CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 23, 1996
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5593
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5594
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5597
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5598
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5598
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5598
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5599
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5599
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5599
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5600
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5600
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5600
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5600
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5601
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5601
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5602
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5602
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5602
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5603
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5603
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5605
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5605
Bill C-340. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5609
Motion for concurrence in 39th report agreed to 5609
Motion moved and agreed to 5609
Motion moved and agreed to 5609
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5609
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5610
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5610
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5610
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 5612
Bill C-47. Motion for second reading 5613
Bill C-5. Consideration resumed at third reading 5627
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 147; Nays, 43 5628
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 5628
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and of the amendment 5628
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 66;Nays, 122 5629
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5630
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5633
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5639
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5642
5593
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 23, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this summer
Constable Philip Francis, a member of the Peel Regional Police
who lives in my riding of Cambridge, was awarded the Medal of
Bravery.
On September 21, 1994, Constable Francis, with the help of Mr.
Robert Fitzgerald, pulled two people from a burning tractor trailer
whose fuel tank had ruptured following a collision with a vehicle
on Highway 401 near Milton, Ontario.
As the tires of the rig exploded, Mr. Fitzgerald hoisted Constable
Francis on to the cab of the truck. The constable smashed the
window and pulled two passengers to safety just moments before
the rig was completely in flames.
Through his example, Constable Francis has shown that bravery
and concern for others are not outmoded virtues.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge, I congratulate Constable
Francis on being awarded the Medal of Bravery.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like
Saturne Solutions, Quintiles and Ericsson recently announced
major investments in Quebec. Highly sought by other provinces,
not to mention other countries, these companies chose to invest in
Quebec. This testifies to Quebec's ability to compete at the
international level.
But how to explain that, every time a business decides to
rationalize its Canadian operations, as CIBA did, Quebec gets the
short end of the stick. It is not because Quebec is not competitive,
as everyone recognizes its expertise in the pharmaceutical area.
There must be other reasons.
We, for our part, feel that federal comments maintain an
unhealthy climate for the Quebec economy. These comments,
which were probably inspired by the famous plan B, hinder the
Quebec government's efforts. Clearly, renewed federalism is not a
panacea for Quebec. The time has come to move on to sovereignty.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago I
brought forward a votable motion to extend the Access to
Information Act. Although many Liberal members supported it,
they voted against it because they were assured by their party brass
that improving access to information was high on the government's
agenda and that legislation was just weeks away.
Today, we all know that was not true, so I hope they have learned
their lesson: Do not trust the party brass to do in the future what we
can do for ourselves today.
Later today we will begin the first hour of debate on a new
votable motion on Canadian peacekeeping. Many Liberal members
will also want to support this motion because if it is passed, it will
give the members the right to speak out and represent our troops
when we send a large contingent abroad. Motion No. 31 also gives
final approval for large peacekeeping missions to members of
Parliament through a free vote.
When the time comes, members should use their votes to make a
difference. Help support our troops and empower members of
Parliament by supporting Motion No. 31.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, an
act to amend the Copyright Act, will have a serious impact on the
private radio broadcasting industry if the neighbouring rights
5594
provisions are permitted to proceed. Many people from the radio
industry in my riding have told me they are very very worried.
Dr. Arthur Donner conducted an economic impact analysis for
the Department of Canadian Heritage. This study clearly showed
that higher copyright payments would seriously hurt most and put
some radio stations out of business. It also showed that only 2 per
cent of neighbouring rights fees would go to new Canadian talent,
so why are we doing it?
The U.S. just passed a similar law, however it exempted the
radio industry from the neighbouring rights fees. They felt that the
value of air play was considered payment in full.
This government continues to renege on its election promise of
creating jobs. It continues to eliminate this country's infrastructure
of long term jobs. I urge the minister to amend Bill C-32 to exempt
all radio from neighbouring rights.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute small business in this country and to
recognize Small Business Week.
Today in Canada all but approximately 2,000 of the more than
two million businesses fall within the self-employed or small and
medium size business categories. Ninety-nine per cent of the new
businesses started up in the last decade have been SMEs.
