in the House today regarding Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety
and Control Act.
The current legislation in this area is 50 years old. As the
minister noted earlier, it suffers from several deficiencies and is
outdated. The development application and the use of nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes brings many benefits to Canada.
However, it also entails some important responsibilities.
It is high time we had modern legislation to govern the
regulation of nuclear activities. The benefits of nuclear technology
include a safe and secure supply of energy, some 26,000 direct and
10,000 indirect jobs and significant export revenues from the sale
of Candu reactors and uranium.
Nuclear science has brought us advanced medical treatments,
agriculture and scientific applications and real environmental
advantages. To maximize these benefits and minimize the risks,
Canada has had to take certain precautions to protect public health
and safety as well as the environment.
8023
Canadians insist on very high standards for the regulation of
nuclear activity, higher than for most other forms of technology.
Since 1946 the agency charged with enforcing those standards,
the Atomic Energy Control Board, has done an excellent job. Its
vigilance is one reason that Canada has an enviable nuclear safety
record. However, the agency needs our help.
I would like to take a few minutes to expand on the role of the
AECB and to demonstrate why a new, modern framework is needed
to ensure that the nuclear regulatory authority in Canada can
continue to fulfil its mandate.
As has already been mentioned, the Atomic Energy Control Act
was proclaimed in 1946, shortly after the end of the second world
war. Apart from one amendment in 1954, the act has remained
essentially unchanged for half a century. During that time there
have been dramatic changes in the extent and nature of nuclear
activities in Canada and abroad and in society's expectations of
government regulations. There has also been a shift in emphasis at
the AECB. The agency continues to be concerned with the security
of nuclear information and materials. Today, however, most of its
activities focus on regulating the health, safety and environmental
aspects of nuclear technology.
(1550 )
In fact, these have been the most important issues for the AECB
since 1960 when the first health and safety regulations were
established under the Atomic Energy Control Act. In the 1970s and
1980s concern for the environment surged to the forefront of the
public agenda. This has also helped shape the AECB's modern
mandate.
Let me say a few words about how the AECB operates. The
AECB is an independent regulatory agency reporting to Parliament
through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is directed by a five
member board, one of whom is the president of the board.
The president of the board supervises approximately 400 officers
and staff. Most of these employees are based at the AECB
headquarters in Ottawa-
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully
to the hon. member, but I realize I am about the only one here. We
do not have a quorum. I am asking for a quorum count, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Sound the bells, please,
and summon the members.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question? Is the hon. member rising to speak?
[Translation]
Does the hon. member wish to take part in the debate? Are there
other members who wish to take part in the debate?
(1555)
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, are we debating Bill C-23, dealing
with the nuclear safety commission?
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that the
parliamentary secretary responsible for the very important
portfolio of natural resources is in her place and ready to continue
the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am asking if there are
members wishing to speak. If members who wish to speak would
rise, I would recognize them.
The parliamentary secretary had the floor. I did not see her rising
before. If she is rising, I will recognize her so that she can conclude
her remarks.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, let me say-
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, when you asked if someone wished to
speak, when we asked for a quorum count, the hon. parliamentary
secretary was already in the process of making her speech.
When debate resumed, you said ``Resuming debate'' and the
hon. parliamentary secretary said she did not wish to use the time
she had left. That is what I concluded, since she said she was done,
so we could proceed to other matters. Following this, our colleague
rose and said: ``I wish to speak to Bill C-23''.
Earlier, we experienced the same situation with Bill C-60 and
you did not recognize our colleague, who had not reached his seat.
In this case, I do not think you should let the hon. parliamentary
secretary carry on, because she clearly stated her desire to end her
speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I appreciate the comments
made by the hon. member for Joliette. I did not hear the hon.
parliamentary secretary when she said, as the member pointed out,
that she did not wish to continue to speak in this debate.
[English]
What I did say was: Resuming debate. No one rose. I said: Do
other members wish to speak? At that point two members rose,
including the hon. member for Abitibi. I concluded from that, since
the parliamentary had already risen, she wished to resume her
remarks.
8024
If she said otherwise earlier I did not hear it. She did not rise
earlier, I agree, and that is why I asked again: Is there anyone who
wishes to speak, because I assumed that the hon. member for
Abitibi was going to speak.
I think it is reasonable in the circumstances that the
parliamentary secretary conclude her remarks, since the two
indicated at the same time that they wished to speak.
Accordingly, I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Natural Resources.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words
about how the AECB operates.
The AECB is an independent regulatory agency reporting to
Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is directed
by a five member board, one of whom is the president of the board.
The president of the board supervises approximately 400 officers
and staff. Most of these employees are based at AECB headquarters
in Ottawa, with resident inspectors stationed at all nuclear
generating stations, at four regional offices and at a uranium
mining division in Saskatoon.
Hon. members may be interested to know that the large part of
AECB's operating costs are recovered from operators through
licensing fees. During 1994-95 licensing fees generated $28
million in revenues, reducing the net cost to the federal government
of delivering AECB services to $15 million. This annual
expenditure will be further reduced as the board's cost recovery
program matures over the next five years.
Canada's approach to nuclear regulation is based on the
internationally accepted principle that the operator of nuclear
technology is responsible for safety and must justify the proposed
use.
The role of the AECB is to set safety standards and to ensure,
through a variety of compliance mechanisms, that these standards
are met. Like other national nuclear regulatory bodies, the AECB
licenses facilities that use nuclear energy or nuclear material.
(1600 )
One way to illustrate the scope of the AECB's regulatory
activities is to note that about 4,000 licences or other permits are
currently in effect across Canada. These include licences for
nuclear reactors, particle accelerators used in industrial and
medical applications, uranium mines and refiners, reactor fuel
fabrication plants, heavy water plants, radio active waste
management facilities and radioisotopes. Radioisotopes are used
for everything from medical and research applications to oil and
gas well investigations and in consumer products like household
smoke detectors. In fact, radioisotopes account for about 90 per
cent of AECB licences.
AECB licencees are found throughout Canada. They range from
corporate giants like Ontario Hydro to small companies providing
inspection services to the industry, to private individuals operating
out of-
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the
member again, but it is once again about quorum. The Liberals are
absent from the House. It is not only up to the members of the Bloc
to listen-
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the
position taken by the Bloc members in calling a third time for a
quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There must be a quorum
in the House. As I do not see one, I ask the following: Call in the
members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
In administering its licensing system, the AECB works closely
with other federal and provincial departments with responsibilities
in such areas as health, the environment, transport and labour. This
ensures that the concerns and legislative obligations of these
departments are considered during the licensing process.
The Atomic Energy Control Board is also responsible for
regulating the import and export of nuclear materials, equipment
and technology. The board is very active in the work of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and ensures Canadian
compliance with the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons.
(1605)
In the latter task the AECB is concerned with both domestic and
international security of nuclear materials and technology. In all its
regulatory and licensing activities the AECB maintains a
transparent approach. I believe that the board's responsiveness to
public concerns has much to do with its reputation as an effective,
responsible, independent regulatory body. However, more than
ever before the public is concerned about health and safety issues
and demands input into the AECB's decision making process.
The Atomic Energy Control Act gives the AECB significant
responsibilities and broad scope for regulating nuclear activities.
Through periodic amendments to regulations and licensing
conditions, the AECB has regulated the development of the nuclear
industry in Canada effectively while ensuring the health and safety
of workers, the public and the environment.
8025
Nevertheless there is an obvious and compelling need to
modernize the legislation. Many people believe that the 50 year
old statute as it now stands limits the AECB's effectiveness. The
act's deficiencies have been noted by the courts, the media, special
interest groups, parliamentary committees and the auditor general.
Let me mention some of the more troubling weaknesses. AECB
inspectors do not have the formal powers they need to carry out
their responsibilities. The AECB cannot hold polluters financially
accountable for their actions, nor can it order remedial action. The
ceiling on fines is $10,000 and is far too low.
The small number of board members hinders the decision
making process and does not allow the agency the flexibility it
needs to deal effectively with certain issues. The act does not
provide explicitly for public hearings.
Bill C-23 corrects each of these weaknesses. It formalizes
inspectors' powers so that they can ensure the safe use of nuclear
materials whether in a home based business or a nuclear power
plant. The bill provides an appeal mechanism as well. Bill C-23
also increases the maximum fine for violations to $1 million.
The proposed legislation will enable the AECB under its new
name, the Canadian nuclear safety commission, to act quickly to
clean up radioactive contamination when concerns over liability or
the polluter's inaction could cause delays that could threaten public
health, safety or the environment. The legislation also sets up
reporting requirements that ensure that any contamination by
radioactive substances or possible exposures to radiation are
reported to the commission for remedial action.