Today in my riding the CFDC, in partnership with the BDC,
local chambers and others, is conducting a conference for existing
and new entrepreneurs. I applaud this community initiative to help
the small business community adapt and take advantage of market
opportunities.
On a national level, our federal government is working to help
small businesses compete by streamlining regulations, improving
access to capital and enhancing export opportunities. Canada is a
great place to do business. Today I salute the small business men
and women across this country for their entrepreneurial spirit.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October is Women's History Month. What better time to
recall the historic Persons case of October 18, 1929. On that date
the British Privy Council overturned the decision of the Canadian
Supreme Court which excluded women from public office,
pursuant to its interpretation of the British North America Act.
Having decided women were not persons, the court said that
women could not be appointed to the Canadian Senate. Dismissing
this interpretation as ``a relic of days more barbarous than ours''
the privy council opted for a more modern view that women were
``people too''.
If we do not remember our history, we shall be condemned to
repeat it. In the telling of this tale we can be encouraged by the
increased numbers of female parliamentarians, over 50 MPs and
more than 20 senators. While it is an improvement over 1929, the
lesson of the Persons case is that we can do better.
I look forward to a time when the proportion of female
representation in government is a true reflection of the general
population and like the privy council, we can look back on today's
modest numbers as a relic of days gone by.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the members of this House of an
excellent initiative taken by our government in the Montreal area.
On October 11, the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec announced a $500,000
federal subsidy to the Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation de
Montréal or CEIM, to set up a new program aimed at helping small
businesses at the start-up or expansion stage carve out a solid
position for themselves in the year 2000 economy.
The CEIM will provide training services to 15 new businesses in
the high-tech health care industries, thus helping to create over 200
jobs in areas that are vital to our prosperity.
(1405)
This support for the CEIM shows that our government is still a
partner of Quebec's small business sector. It also demonstrates the
major role we intend to play in the development of the greater
Montreal area so it may remain an economic, technological and
cultural powerhouse essential to the future of both Quebec and the
rest of Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a study
conducted by the Bread for the World Institute shows that Canada
has the second highest percentage of children living below the
poverty line after the United States.
5595
According to this study, 14 per cent of children in Canada live
in poverty, compared to only 3 per cent in Finland, Norway,
Denmark and Switzerland, and 7 per cent in Germany and France.
In spite of these disturbing statistics, the Canada Information
Office continues to distribute fact sheets stating that Canada is the
best country in the world. This is chloroform for steadfast
Canadian nationalists.
Canada is a country where the gap between the rich and the poor
is widening and child poverty is growing. There is no valid reason
for the child poverty rate to be higher in Canada than in European
countries.
The government must act on its 1989 commitment and eliminate
child poverty by the year 2000, otherwise too high a price will have
to be paid and the human deficit will be out of control.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance often talks nonsense about the
Reform budget platform. For him and the media, here are the facts
made simple.
Spending cuts of $15 billion plus $24 billion in revenue
increases in four years will produce a surplus of $39 billion. This
money will be used to eliminate the deficit of $14 billion, provide
tax relief of $15 billion, raise spending on medicare and education
by $4 billion and pay down the debt by $9 billion.
This spending program uses exactly $39 billion in the revenue
surplus. Our fiscal program does not produce deficits. We first
balance the budget and then use only money in the bank to finance
tax cuts and spending increases. The debt reduction money is our
contingency reserve. Simple, eh?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
week of October 21 to 25 is Small Business Week. Small and
medium size business is the driving force behind the Canadian
economy. It is also the driving force behind job creation. That is
why our government is committed to supporting the small business
sector to ensure its growth.
In Quebec, the Federal Office of Regional Development speaks
for the federal government to small business. Through a network of
13 regional offices across Quebec, it works in partnership with
Quebec entrepreneurs.
[English]
Small and medium size businesses, often run by families or
young entrepreneurs, are the key job creators in Canada,
particularly in my riding of Saint-Denis. There are also those who
seek markets outside this country and the federal development
office of Quebec provides them with the expertise to help enter
those markets.