Bill C-23 increases the number of commission members to
ensure better professional and technical representation and to
improve decision making. It allows the president to appoint
members to sit on panels which will be more efficient in many
cases than requiring decision making by the full commission. This
legislation also requires the commission to conduct its proceedings
in public wherever reasonable. This simply formalizes current
practice by the AECB.
Make no mistake, the AECB has been and continues to be an
active, effective regulatory agency essential to the high technology
industry. Hon. members must recognize that new legislation is
required to ensure that Canada's nuclear regulatory agency has the
appropriate mandate and the authority to carry out its
responsibilities today and in the future.
This proposed legislation acts on commitments made in the
recent speech from the throne, commitments to sustaining our
environment and to ensuring a modern regulatory regime suitable
for the 21st century.
I urge my hon. colleagues to act in the interest of all Canadians
by voting in favour of this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata be now heard.
(1610)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member has
moved a motion to recognize the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. I was on my feet to recognize the
member. I am happy to recognize the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
The Chair had not made a choice and so I submit that the motion
the hon. member has proposed is premature. Normally a motion
that someone be heard is proposed after the Chair has recognized
someone else. Since the Chair had not recognize anyone, I am
happy to recognize the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before being heard, given the mood in the House today, I
would like to be certain that there are truly no members opposed,
and I call for a recorded division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata wish to continue her speech? There is no
motion before the House except the motion for third reading.
If she wishes to speak to this motion for third reading, she is now
welcome to do so, but if she has finished, we will resume debate.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. We got involved in the production
of nuclear energy without being in a position to ensure the
consequences properly.
We got involved in the development and production of nuclear
energy without really knowing all the ins and outs of it. For years,
we have been producing tons of nuclear waste without being able to
handle that waste properly.
Our governments have not been equipped to properly manage
the hazards to public health, and to the environment in particular.
Our governments have been particularly incapable of proper
monitoring, as we are well aware.
It is, therefore, not surprising that every time there is an attempt
to develop or use a new nuclear technology, environmental
organizations and the general public are up in arms. As you are
aware, there is a lot of fear among the public.
8026
We must not close our eyes, either, to the fact that the current
arsenal of nuclear weapons in circulation on this planet represents
a risk of totally annihilating the human race, and the public is very
much aware of this.
We all know that there are impressive quantities of nuclear
weapons, plutonium and heavy water in Russia, and our
governments fear a black market may develop. Non-democratic
countries and terrorist groups might get their hands on atomic
weapons or on the raw materials for producing such weapons. Even
small countries can get them.
I see Bill C-23 as only a tiny step toward enhanced government
control, and one that is way too late in coming. It is a very tiny
response to the justified fear of the public, of Quebecers in
particular.
This bill does not, in fact, solve anything much. In particular, it
does not get to the heart of the problem.
(1615)
Will we really be better protected when this bill is passed?
Hardly. What is this government doing to prevent the use of nuclear
products in weapons of destruction? I do not think Bill C-23
provides the answer to this question.
As citizens we may well wonder whether this government
realizes that mankind is living on top of a volcano. The existing
legislation, which goes back to 1946, maintained an almost
incestuous relationship between research, marketing and control.
There was a genuine conflict of interest.
Fortunately, the bill proposes to separate the two components.
How could anyone expect those who develop new technologies and
are supposed to market them to exercise effective and much needed
controls?
It is like asking the big oil companies to calibrate gas pumps.
Not that I do not trust them, but I have very little doubt they would
try to take advantage of the situation. So it took the federal
government 50 years to realize that this legislation was ill
conceived and did not satisfactorily protect the interests of
Quebecers and Canadians.
How can you expect the public, which has many fears about
nuclear energy, to start trusting this government and the new
nuclear safety commission? This public trust will be extremely
difficult to rebuild, and I can hardly believe that, with the passage
of this bill, all problems will disappear.
In fact, I expect the government wants us to forget the latest visit
of the Prime Minister to Russia, when there was some talk of
purchasing nuclear waste and processing it here in Canada. At the
time, this decision raised a wave of public protest.
There is another matter the government probably could have
dealt with as well by examining the question of nuclear energy and
introducing a bill on the subject. All things considered, if we
analyse research and development investments in the nuclear
energy sector in Canada, it is clear that one province alone enjoys
practically all the economic spinoffs in this sector. I am of course
referring to the province of Ontario.
Who else in confederation is as well endowed with the largesse
of the federal government? Who else in this confederation has a
vested interest in maintaining Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?
Who else in this confederation gets so many of the spinoffs of this
industry? It is Ontario, always Ontario, that is the winner in the
area of research and development.
If the government were half way serious, it would have used the
opportunity to consider the question. In this area in particular, it
could have extended its generosity to Quebec. It provides strong
support for nuclear energy simply as a favour to the industry in
Ontario, in my opinion.
I had hoped that the federal government would commit to better
distribute its research and development funds by amending this
bill. I am not saying give Quebec the advantage, but give it what it
is entitled to. It did the very opposite. We saw this recently with the
closing of the regional offices of Atomic Energy of Canada,
including those in Montreal. They close the Montreal offices and
open others in Ontario.
I would also have hoped that the government would make clear
its desire for more research and development projects on the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
(1620)
Nuclear medicine has a very definite place, and funding should
be increased to enable hospitals to do research. The public will
accept atomic energy only when it sees its peaceful uses and its role
in everyday life and only when it sees the government has
established near perfect means to control the risks involved in its
use and development.
The introduction of this bill in the House could also have raised
the issue of funding for Atomic Energy of Canada for debate.
I would now like to discuss the funding of the sale of Candu
reactors around the world. It is all very well to make sales, but do
the countries receiving them have the means to protect themselves
and their people? What about financing the sale of CANDU
reactors throughout the world? Atomic Energy of Canada is just as
much of a bottomless pit as the Hibernia project off Newfoundland
may be.
Since this agency was created, billions of dollars have been sunk
into it, and the government is only able to sell CANDU reactors by
financing them with money from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
In reality, the sale of CANDU reactors, with their supposedly safe
technology, is nothing more than a clever way of subsidizing
Atomic Energy of Canada.
8027
This government would have done better to overhaul Atomic
Energy of Canada's operations. The days when the government
could squander taxpayers' money are long gone. When a
government makes savage cuts to unemployment insurance,
contemplates making cuts to old age pensions, and attacks the
most disadvantaged members of society, it should start by cleaning
up its own act.
The necessary clean-up has not been done at Atomic Energy
Canada, and Bill C-23 would have provided an excellent
opportunity to do just that. The timing was right. The government
missed the boat in this case as in so many others. This is a half
measure that will only disguise the true extent of the atomic energy
management problem.
I think this bill comes too late. It is nevertheless worthwhile,
except that it should have been better thought out. This is a bill that
could have made a great many Canadians happy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka-nuclear energy; the hon.
member for Mackenzie-employment.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ontario.
I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-23.
As the chairman of the natural resources committee, I had an
opportunity, along with many of my colleagues from all sides of
the House, to study the bill in detail. A large number of witnesses
came forward to provide us with a number of opinions, and
concerns in some cases, about the bill.
I was pleased to see that during the report stage of this legislation
that a number of changes were proposed by the government and
were eventually incorporated into this bill.
(1625 )
I would like to take a moment to thank all of those people who
took the time to testify before us as well as to thank my fellow
members on the committee, many of whom are sitting here in the
House right now, for the work that they did.
It is most important to recognize that this legislation is an
attempt to find an appropriate balance. On the one hand it is an
attempt to find a balance between ensuring the beneficial use of
nuclear substances for the generation of power, medical research
and medical technology, and on the other hand it is an attempt in
putting in place a regulatory regime that ensures public safety and
public health.
That is the balance that has to be found when dealing with the
nuclear industry. Bill C-23 does just that. It gets that balance. It
puts it in place and does it properly.
As some of the other speakers have mentioned previously in
debate, this legislation is long overdue. The original legislation
governing nuclear energy was passed in 1946. That is over 50 years
ago. It was a time when the primary concern was one of national
security, as opposed to one of public health and safety.
This legislation is long overdue and I applaud the Minister of
Natural Resources for assuming the responsibility and after 50
some odd years bringing new legislation into the House that
reflects the realities of the 1990s. Today we are far more concerned
with the issues of health and safety than the concerns of national
security.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, the bill looks to create
a balance. I would like to quote clause 3 of the bill which deals with
its purpose: ``The purpose of this act is to provide for the
development, production and use of nuclear energy and the
production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed
equipment and prescribed information in a manner than prevents an
unreasonable risk to national security, the environment or the
health and safety of persons and is consistent with Canada's
international obligations''.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to ask
once again for a quorum. We might make it into the Guinness book
of records.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We do not have a quorum
at this point.