I salute all the people in the small and medium size businesses in
Saint-Denis and throughout Canada for their contributions to
Canada's economic development in this week dedicated to them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Revenue Canada strives to offer its services directly to small
businesses, provided they have modest means.
The main services already in place include the electronic filing
system, the payment of the GST and the transfer of funds.
Eventually, customs processing will be made possible through
the use of Internet and the implementation of an electronic system
as simple as the sending of a fax, as well as the release and
reporting of goods, and the payment of duties and taxes, without
having to go to the customs office.
Canadians want less paper but more services. This is what
Revenue Canada is in the process of achieving.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
socio-economic stakeholders, Montrealers and Quebecers in
general were very optimistic and pleased following the speech
delivered yesterday by the Prime Minister to the Chamber of
Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.
The participants greatly appreciated the call for Canadian
solidarity by the Prime Minister, to help put Montreal back on its
feet and get ready for the next century.
(1410)
They were also pleased to see the Canadian Prime Minister hold
out his hand to Lucien Bouchard and invite him to co-operate to
find a solution to the real problems experienced by real people.
The threat of another referendum on separation remains the last
major obstacle to Montreal's economic recovery. Let us hope the
PQ government leader will soon remove this threat, which hinders
5596
Montreal's economic development. We need political and
economic certainty.
* * *
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the House resumed this fall, the Liberal members from
Quebec are using the period for statements by members to launch
petty attacks on the Quebec government and all sovereignists.
Yesterday, the member for Vaudreuil took this anti-Quebec
offensive one step further. The Liberal member attacked an article
in Montreal's La Presse.
The article, which appeared in the arts and theatre section, dealt
with a film about the referendum and noted that, in it, the federalist
option was essentially defended by anglophones and new
Canadians. This brief comment in a review of an NFB film was not
to his liking.
We know all about these Liberals, who for years have been
trying to control the CBC. Now they want to control all print
media, silence the sovereignist opposition and turn our media into
branch offices of the federal Liberal Pravda. How sad and how
cynical.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today because I believe in the strength, the
capability and the equality of women.
This week is the anniversary of the pivotal Persons case where
Canadian women against all odds finally won the basic right of
equality: the recognition of women as persons in law and the equal
right to vote.
I feel it is most fitting for me to encourage women of today to
honour the memory of Nellie McClung and her compatriots by
embracing our freedom and exercising our equality by denouncing
special status. Special status is divisive. It is the very issue that
Nellie McClung fought against.
Today we can honour those women whose struggle was against
true inequality and who gave us all the ability to participate
equally. We can recognize that they would not have sought further
protectionism in the guise of affirmative action.
Our charter of rights and freedoms clearly states that we are all
equal before the law and I believe that would have been enough for
Nellie McClung.
I thank the women of the Persons case for their legacy. I am
proud to say again, women are persons and equal today, without
distinction.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as was to be expected, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois was quick to trot out his old separatist arguments in
reaction to the speech delivered yesterday by our Prime Minister in
Montreal.
The Bloc Quebecois has painted itself into such a tight
ideological corner that it is losing sight of what is important, as was
again brought home to us yesterday by the comments of its leader.
Montreal, first and foremost, and Quebec as a whole are being
crushed under the weight of the separatist threat. We all have a
huge uphill battle ahead of us to put Montreal and Quebec back on
the road to prosperity.
It is certainly not by blaming others for the political instability of
Quebec that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will help Lucien
Bouchard, on the eve of the socio-economic summit, to convince
his partners that sovereignists are acting in good faith.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
is committed to environmental health and protection and knows
that the most efficient way to ensure environmental health is
through pollution prevention.
Canadians are no longer willing to accept inaction on the part of
government when there is potential for more damage to the
environment or their health could be affected.
Transportation, including the automobile, is the single leading
source of air pollution in Canada and it is the automobile industry
itself that has told us that the fuel additive MMT compromises the
efficiency of the newest emissions control technologies. That is
why this government is moving to ban MMT.