Call in the members.
And the bells having stopped:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is now a quorum.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent the Bloc is trying
to stretch this 50 year effort to finally update this bill to protect
Canadians' health and safety with a few shenanigans, but I shall
continue. Hopefully, we will get the concerns of Canadians through
the House despite that.
(1630 )
As I was saying, there are a number of important objectives in
this legislation. We have talked about the need to update the
regulatory regime. We have talked about finding a balance.
As well, this bill gives the government the legislative authority
to carry out its international obligations. Those international
8028
obligations are very important. For instance, it allows Canada to
work toward the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear
explosive devices. We have undertaken important international
agreements to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the
world. This legislation provides the government the tools it will
need to carry out those international agreements. That is another
important objective of the bill.
Fourth, all government departments have worked on
streamlining the regulatory regime under which Canadians must
operate. This bill works toward that end. It works toward ensuring
that the carrying out of regulations will be done in an efficient and
cost effective manner. That is another important objective of the
bill.
There are a number of specific provisions in the bill. I would like
to speak to a couple of the provisions which will work toward
achieving the objectives of the legislation.
First, the bill will expand the size of the commission from five
members to seven members. That will allow more expertise, more
representation on the commission, so that when decisions are being
made there will be a broader group of individuals with a broader
range of expertise. They will be able to make better and more
effective decisions.
Second, the bill has increased the level of fines for individuals or
corporations which contravene their licences. That is very
important. By doing that we will get away from the situation where
a company might consider a very minor fine to be simply the cost
of doing business and will continue to not follow the rules and
regulations. The bill will introduce fines which have real teeth in
them. The increased fines will be an incentive to companies to
adhere to the rules and regulations of their licences. I am very
pleased that the legislation gives the government the power to
establish fines at a level which will serve as a deterrent.
Third, in dealing with the regulatory regime, the bill will give
the federal government the power to delegate administrative
functions to the provinces where they are best able to carry them
out. We will be able to get away from the situation where one day a
provincial inspector shows up to do one part of the job and the next
day a federal inspectors shows up to do another part. That system is
very inefficient. This bill will allow the provinces to delegate
administrative responsibilities.
Fourth and very important is the whole idea of having public
hearings. One of the concerns that we heard during the committee
meetings was that there would not be sufficient public input for
some of the very important decisions which the commission will
have to undertake. Through what was originally in the legislation
and through the amendments that were made, based in part on the
information we received at committee, the legislation has been
changed so that there will be mandatory public hearings where
people will be able to review decisions. There will also be an
appeal process.
I believe this is a good piece of legislation. It demonstrates
clearly that the Minister of Natural Resources, in coming into
office and seeing a difficult problem, was able to act. She acted on
a legislative regime that had not been updated for 50 years. The
Minister of Natural Resources stepped up to the challenge and put
before the House good, solid legislation.
This bill was not quickly put together. The committee held six
weeks of hearings to gather opinions from a broad range of
individuals and groups. We were able to obtain a large amount of
input which was used to make the bill better than it was when it was
debated in the House at second reading.
(1635 )
This bill is about protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
It is not about favouring one part of the country over another, about
saying that Quebec gets all of this or Ontario gets all of this or the
west gets all of this. That is not what this bill is all about, not what
we in this House are about today.
It is about protecting Canadians' health and safety, about
ensuring that we have a proper regulatory regime over the nuclear
industry in this country, about making sure we protect the health
and safety of Canadians.
I become quite fatigued when I hear on a bill that is as important
as this, about the health and safety of Canadians, on a bill that deals
with moving forward the agenda of protecting Canadians no matter
where they live, comments about this part of the country getting
more and that part of the country getting more. That has no place in
this debate.
What this is about is a good piece of legislation, about protecting
Canadians and making sure that the system works.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon there is a kind of comedy taking place in this House.
Across the floor, there are 177 seats held by elected government
members, but we cannot get enough of them to have a quorum. In
the last hour, we have had to ask for a quorum five times. I am
again asking for a quorum.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not a quorum.
Please ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Questions
and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi.
8029
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have an
interesting question for the Liberal member, who is also the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The
hon. member said this is a very important bill for the health and
safety of Canadians.
I asked the natural resources committee to amend clause 3,
which reads:
The purpose of this Act is to provide for
(a) the limitation, to a reasonable level- of the risks- associated with the
development, production and use of nuclear energy and the production,
possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment, etc.
I would like the hon. member to tell me why he did not accept
the amendment I proposed in committee. My amendment provided
that the limitation should be not to a reasonable level, but to a
minimum level. It is important for Canadians to understand that,
when it comes to nuclear energy, the acceptable threshold should
not really be the acceptable level, but that we should work to arrive
at a minimum level. Given the current technology, this should be
possible.
Could the hon. member tell me why he did not agree with this
amendment, which sought to protect the well-being of Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member worked very hard
on this piece of legislation. We need to talk about finding a balance.
I do not think that we can legislate every specific possibility that
may come up at some time. If we look back to when the legislation
was originally enacted in 1946 we will find things in the legislation
which were not even imagined for 1996. That bill has had to serve
over the last 50 years.
(1640)
One integral part of the bill and of our regulatory regime is that
we have a licensing board which stipulates on a case by case basis
specific licenses established for each person to operate. The public
should know that nobody handles this material in any form unless a
licence has been issued to do so. Each situation is different. There
is a big difference between a nuclear reactor and dealing with
isotopes for medical research. Therefore there has to be some
flexibility in the licensing regime.
When giving instructions to the commission to use the word
reasonable, I believe that by using the word reasonable we are
allowing the commission to deal with each situation given the
events and the facts and the evolution of technology over the years
and to give the flexibility necessary in the licensing process to deal
with the health and safety of Canadians.
When trying to define a minimum standard when doing
experimentation with isotopes it is going to be a whole lot different
than a minimum standard for dealing with nuclear reactors or other
types of licensees.
I believe that using the word reasonable and combining it with a
strong board of seven members with some strong licensing powers
and with some strong regulatory regimes with the ability to fine
companies or individuals who ignore their licensing requirements
will protect the health and safety of Canadians, which is the intent
of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the
atmosphere this afternoon, I must say that I find it a bit unfortunate
that, as soon as the Bloc Quebecois members, the member for
Berthier-Montcalm and the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, raised their point of order, they left the
House.
I find it a bit unfortunate that these members did not stay for a
speech that is very important, on a topic that is also very important,
not just for Quebecers but for all Canadians.
[English]
I am well aware of this bill. I think it is an important bill and it
certainly affects me as a member of Parliament whose riding has
one of the largest nuclear facilities in the country.
I want to commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka
on the excellent job done in committee and getting the bill to third
reading. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the
parliamentary secretary, the member for Dauphin-Swan River,
and the minister on their excellent effort on a bill that I think
modernizes our need for legislation and gets a brings a piece of
legislation that has been around for a long time up to speed.
As hon. members are aware, the purpose of Bill C-23 is to
establish a more effective and efficient regulatory framework for
Canada's nuclear industry. The nuclear industry provides many
benefits to Canadians but if Canadians are to realize those benefits
the risk associated with nuclear energy must be minimized.
In addition, Canadians must be confident that a nuclear regulator
is fully able to ensure those risks are controlled. Their legislation
will establish a modern regulatory regime for Canada's nuclear
industry so that Canadians can have that confidence.
(1645 )
There are costs to regulation, both in financial terms and in terms
of constraints placed upon industry and individuals who work or
deal with the industry. But there are benefits as well. To put this
legislation into perspective I would like to remind hon. members of
8030
this House of the nuclear sector's contribution to economic
growth, job creation and a healthy environment for all Canadians.
Canada is a fortunate nation in the sense that it has a variety of
electricity sources. Hydroelectric power is the major source,
producing 60 per cent of our supply. Thermal electricity, generated
mostly by burning natural gas and coal, produces about 20 per cent
of the supply. Nearly 20 per cent is provided by nuclear power.
Nuclear power is certainly important in Ontario not only for the
sake of my riding, but for the entire province where it produces
more than 60 per cent of the electrical supply. It is probably not
news to this House but nuclear power produced in Canada uses
Candu nuclear reactors. In Canada we have 22 reactors of which
eight are in my riding; one finds itself in the province of Quebec,
and there is one in New Brunswick. They are all licensed and
regulated by the AECB, the Atomic Energy Control Board of
Canada.
The Candu reactor is a Canadian high technology success story.
In 1987 the Engineering Centennial Council listed the Candu as
one of the ten most outstanding engineering achievements of the
preceding century.
One of the most attractive features of the Candu reactor is that it
uses natural uranium as fuel. Other types of reactors use enriched
uranium. Producing enriched uranium is an expensive process and
the technology is a secret very closely guarded by a handful of
countries. Therefore the Candu design allows us to capitalize on
our abundant uranium resources.