Clean air is a priority for the government. In banning MMT we
are moving quickly to restore the Canadian birthright to breathe
clean and healthy air.
Some voices oppose the MMT bill, but doing the right thing is
not always popular. Some people do not like the fact that this
government is not afraid to make the hard decisions.
But then there is the voice of the Canadian people who know
what it takes to protect their health and environment. They want
their governments to be leaders on health and environmental
issues. This government demonstrates yet again its full
commitment to health and environmental protection.
5597
(1415 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in
Prince Edward Island have called an election and remain the only
Liberal government in the Atlantic provinces not to sign into the
GST/PST harmonization scam.
The P.E.I. Liberals know that the people of P.E.I. oppose
harmonization. The people of Prince Edward Island know that a
harmonized tax will actually cost them more since all sorts of
goods and services presently exempt from the PST will now be
fully taxed under harmonization. They also know it will cause
confusion for businesses that operate in different provinces since
there will exist one consumption tax in Nova Scotia and a different
tax in most other provinces.
Also, the people of Prince Edward Island remember the Prime
Minister's quote in the Globe and Mail when he said: ``I am
opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I will
always be opposed to it in the future. It is a tax that is both
regressive and discriminatory''.
Based on this quote, maybe the people of Prince Edward Island
should not trust the Liberals' promise not to impose a harmonized
GST/PST.
_____________________________________________
5597
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister went to Montreal to tell business people that he
wanted to work together with the Quebec government and local
stakeholders to deal with the real problems of real people, as he put
it.
For many years, federal initiatives have had a crushing impact
on Montreal's economy. To mention a few: the Borden line, which
killed the petrochemical industry in Montreal; decisions in the air
transportation sector, which, following the opening of Mirabel,
compromised the viability of this airport; federal procurement
policies, which penalized Quebec and Montreal; the way federal
spending on research and development is directed, which penalizes
Montreal's economy. These are all decisions that over the years
have undermined Montreal's economy.
If the Prime Minister means what he says about wanting to help
Montreal's economy, why does he not review his government's
decision to put a stop to federal participation in the Tokamak
project in Varennes, which provides the greater Montreal area with
quality jobs in the high tech sector? That is a big help to the
economy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government was forced to make cutbacks in this area,
and we had to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien: Yes, cutbacks were made in Quebec, in Ontario
and all Canadian provinces. It was felt this particular program was
not a priority at this time. Other cuts in the same sector have
affected similar scientific projects elsewhere in Canada.
We would probably have preferred to keep it, but the Minister of
Natural Resources indicated many times here in the House that she
could no longer keep this program because there were other
priorities.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Prime Minister goes to Montreal, speaking to all Quebecers, says
he is willing to give Montreal's economy a boost. People suggest
certain projects that will help Montreal's economy, improve the job
situation and provide for a better future, but he says no. He refuses
to invest $7.5 million in these projects.
I will give him a second chance to show his good faith regarding
Montreal. We know that Atomic Energy of Canada is a Crown
corporation that refers its important decisions to the minister
responsible.
Why did the government approve the transfer of the office of
AECL to Toronto, which may eventually deprive Montreal of high
tech companies in this sector, another area where the Prime
Minister could help Montreal if he were so disposed?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition
that in fact the crown corporation AECL has not closed its office in
the city of Montreal. In fact, it retains an office in that city. I
remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is because of
AECL and the sale of Candu reactors that there is a nuclear
industry, a private sector industry, that employs thousands of
people in the Montreal area.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister had nothing to tell the people of Montreal.
Today, he has nothing to say to the official opposition. I will give
him a third chance.
In recent years, the Liberal Party of Canada was fiercely opposed
to Bills C-22 and Bill C-91, which encouraged the development of
pharmaceutical industries in Montreal, a sector that is in good
shape. I may recall that the entire Liberal Party voted against Bill
C-91, except perhaps for the Minister of Finance, who was absent
5598
at the time. Under constant pressure from the Ontario caucus, the
government recently wanted to review the regulations of Bill C-91.