Yet another attractive feature of the Candu reactor is that it can
be refuelled on line. This has helped to make Candu reactors
among the most reliable in the world. Canadians can take great
pride in the fact that in terms of lifetime capacity utilization, three
of the world's top ten reactors and seven of the world's top
twenty-five reactors are Candu.
It is equally important to Canadian industry that the Candu
design does not require large high pressure reactor vessels. This
gives Canadian firms a great share in the manufacturing and
construction of these reactors.
The technical excellence of the Candu has made it a desirable
product for export. Four have been sold to South Korea, one to
Argentina and one to Romania. On November 26 Atomic Energy of
Canada Ltd. signed a contract to sell two Candu reactors to China.
The nuclear industry is one of the few high tech industries that are
actually net exporters of goods and services.
Nuclear energy and nuclear power are economical. The
economies of scale associated with using nuclear power to generate
electricity make it one of the lowest cost alternatives for meeting
large base load demands.
During the 1970s and 1980s the cost of electricity from nuclear
power plants in Ontario was on average about 30 per cent less than
the cost of electricity from the more traditional conventional coal
fired power plants. Electricity provided by natural gas and coal
fired generating plants has become more economically attractive in
the past 10 years but the cost of nuclear power remains competitive
for large scale base load generation under a number of scenarios.
Canada's nuclear power plants will continue to provide clean
economical power for the foreseeable future, and we hope that will
be a long one.
Canada is a pioneer in the use of nuclear technology to support
material science. Nuclear technologies also have applications in
the oil and gas, metals inspection and agricultural industries, to
name a few. Canada is the world's leading producer and exporter of
uranium, but for peaceful purposes.
Canada's nuclear technology is literally saving lives here and
around the world. This may come as a surprise to those who are
usually quick to discredit it. For the past 50 years, Canada has been
an international leader in medical applications of nuclear
technology. In particular, our nation has become the world's
leading producer of radioisotopes, which my hon. colleague from
Parry Sound-Muskoka spoke so eloquently on.
In particular Canada has become the world's leading producer of
such isotopes as cobalt 60 which is used to treat cancer and
technetium 99 which is essential to many diagnostic procedures.
Many people are amazed to learn that about 25 per cent of patients
admitted to hospital in Canada today undergo a diagnostic process
that involves nuclear technology.
(1650 )
In considering Bill C-23, hon. members must not overlook the
fact that the Canadian nuclear industry is also a major employer. In
1993, the last year for which figures are available, the industry
directly employed about 26,000 people. At least 10,000 jobs in
other sectors depended indirectly on the nuclear industry. Many of
these highly skilled scientific, engineering and manufacturing jobs
can be seen right across this country, including the benefits which
arise in my own riding.
Nuclear power represents more than just jobs, industrial growth
and export potential. It is also one of the most important means by
which Canada can achieve its sustainable development goals. Quite
simply, the sustainable development of Canada's resources is
essential to our international competitiveness and the long term
health of our economy and of course the maintenance of our higher
standard of living.
A key element of the sustainable development challenge is
Canada's commitment to control its emissions of greenhouse and
acid gases. Along with hydro power, nuclear energy is essential to
this effort. Neither of these electricity sources produces greenhouse
or acid gases. As a result of Canada's strong reliance on hydro and
nuclear power, which by the way is uncommon among OECD
countries, our electricity sector produces a smaller proportion of
the country's total greenhouse gas emissions compared with other
countries that depend on traditional fossil fuels. In fact if we decide
8031
not to have nuclear reactors, our electricity sector would emit about
twice as much as it does now.
I would like to emphasize that all the activities I have described
today are regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure
that workers, the public and the environment are not exposed to
unnecessary risks. The AECB has ensured that these risks are very
low indeed. The benefits associated with nuclear technology far
outweigh its risks.
The bill before us today addresses several concerns relating to
the regulation of the industry. I draw the attention of hon. members
to two key points. First, the industry has standards of regulation
which it must meet. It needs to know what powers the regulator's
inspectors have and it needs to have access to a legal appeal
mechanism. Second, the Canadian public has a legitimate interest
in nuclear safety. Bill C-23 gives Canadians an opportunity to
express concerns whenever major facilities are being licensed.
It is for those reasons that Bill C-23 in my view is a bill well
worth supporting. It is a bill whose time has come. For the residents
of Pickering I think this makes absolute sense. I commend the
government and the minister of energy in pursuing this.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-23 at third reading.
As my Liberal colleague mentioned, I have done considerable
work on this bill. I thought that nuclear energy was a very serious
matter, and that, since the old act had been around for 50 years, a
great deal of attention would have to be given to improving it.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain my point of view,
which is that Bill C-23 will have to be transparent so things can be
put in context.
While the existing act encompasses both the regulatory and
developmental aspects of nuclear activities, this enactment
disconnects the two functions, provides a distinct identity to the
regulatory agency. It replaces the Atomic Energy Control Board
with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, underlining its
separate role from that of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The role
of the latter agency is to promote the sale of CANDU reactors,
among other things. It also oversees the federal research,
development and marketing organization for nuclear and atomic
energy.
Since the act was first adopted in 1946, the mandate of the
regulatory agency has evolved from one chiefly concerned with
national security to one which focuses primarily on the control of
the health and environmental safety consequences of nuclear
activities.
(1655)
This enactment provides the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission with a mandate to establish and enforce national
standards in
this area. It also establishes a basis for implementing Canada's
policy of fulfilling its obligations with respect to the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This new philosophy underlying Bill C-23 establishes a very
reasonable basis for attaining objectives, but perhaps not enough
time has been allowed to take a 50-year-old enactment and turn it
into a modern piece of legislation. It must be remembered that the
bill replaces a 50-year-old enactment dealing primarily with
national security. It must be kept in mind that in 1950, after World
War II, there was more interest in linking nuclear energy with
bombs for war time use. Gradually the desire developed to show
Canadians that this energy could also be a safe, easily produced,
low cost, clean energy source.
Mr. Speaker, there are not many of us here, and the House is not
really paying much attention. In light of the events that have taken
place, and in order to continue this debate in a more serious
manner, I therefore move:
That the House do now adjourn.
[
English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 224)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
8032
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -40
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-111
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bachand
Barnes
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Campbell
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Duceppe
Fillion
Finestone
Harper (Churchill)
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Robillard
St. Denis
Venne
Whelan
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60,
an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to
repeal and amend other acts as a consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.40 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at third reading stage of Bill C-60.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 225)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
8033
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-113
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bachand
Barnes
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Campbell
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Duceppe
Fillion
Finestone
Harper (Churchill)
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Robillard
St. Denis
Venne
Whelan
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.45 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
8033
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of establishing a public safety officers compensation fund to receive
gifts and bequests for the benefit of spouses and children of police officers and
firefighters who lose their lives in the line of duty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the House today
on Motion No. 306.
As members know, I have been quite active in the area of private
members' bills and motions. In part of the activities that I have
undertaken the issue of alcohol was one that caught my attention
the most. As a result of some of the work I did on Bill C-222, which
concerned putting health warning labels on the containers of
alcoholic beverages, a personal initiative came out of this called
Drink Smart Canada.
Drink Smart Canada is a public awareness and education
campaign to make Canadians aware of the consequences of the
misuse of alcohol. When I started this program and did the research
and developed the statistics to deal with the consequences of
alcohol misuse, I needed some help. I received a lot of support
from my colleagues in the House, but I needed some external
support.
I would like to read into the record the statistics dealing with
alcohol misuse: 19,000 deaths each year, 45 per cent of all motor
vehicle collisions, 30 per cent of fires, 30 per cent of all suicides,
60 per cent of all homicides, 50 per cent of incidents of family
violence, 65 per cent of snowmobile collisions, one in six family
breakdowns, 30 per cent of all drownings, 5 per cent of birth
defects, 65 per cent of cases of child abuse, 40 per cent of all falls
and 50 per cent of all hospital emergencies. The cost of this to
Canadians in additional health care costs and social program costs
is some $15 billion a year which is all directly or indirectly due to
alcohol misuse.
When I look down the list at the tragedies associated with the
misuse of alcohol, it became very clear to me that our police
officers and firefighters are the ones who are acting on behalf of all
Canadians to deal with the consequences of many of these
tragedies. Whether they be fires, motor vehicle collisions,
homicides or family violence, it is our police officers and
firefighters who are there for Canadians during those times of
emergency.
I needed that support and went outside and spoke with the police
and firefighters. I am pleased to let everyone know that the
8034
Association of Fire Chiefs representing the firefighters of Canada
came forward and lent their support to Drink Smart Canada.
(1750)
In its supporting statement on Drink Smart the The Canadian
Police Association stated it was pleased to join the Canadian
Association of Fire Chiefs in supporting Drink Smart Canada.
The Canadian Police Association welcomes any initiative that will curb alcohol
abuse and make our communities and roads safer for all Canadians. Police officers
know too well the carnage and grief that is caused by alcohol abuse. We recognize
that alcohol will not be eradicated from society but that it can be used responsibly
and this type of program will be effective in reducing family violence and needless
traffic deaths and injuries.
In its statement the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs said:
We are indeed honoured to be named as one of the honorary patrons of ``Drink
Smart Canada'' and to work along with the Canadian Police Association and
Members of Parliament on this educational project.
The fire departments across Canada are involved daily in incidents such as house
fires and motor vehicle accidents whose cause can be attributed either directly or
indirectly to alcohol abuse. The consumption of alcohol can impair judgment and
cause drowsiness, which when combined with routine domestic activities, cigarette
smoking or driving a motor vehicle can have serious if not tragic consequences.
Those are just two extracts from these two organizations.
When I needed help the police and firefighters of Canada came
forward to offer their support and encouragement in an area that
was important to me. As a consequence I have no hesitation
whatsoever in bringing forward Motion No. 306 which proposes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of establishing a Public Safety Officers compensation fund to receive
gifts and bequests for the benefit of spouses and children of police officers and
firefighters who lose their lives in the line of duty.
I submitted that private member's motion. In addition, on June
17, 1996 I also submitted Bill C-314 which is a bill to bring to
fruition the public safety officers compensation fund. That bill has
not yet been chosen under the rules of the House but I am confident
that today will start the debate on this issue and that with the
support of all members of the House we will achieve the objectives
of Bill C-314.
I want to say a couple of words about the memorial site on the
Hill. The murder of a police officer triggered a nationally
recognized ceremony. On July 11, 1977 a rookie constable, David
Kirkwood, was killed in the line of duty. He had been with the force
for some 11 months and was 21 years old. Following that senseless
killing Ottawa police officers vowed to keep not only his memory
alive but as well to ensure that the magnitude of his sacrifice and
the sacrifice of others like him would never be forgotten by
Canadians.
Accordingly, on September 24, 1978 a special service and tribute
were held on Parliament Hill. The site selected was Parliament, the
place where the laws are made that directly have an impact on
police officer safety and on the quality of life of us all.
On March 22, 1994 the Prime Minister gathered with more than
700 police officers and relatives of slain officers at the site behind
the Parliament buildings. The Canadian Police Association and the
CACP dedicated the new Canadian Police Memorial Pavilion and a
granite stone at the base of the pavilion that contains the names of
officers killed in the line of duty.
During the last 30 years some 96 Canadian police officers have
been the victims of homicide while on duty. All but eight of these
were shot. On duty homicide rates, however, have declined
somewhat during this period but it still is a large number.
(1755 )
At the time of the writing of the article I am reading here, 14
officers had been killed during the 1990s. A research study has
been done of four large police forces which represent one-third of
all sworn officers in the country. It found that during the period
1970 through 1990 two-thirds of police officer homicides occurred
after police were dispatched to incidents or responded to calls for
assistance while the remaining homicides arose out of police
initiated contact. The majority of these were in responding to
emergent needs.
I have read many of the stories associated with the deaths of
courageous firefighters. I will not repeat them on the record
because I think it is important to remember the positives and not
the tragic stories. We should not forget those stories but remember
the positives.
Firefighters have made a significant contribution to public
safety. Over the last 10 years approximately 40 firefighters have
lost their lives in the line of duty on behalf of Canadians. These
include not only the firefighters we are all familiar with but in
many communities across Canada there is a volunteer firefighter
base that is very important to the safety of all Canadians.
To give an idea of the magnitude of the contribution made there
as well in terms of risk, over the same period some 12,500
firefighters have been injured. I have looked at the statistics and
found that firefighters and police officers were four times more
likely to be the victims of homicide and 11 times more likely to be
the victims of violence. That tells us that our police officers, our
public safety officers, prison guards, jail guards and firefighters are
in a high risk, dangerous situation.
8035
This motion asks parliamentarians to consider what they feel
when they see incidents in our country when public safety officers
lose their lives in the line of duty. I can recall many times seeing
news stories of police officers or firefighters from right across the
country, hundreds if not thousands, coming together to mourn a
loss. It is a loss that Canadians feel as well.
Public safety officers are police officers, firefighters, peace
officers. Under the Criminal Code peace officers include jail and
prison guards. The intent here is to include those who are in the
public service.
Motion No. 306 and Bill C-314 proposes that a registered
charitable foundation be established with a board of directors
appointed by the Government of Canada. The board would receive
applications for assistance and would assess need on a case by case
basis.
On September 29, 1976 a public safety officers benefit program
was established in the United States. It is now under the auspices of
the U.S. department of justice. It provides a substantial benefit to
the survivors of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of
duty. In fact, the amount currently paid is about $135,000 U.S.
dollars. It is also an indexed fund. That gives an idea of the value
and the level of concern that the United States has for those who
provide these services to the citizens of the United States.
When a program begins it is not possible to fund it at that level.
However, it is reflective of the level of concern.
A fund is being proposed which would be a registered charity to
receive gifts and bequests from Canadians who want a tangible way
to show their support for our police officers, firefighters and peace
officers who lose their lives in the line of duty. The board of
directors would assess each case on a case by case basis and would
determine on the basis of need.
(1800)
I found an interesting statistic. The average age of police officers
killed in the line of duty is about 35. I do not have statistics on what
their family composition was but I can reflect on what my family
composition was some 14 years ago when I was 35 years of age.
I had an eight-year old, a six-year old and a one-year old. My
wife was at home managing the family home and caring for our
children and our family. We had a large mortgage. We had an old
car. I had a job that offered group life insurance which would pay
twice my salary if I should die. It was certainly not enough to
discharge my debts. I had some additional insurance which was
expensive but I carried it because of my family responsibilities.
If I am reflective of the kind of situations, and I am sure I am,
that police officers and firefighters who are in the prime of their
lives find themselves in, their families are probably filled but very
young, their financial obligations are probably at their peak and
they are probably getting into their highest income earning years
when their lives come to an end.
The money would come from gifts or bequests from Canadians
or from their estates in gratitude for the service provided, and that
would be a major source of funds, and the unions and the
associations of the police officers and firefighters across this
country have let me know by literally hundreds of letters and
petitions that they support this issue and that they are also prepared
to support it financially.
The motion does not call for funding from other levels of
government. However, as a registered charity it can receive any
appropriations from any level of government should that happen,
and I hope that would happen.
The last question I would rhetorically pose is why is the fund
being proposed. Canadians are well aware of the daily risks that
face our police and firefighters as they serve our needs. When one
of them loses their life in the line of duty, we all mourn that loss.
This fund would be a tangible way for Canadians to honour their
courageous service and to assist their loved ones in their time of
need.
The International Association of Firefighters comes annually to
visit the Hill. I want to thank firefighter Marty Goodkey who came
to my office last year to propose this public safety officers
compensation fund on behalf of all public safety officers, including
police, prison guards, firefighters and volunteers across this
country. They made a tremendous impression on me. I was very
grateful for the support they gave me when I asked them for
support for Drink Smart Canada. It is the least I can do to rise in
this House and to ask for the support of all colleagues to see if we
can find a way to help establish a public safety officers
compensation fund so that we can give all Canadians an
opportunity to show how much we care and appreciate the
contribution made by those public safety officers.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Motion M-306, presented by the hon. member
for Mississauga South.
Although the hon. member already mentioned the following, we
must give credit where credit is due. As far as the business of
Parliament is concerned, which includes bills and motions, the hon.
member for Mississauga South has, in the course of this
Parliament, introduced a number of bills. He has done an
outstanding job, whether or not we agree with the motions and bills
he drafted and so valiantly defended before the Subcommittee on
Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
8036
It is always reassuring to see a member who works so hard at
the business of Parliament, something we were all elected to do.
The debate on the motion of the hon. member for Mississauga
South is right on time, since next Monday in Ottawa there will be a
meeting of the Canadian Police Association, whose members will
take advantage of this opportunity next week to meet
parliamentarians, make them aware of their problems and try to
determine certain priorities for dealing with matters of public
safety.
(1805)
This contribution by the Canadian Police Association is much
appreciated, for instance, by the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs on which I have had the honour to sit since the
beginning of the 35th Parliament. Every time we had bills
concerning the Criminal Code and public safety, the Canadian
Police Association usually appeared with thorough and informed
studies and shared its expertise acquired in the field.