If the Prime Minister really wants to help Montreal develop its
economy, will he promise today that he will not in any way change
Bill C-91, which his party voted against but which is a godsend to
the pharmaceutical industry in Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a few seconds the Leader of the Reform Party will rise
to accuse me of investing too much in Montreal on Monday, by
helping Bombardier develop a new 70 seat aircraft to take
advantage of an increasingly accessible market. We have been
helping this company for a very long time. It is now the sixth
largest aircraft manufacturer in the world and very soon will rank
fourth. The company received $85 million on Monday. We have to
choose our priorities, and that is the one we chose.
As for the pharmaceutical industry, the legislation is in effect.
There will be a review at some time, as required by law. We will
have to see whether the pharmaceutical industry is fulfilling its
obligations to engage in research and development and to locate
facilities in Canada, and if it is, the legislation will be maintained.
The industry has made certain commitments which I hope it has
met. When the House of Commons reviews this question, a
decision can be made. It is true that in the past three years there has
been pressure to amend the legislation, but we have not done so.
The leader of the opposition does not seem to be aware of that fact.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, while he cries over Montreal's fate, what the Prime
Minister wants in fact is to deprive Montreal of a financial and
economic decision making centre. There was the S-31 attempt to
rein in the Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec. The Prime
Minister must remember, as he was a minister at the time and took
part in the decision to crush the Caisse de dépôt et de placement.
More recently, there was Montreal's proposed international
banking centre, which was also torpedoed by the federal
government. The government now wants to create a Canada-wide
securities commission in Toronto rather than Montreal.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile yesterday's fine promises
to help Montreal with his plan to create a securities commission in
Toronto, when we know full well that this would further weaken
Montreal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, the decision to designate Montreal and Vancouver as
international banking centres has yet to be made. Second, in his
speech yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a whole series of
measures the federal government has adopted to help Montreal and
Quebec, of which the announcement about Bombardier is but one
example. In the private sector, the pharmaceutical and aeronautical
industries do more research and development in Quebec than
elsewhere because of the federal government's support for R and
D.
(1425)
As far as the securities commission is concerned, the federal
government's position is very clear: if the other provinces want to,
we are ready to co-operate with them. It is up to them. In fact, all
those who favour this option do so because they want to protect
Quebec's financial industry, because they are very much aware that
Montreal is not in competition with Toronto, but with New York,
London and Frankfurt. That is what we will protect.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is arguments like those raised by the minister, which
border on recklessness, that have crippled Montreal's economy and
continue to do so.
We have no answer regarding the pharmaceutical projects, as the
Minister of Finance was hiding behind the curtains when this
matter was raised. Again today when we asked about the securities
commission, we received no answer from the Prime Minister or
even the Minister of Finance.
I put the question again to the Prime Minister. Will he promise in
this House to mind his own business and not put in place a
Canada-wide securities commission that will further weaken
Montreal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is asking us to oppose the will of other provinces
that want to protect Canada's financial industry. They are telling all
the industries in Quebec that want to issue shares in Canada they
will not be able to do so in the future because everything will be
moved to New York.
They are saying that the people of Montreal and Quebec cannot
compete with other countries, and I say to you that I am a proud
Montrealer, that I am not afraid of anyone, that it is the hon.
member who is afraid and he should admit it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government claims to be interested in helping the 1.4
million jobless Canadians yet it refuses to set targets for reducing
that number.
The government professes to be concerned about the
overburdened Canadian taxpayer and yet it refuses to set targets for
tax relief. The best way to create jobs in this country is to balance
the budget and to lower taxes.
5599
The finance minister says he is interested in setting measurable
targets. What are the minister's targets for providing tax relief to
overtaxed Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
far as we are concerned, our record can speak for itself. In not one
instance have we increased personal income taxes, having
succeeded a government that had increased them 39 times.