For that reason alone, we as legislators owe a debt of gratitude to
the Canadian Police Association. They helped us improve certain
bills and in many cases prompted the tabling of bills aimed at
increasing public safety.
As parliamentarians we are, of course, concerned about public
safety, and we pass legislation accordingly. However, we too often
forget those who are on the front line, and to take a leaf from the
book of the hon. member for Mississauga South, I will talk about
those who are on the firing line and mention a few figures. It is said
dozens of police officers have been shot. These are not traffic
accidents, this is murder, sordid crimes, in most cases.
It is always a shock to a community to see police officers die in
the line of duty, specially when it is the result of a criminal act.
Those who are supposed to protect us also deserve to be protected
by a legislative framework that shows respect for the work done by
the men and women who serve society and provides adequate
compensation for their families in case of death.
The hon. member for Mississauga South was right when he said
that when a person dies in the prime of life, that person is usually
not in a position to provide his family with the same standard of
living he was able to provide during his lifetime.
Motion M-306 suggests establishing a fund that would not be a
government fund but would collect donations from all parts of
Canada and even outside the country. When tragedies occur, or
even when a police officer dies, some people want to make a
contribution to charity. This would be an excellent way to
encourage Canadians to make contributions in the name of police
officers and, of course, firefighters. They could do so for peace
officers in general, even for crossing guards, who often more
anonymously put their lives on the line to protect society's
youngest members, our children.
So, we will certainly not oppose a central fund such as this. I see
it as a progressive measure that will make more money available
for victims.
Our society too often tends to forget the victims, not only the
murder victims, but the survivors who must mourn a loss and live
with the financial consequences of a criminal act.
I think a central fund for contributions would be a modest
gesture on our part. It would of course be given the tax protection
afforded by the Income Tax Act for registered charities. We would
have not only a basic instrument, but the means to provide
economic security to the bereaved families of public safety
officers, too many of whom lose their lives in the line of duty,
because obviously we cannot bring back the person.
(1810)
Finally, since it is a sort of collective bereavement, where
society mourns the death of those representing public order, I think
everyone would feel the better for it.
So, on behalf of the official opposition, I am pleased to support
Motion No. 306 tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on Motion No. 306.
Prior to coming to this House I had the occasion to work closely
with police officers in my work with Youth in Conflict with the
Law. As well, when I was on Waterloo city council I had the
occasion to work with firefighters in my community in Waterloo.
Now, as a member of Parliament, I have in my constituency
firefighters from the city of Kitchener as well as volunteer
firefighters from Woolwich Township. They are one of the finest
groups I have the honour and privilege of knowing.
As well, these people are on duty 24 hours a day. Be it
Christmas, New Year or any other holiday, we know that
firefighters, the police officers and other emergency workers are at
work while the rest of us are enjoying festivities.
In many cases police officers are the only social workers, if you
will, available after hours. It is quite humourous because the old
line police officers did not see themselves as social workers. That
is what they are and that is what they have done. These people
represent a very real safety net in the case of emergency in our
community.
When I was on city council I used to joke with the firefighters. I
told them that they were one group of people who worked for the
city whom I did not want to see work and I hoped they had no work
to do. The fact is when that alarm bell rings and the call comes in,
8037
firefighters are quickly on the move to make their way to a fire or
to respond to a three tier response, where any emergency might
take place where life is threatened. That might be at the scene of an
accident where they will go with the jaws of life, saving lives.
What impresses me about them is every time they go on one of
those calls they put their life at risk. It was about four years ago that
Captain Kieswetter went to a house fire in Kitchener and lost his
life when he was overcome by smoke. He gave his life in terms of
service to his community.
(1815 )
Back in the mid-eighties there was a fire at Horticultural
Technologies. Many dangerous chemicals were part of the fire. The
final decision has not yet come down, since it is before the courts,
as to why six firefighters a few years later died of cancer or why the
first police officer at the scene died of cancer. There is an inquiry
investigating the circumstances of that fire.
We know that when those individuals respond they respond to
very dangerous situations.
Oftentimes I walk to the back of the Parliament Buildings to
look over the Ottawa River and Hull. Sometimes I stop by the
monument which is dedicated to police officers and peace officers.
There are hundreds of names of individuals on the monument who
gave their lives in the line of duty, serving their fellow citizens and
their communities.
What this motion addresses is the need for financial
compensation to take care of the families and loved ones of the
people who are on the front lines and who in the line of duty give
their lives.
I applaud my colleague for introducing this motion. It is
something which Canadians will support from coast to coast to
coast.
I would like to read something into the record which I hear every
time I attend a professional firefighters function in my community.
This is the firefighters' prayer all across Canada:
When I am called to duty God,
Whenever flames may rage,
Give me the strength to save some life,
Whatever be its age.
Help me embrace a little child,
Before it is too late,
Or to save an older person from
The horror of that fate.
Enable me to be alert,
And hear the weakest shout,
And quickly and efficiently
To put the fire out.
I want to fill my calling and
To give the best in me,
To guard my every neighbour and
Protect his property.
And if according to Your will,
It is time to end my life,
Please bless with Your protecting hand
My children and my wife.
In a very real way that is what this motion is meant to
accomplish. I strongly endorse it and urge that we work toward
making it a reality.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak
this afternoon to the motion by the member for Mississauga South
and state the official position of the government.
The member is proposing, as has been done before, that the
government consider the advisability of establishing a
compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of
spouses and children of police officers and firefighters who lose
their lives in the line of duty.
I have no doubt that the member moved the motion out of
concern for the welfare of men and women who, as he said, protect
and ensure the safety of all Canadians every day. I can ensure him
that the government shares his concerns.
(1820)
We are very aware of the vital role played by public safety
officers in Canada as the first line of support and protection in
crisis situations, such as fires, accidents and crimes. They perform
these remarkable duties on behalf of each one of us, leaving
Canadians with the calm certainty that there will always be
assistance in case of difficulty.
At the federal level, as you are probably aware, we have
recognized the importance of this issue within our federal police
force, the RCMP, which reports to the federal government. As the
member has also pointed out, the RCMP has a death benefit plan
for the survivors of RCMP officers who lose their lives in the line
of duty.
This is an example of the sort of concrete and relevant action this
government has taken on behalf of the men and women in the
RCMP.
In addition, the collective agreement of federal correctional
services officers, who are also peace officers and who come under
federal jurisdiction, provides a death benefit.
As well, there is a pension paid to the families of correctional
officers who lose their lives in the line of duty, as there is for the
RCMP. This also applies to customs officers, game wardens, and
all other public servants who are federal peace officers.
What is more, every year, the government supports and
contributes to the memorial service, organized by police officers
for the most part and held on Parliament Hill, in honour of peace
officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Last year was
the 19th such commemoration. This shows, I feel, the importance
Canadians attach to this annual event and their recognition of those
who have served them as peace officers and have lost their lives
while doing so. Initially organized in memory of police officers
who lost their lives while on duty, this service, held every
September, is
8038
now intended to honour the memory of all peace officers who have
lost their lives in this way.
A memorial book containing the names of the deceased peace
officers is generally on display in the East Block, but it is placed in
the rotunda of the Centre Block on the day of the service.
[English]
Also in this regard, the government supported the construction
of a memorial pavilion on Parliament Hill which symbolizes the
appreciation of all Canadians for the sacrifices made by our peace
officers from all jurisdictions who have been killed in the line of
duty.
The Police Memorial Pavilion was dedicated by the Prime
Minister on January 22, 1994, as was already stated, and is a
permanent recognition of all police, corrections officers and peace
officers in Canada who died, unfortunately, in the line of duty.
This commemoration in our capital city, next to one of our
country's greatest symbols, is further testimony of the importance
Canadians place on their safety and those who protect it.
At the heart of this issue is a matter of compensation for
provincial and municipal police officers and for firefighters, which
I understand varies greatly throughout the country.
Some jurisdictions have assistance for survivors but many do
not. Public safety officers are high risk potential liabilities for
insurance companies and affordable policies are often hard to find.
Many families of public safety officers suffer hardship when
their family member dies doing his or her job. This is obviously a
concern to these families, to our communities and to our
government.
This motion is a laudable attempt to provide fair redress to
families of public safety officers who died while attempting to keep
Canada safe and secure. However, a review of the issue
surrounding the motion indicates that there are several
considerations that would have to be taken into account.
The basic premise on which the hon. member's motion is
founded is a sound one. It appeals directly to our sense of wanting
to do what is right and just in such circumstances for the families of
those men and women who have dedicated their lives.
There are important questions surrounding the issues that must
be asked and fully explored. While we all nod our heads in
agreement about the worthiness of the hon. member's intentions,
we need to address some fundamental issues that have a direct
impact on this motion.
(1825)
[Translation]
I would like to address the question of jurisdiction. In this
connection, members of police forces other than the RCMP, and
firefighters covered by the definition ``public safety officer'' also
come under the jurisdiction of the provinces or municipalities.
Consequently, the federal government cannot assume all
responsibilities toward these officers on its own.
As I have said, the federal government already provides
survivors benefits to the families of RCMP staff members who
have lost their lives in the line of duty. We fully realize we have a
moral obligation to ensure that all those who put their lives on the
line, as well as their families, are not penalized as a result.
However, as we all know, in Canada there is a division of
jurisdictions and responsibilities between municipalities, the
provinces and the federal government. Many of the jurisdictions
and responsibilities covered by the definition ``public safety
officer'' are either provincial or municipal.
It is reasonable to expect the fund to be used to compensate the
spouses and families of the deceased, and it is also very important
to ensure that fair compensation is given where compensation is
due. I would also like to say that the way the proposed fund is
managed is something that would require further study.
As far as these questions are concerned: jurisdiction,
management, financing and the advisability of establishing a
public safety officers compensation fund, I would like to stress the
need for prior consultations with firefighters, police officers and
their local and provincial administrations. This would not only be
prudent but also essential in determining the best way to deal with
this question.
As these issues are discussed, perhaps other options could be
considered as well. Here are a few examples: Is there a way to give
peace officers better insurance coverage by going to the private
sector? Should we take this opportunity to ask a private foundation
to sponsor the fund or establish a new fund for this purpose? These
are questions that could be further discussed with the private sector.
I repeat that the motion before the House today is a very
praiseworthy attempt to make just amends. I know you will agree
when I say that all of us, in fact all Canadians, are grateful to public
safety officers for the services they provide every day in so many
communities across the country.
However, the motion raises a number of questions that merit
further study. In my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General, I recommend that the motion not be adopted
until there has been further discussion, especially at the provincial
level.
8039
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted and honoured to join in the debate this
evening on this very important Motion No. 306, brought forward
by my hon. colleague from Mississauga South. I want to
congratulate the member for bringing this motion forward. As we
heard from the parliamentary secretary, it is important to debate
these issues, to discuss them, to bring them forward and to study if
necessary but at the same time to take an action. That is what this
motion is all about.
What does Motion No. 306 do and what would it accomplish?
Those are important questions that we might all ask ourselves.
First of all, it is intended to set up a registered charitable
foundation to be established with a board of directors, possibly
appointed by the Government of Canada. Subsequently the board
would receive applications for assistance and assess the need case
by case.
Who would it involve? It would certainly involve the
opportunity for various peace officers, those employed or involved
in voluntary firefighting. Under the Criminal Code peace officer
includes police officers and jail and prison guards.
(1830)
Having been involved for over 15 years in municipal
government, I had the occasion to work with the police and fire
departments on an ongoing basis. In my constituency which is
more rural with a number of municipalities, we have a number of
volunteer fire departments. Fires occur in those smaller towns,
villages, communities and rural areas.
Each time the firefighters are called out there is a risk to them.
Does that stop them from volunteering their time, talent and
energy? No, it does not. They are still prepared to be volunteers
because they see the need in the community for helping their fellow
human beings. Whether it be a life and death situation or property
damage, they are prepared to go and do their part.
Anyone who has personally experienced a fire in their home will
agree it is quite a scare to be called from a meeting to be told:
``Your house is on fire. You had better follow the fire truck because
it is going to your home''. It is a terrible feeling. I experienced that
once.
I was the mayor of my municipality at the time, which the
parliamentary secretary can appreciate. I was chairing a meeting
when I was called and told: ``There is a fire at your home. We just
got the call''. The furnace had blown up. By the time I had arrived,
the fire truck was there and the firemen were doing their jobs. It is
scary to see a red hot furnace chimney with the sparks literally
coming from it.
I have a great deal of respect for firemen, especially those who
volunteer their time and energy. Just to finish the story so I will not
leave members in suspense, my home was saved. There was a
tremendous amount of smoke damage but there were no injuries.
The point I am trying to make is that it was due to the prompt and
efficient attention of those firefighters who were there and I will
never forget it.
Most of us would be lost and would not know the right thing to
do in those situations. We would not have the coolness under the
stress of those situations. But those firefighters just took it in hand
as if it were an ordinary everyday thing. Of course for them and
with their training and dedication, it was.
I have a great deal of respect for Motion No. 306 which has been
brought forward. What might it do for those who would have lost
their lives or what might it do for their families that are left behind,
their children and their spouses?
We all know that the cost of education has increased over the
years. In those situations where the lives of firefighters, police
officers, jail guards and prison guards have been snuffed out just
like that, the intent is to have a fund set up to receive bequests and
donations.
It is not something the taxpayer would be burdened with but
would be a fund to receive donations from those who have received
assistance, like myself. For example, because of the tremendous
service I received, I might want to donate to such a fund, not as a
taxpayer but as a person who would like to make a donation or
bequest. After receiving applications the board would decide the
needs and the merits on a case by case basis.
(1835)
That is what the motion is about. There will be no cost to the
taxpayers, but there will be an opportunity to make bequests,
donations or gifts which could assist the families of those dedicated
persons who put their lives on the line day in and day out, night in
and night out for Canadians. For us. It is an opportunity for us to set
up a fund and a foundation so that we in turn may assist them.
I congratulate my colleague from Mississauga South for
bringing this motion forward. I hope in the future the studies
mentioned by the parliamentary secretary will be carried out. Then
we might one day see the fund set up so that we can provide
assistance when it is needed.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in support of MotionNo. 306 from the member for Mississauga South. The motion calls
upon the government to participate in establishing a foundation
which would be self-funded, not funded by government, in a way
that would provide some compensation at the time of death of a
peace officer or firefighter.
8040
The concept is one whose time has come. Beyond all doubt,
Canadians realize that we have a moral obligation to recognize
the extremely valuable and sometimes very risky work done by
police officers and firefighters on our behalf 24 hours a day. It
is beyond debate. All parties have recognized that adequately in
the House.
Some places in the country do have adequate compensation for
widows and orphans, the survivors of the deceased, but some
places do not. We have a spotty non-comprehensive system to
provide this type of compensation.
The proposal would create a vehicle which would be the trustee
of funds provided by gifts or legacies whereby compensation
would be made. It does not require government management. The
fund will be managed with its own resources by people selected by
the foundation.
Is there a jurisdiction problem? Some members seem to think so,
but I do not think so. I think jurisdiction is being used as a reason
for further study. I do not think jurisdiction is a problem here any
more than it was a problem when Parliament set up the Canadian
Race Relations Foundation. In that case an arms length foundation
was set up. We gave it $10 million of taxpayers' money and said:
``Here. You are on your own. Go do your job. Here is what you do.
Report to us annually. Do a good job for Canadians''.
In this case there will not be a nickel of taxpayers' money. We
are simply providing the vehicle. I do not quite understand how this
could be a jurisdictional problem. Maybe someday we will see
through the fog.
This particular initiative signals a need for leadership to put in
place a vehicle which is necessary. It is a need which has been
recognized by groups and organizations that represent our peace
officers and firefighters. For those who choose to serve the public
in the way that peace officers and firefighters do in accepting the
risks that are there, we can do no less than to encourage and
participate in the effort.
(1840)
Although something concrete may not follow from this
particular effort in the House this evening and the valuable
contribution by the member for Mississauga South, I am hopeful
that creative ways can be found, that the leadership can be found in
and around this capital. I am sure there are ways to do this with or
without the participation of the government.
I am fairly certain that no matter what happens, any initiative
that evolves will have the support and encouragement of the
government. I intend to work with those who will continue to look
to find a way to make this happen.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that time is running out but I would like to also
lend my support to the motion of the hon. member today.
To all of the firefighters, police officers and peace officers who
have active duty in my region of Restigouche-Chaleur and the
region of the Madawaska, I would like to lend my support. I would
like to reiterate why the fund is being proposed.
Canadians are well aware of the daily risks that face our police
and firefighters as they serve our emergency needs. When one of
them loses their life in the line of duty, all of us mourn their loss.
This fund will be a tangible way for Canadians and
parliamentarians to honour their courageous service and assist their
love ones in their time of need.
Likewise, like other members, I do not foresee that this would be
a burden on the taxpayer. This would be a voluntary fund that
would be set up and administered outside of government. It would
be voluntary and it would not be a cost to the taxpayer.
I would also like to lend my support to this motion. The time has
come.
The Deputy Speaker: The proposer of the motion is entitled to
sum up. He has two minutes.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
not a votable motion. I want the police officers, firefighters, the
police association and fire chiefs to know that in talking to my
colleagues in the House I would say there is virtually unanimous
support for pursuing this concept of a fund to assist the families of
those public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty.
It is going to take a bit of work but I think very slowly and even
tonight I have heard of some opportunities and we may be able to
move this forward even further.
Members here have been very kind. I know they are sincere in
the gratitude on behalf of their constituents and indeed on behalf of
all Canadians that we extend not only to those police officers,
firefighters and peace officers, but also to their families. I am sure
it is very difficult for all of us to appreciate what it must mean to a
family knowing that their loved one is out there at a high risk
scenario and that one day tragedy may occur because it is part of
the job.
It is a unique situation. We know tragic circumstances occur. We
want to say now to all of them, thank you for your courageous
service. We will not forget those who have lost their lives in the
line of duty on behalf of the Canadian people. Thank you very
much.
I hope that one day soon this matter will come back before the
House with the specifics and we can have that public safety officers
compensation fund established in Canada by the Parliament of
Canada for the people of Canada on behalf of public safety officers.
8041
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired, and this item is
dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8041
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1845)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, further to my question, the issue of nuclear safety in
Canada comes up again and again.
In her response, the Minister of Natural Resources reminded us
that Canada has a lengthy history in terms of advocating the
destruction of nuclear weapons and that all nuclear activity in
Canada is conducted only after the most stringent safety and
security measures are put into place.
As Chair of the natural resources committee, I studied clause by
clause the nuclear legislation that is currently before the House. As
a result, I have a true appreciation for the complex issues that
surround nuclear safety in this country.
Moreover, I have a true appreciation for the concerns of my
constituents and other Canadians who, while acknowledging the
contribution of nuclear power to meet our energy needs, insist, and
rightly so, that nuclear activity in Canada be undertaken only while
adhering to the strictest environmental standards.
I recently met with several concerned individuals in my riding
who were members of an organization devoted to maintaining high
standards in nuclear safety.
Like these individuals and others like them, I am committed to
protecting Canada's environment and natural resources. Our
federal government has an ongoing commitment to environmental
protection in Canada and has advanced this cause considerably
since the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act took
effect in 1988.
We know that some toxic substances do not break down naturally
but stay in our food, water and soil and accumulate over time. To
better protect the environment and the health of Canadians from
these toxins, we introduced a new act in December 1996 to manage
toxic substances more effectively, improve the application of
regulation and encourage public participation and co-operation
between governments.
The bottom line is that it is better to prevent pollution than to try
to manage it after it has been created. It is this same principle that
guides the nuclear safety legislation which establishes the
Canadian nuclear safety commission and contains measures that
protect the environment.
This nuclear safety legislation replaces the Atomic Energy
Control Act with a modern statute to provide for more explicit and
effective regulations of nuclear energy.
Formulation of the Canadian nuclear safety commission
underlies its separate role from research, development and
marketing, and recognizes that since the original act was first
adopted in 1946 the mandate of the regulatory agency has evolved
from one of primarily national security to one primarily focused on
the control of health, safety and environmental consequences of
nuclear activities.
This legislation provides the Canadian nuclear safety
commission with a mandate to establish and enforce national
standards in these areas. It also establishes a basis for
implementing Canadian policy and fulfilling Canada's obligation
with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The legislation brings the enforcement powers of compliance
and penalties for infractions into line with current legislative
practices. The commission is empowered to require financial
guarantees to order remedial action in hazardous situations and to
require responsible parties to bear the cost of decontamination, all
measures that will help protect the environment.
The constituents in my riding care about their environment.
Canadians care and so does this Liberal government. On behalf of
my constituents, I would appreciate that the parliamentary
secretary further address these issues.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the
hon. member and all Canadians that before any full scale project
involving the Bruce reactors could proceed, it would be subject to a
full assessment and licensing approval of relevant federal and
provincial safety, health and environmental regulatory authorities.
The approval process would include provisions for public input.
If the requirements for public health and safety could not be met a
MOX fuel project involving Canadian based CANDU reactors
would not proceed.
Let me emphasize why Canada supports in principle the MOX
fuel initiative. Weapons usable plutonium in Russia and the United
States could present a clear danger because it can be remade into
nuclear weapons.
(1850 )
The use of MOX fuel in power reactors for the generation of
electricity would represent a tangible contribution to world peace
and security.
Some may ask why the U.S. does not use MOX fuel in its own
reactors. The U.S. has included its own light water reactors as well
as Canadian based CANDU reactors in its final list of options. It
has included CANDU reactors in its final list because it offers the
8042
possibility of the disposing of both Russian and U.S. plutonium in
symmetry in a trusted third country.
AECL has tested fuel at its labs over the last 30 years. The MOX
fuel performance test at Chalk River laboratories' NRU reactor is
required in order to ensure that the MOX fuel is suitable for use in
CANDU reactors.
The AECB will be assessing the details of the test program and it
will proceed only if the AECB confirms that plutonium will remain
secure and that there will be no health risks to the workers at the
Chalk River laboratories, to the public or to the environment.
In conclusion, I reiterate that Canada has a role to play in
enhancing world peace and security. This could include playing a
role, as a trusted third party, in helping to ensure that weapons
usable plutonium in Russia and the U.S.-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. parliamentary
secretary's time has expired.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I
rose in my place to ask a question concerning the results of the
labour force statistics which showed that there was an appalling
lack of employment opportunities for the youth of this country and
that the appalling situation has existed throughout the mandate of
this government.
The data were quite clear. The participation rate for most
Canadians runs between 63 per cent and 64.8 per cent, but for
young people the participation rate dropped from 62.7 per cent
back in 1989, which made it fairly close to the average for all
Canadians, to an abysmal 48.8 per cent at the end of 1996.
It seemed to me that the loss of these 25,000 or 30,000 jobs
among the youth group alone last year was reason enough for
Canadians to begin to ask their government why this situation has
resulted.
I know that in the answer the government is going to talk about
the youth employment strategy which it unveiled today, but I would
remind it that when the electors made it government they were
assured in the red book that there would be apprenticeship training
programs and programs where the government and employers
would join together to provide the experience needed for young
people to become acceptable full time workers. None of that has
happened.
What is being proposed is basically a subsidy for private
business and government departments to hire university students.
The strategy is almost exclusively in that direction.
The opportunities for young people under 25 and even under 30
are so abysmal in this country that we are beginning to look like
some of the less developed countries across the world.
Young people are not lazy. They are not stupid. They are well
educated. They just have not had the chance to work in a job.
In the less developed countries young people have begun to
invent jobs for themselves. They are street musicians. They are
buskers. They are entertainers on the streets. They are squeegee
kids who dart in and out at stoplights to clean windshields. That is
the kind of stuff which ten years ago we saw only in less developed
countries. Now we are seeing it in Canada. Right here, close to
Parliament Hill in Ottawa, at the corner of Colonel By and
Wellington we see it every day.
This is the only way these people have of making any kind of a
living. It is time the government took more responsibility and lived
up to the promises it made to the people when it took over the
responsibility of running the federal government. It should be more
attuned to the special needs of the very young, to make certain that
the jobs program as promised is worked on.
After three and a half years all we have is program that is
basically a repeat of most of the old programs that were tried years
ago before expenditure became something government was
extremely worried about and so those programs were cut.
There should be programs that encourage or force large
employers to take on young people as apprentices. Instead what we
have is a non-policy, and what has resulted is young people are
volunteering for jobs, working in restaurants as waiters and
waitresses for nothing hoping to get some tips. They are
volunteering in offices for nothing-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, investing in our young people is an investment in
Canada's future. The youth employment strategy announced today
by the Minister of Human Resources Development provides us
with the tools we need to help thousands of young Canadians enter
today's complex and demanding labour market.
The strategy aims to reach more young Canadians and give them
better access to the information services and resources they need to
acquire the skills and experience for today's workforce. The
strategy builds on what works, strengthening existing programs
that help young Canadians bridge the gap between school and
work.
8043
For example, Youth Service Canada and Youth Internship
Canada will focus on the needs of youth who face serious
disadvantages entering the job market. Student Summer Job
Action will receive increased funding in 1997 to help more than
60,000 young people get career related summer jobs.
[Translation]
The strategy will also give participants work experience in
sectors that could provide long term employment. In partnership
with the private sector, non profit agencies and community
organizations, new internships will be created for the more than
110,000 young people in sectors like science and technology, the
environment, international trade and international development.
Internship programs for the first nations and for the Inuit will be
given new resources to enable young native people living on the
reserve and in northern communities to acquire skills and work
experience.
Young people must have access to the information they need to
find job opportunities. We have set up centralized services
available on the Internet and by calling 1-800-935-5555, in
publications and at youth information fairs.
[English]
The youth employment strategy consolidates and builds-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. parliamentary
secretary's time has expired.
A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.)