In each of our budgets we have brought in selective tax cuts
designed to help the poor, to help the disadvantaged, to help
research and development and to help in the creation of jobs. If
what the hon. member is saying is will we accept his thesis, his
philosophy, that the kind of tax cuts that ought to be brought in are
those tax cuts that will help the rich while gutting the programs and
the poor, then we say no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister says that he opposes Reform's tax
relief proposals. In other words, therefore, the minister is against
giving single mothers earning $20,000 a year a 95 per cent tax cut
as we propose.
The minister has just said he is against giving tax credits to stay
at home parents. The minister says he rejects the changes in
personal and spousal exemptions that Reform proposes, proposals
that will directly benefit over 13 million Canadians and two million
taxpayers respectively.
Why is the Liberal government so opposed to giving single
mothers, families and over 13 million Canadians tax relief as
Reform proposes?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are not against providing single mothers with help. If the
Reform Party will look at the last budget it will see that we
increased substantially the working income supplement for
families with four children.
If it will take a look at what we have done in the case of
education credits, if it will take a look at a whole series of measures
which we have brought in, every single one is designed to help the
poor, to help single mothers. The Reform Party voted against every
single one of these.
I will tell the House what we are against. The hon. member talks
about helping single mothers. We are against gutting welfare
programs because that is what single mothers depend on and that is
what Reform has used to pay for its tax cuts for the rich.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the finance minister is against cutting welfare budgets,
why has he cut $7 billion out of federal transfers to the provinces?
Reform's tax relief proposal will help all taxpayers but it will
help low income Canadians and Canadian families the most.
Thirteen and a half million Canadians will benefit from Reform's
plan. Over one million middle to low income Canadians will pay
no tax under Reform's plan. That is $2,000 in tax relief per family
by the year 2000 under Reform's plan compared to the $3,000
income deduction that families experience under the Liberals.
Will the government set some firm targets for tax relief or are the
Liberals satisfied with the crippling tax burden facing Canadian
workers, families and employers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
our first budget we provided tax relief for Canadians. In our second
budget we provided tax relief for Canadians and we will continue
to do so.
The reductions in transfers to the provinces were less than 3 per
cent of their revenues and they were substantially less than the
reductions in transfers that were recommended by the Reform
Party. The Reform Party essentially said it would gut those
transfers. What we have done is a lot less.
Let us deal for a minute with this question of families. The
Reform Party stands up and says it wants to protect the Canadian
family. In those provinces where the Reform Party will gut
equalization are there not Canadian families who depend on the
public services that would be provided? Do Canadian families not
depend on maternity, sickness benefits and unemployment
insurance?
The Reform Party would eviscerate welfare payments. In the
weird, narrow definition of the Reform Party, are there not
Canadian families on welfare who require help? Is its vision of this
country so narrow that it cannot understand the needs of ordinary
Canadians?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I do hope he
will answer himself.
The Prime Minister was in Montreal yesterday, where he shed
crocodile tears over the sad state of the Montreal economy. Yet, the
federal government's procurement policy clearly puts Quebec at a
disadvantage. The value of federal goods and services not
purchased in Quebec amounts to amounts to $1.2 billion, which
represents a loss of $600 million to $700 million for the Montreal
area, I repeat a loss of $600 million to $700 million.
Instead of crying over Montreal's economy, will the Prime
Minister act positively and constructively, and restore fairness in
federal procurement, which would create thousands of jobs in the
greater Montreal area? Will the Prime Minister take action?
5600
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in our system, government procurement is through public
tenders. Each province, in fact, each citizen may submit a bid.
(1435)
Some things are bought in one part of Canada and others in other
parts, and all the provinces are treated equitably. If the hon.
members are suggesting that we should stop using this system and
award contracts only to those we like, that would not be honest
government. It would amount to systematic favouritism.
One of the actions we have taken was to set specific rules
providing a level playing field for everyone. If they really did
respect the wishes of Quebecers, who, twice already, have said they
want to remain in Canada, they would stop talking about
referendums. Businesses would then not be leaving but moving to
Montreal.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the referendum is an issue they raise when they have
nothing else to talk about. I have a specific proposal for the Prime
Minister.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree to making federal
procurement in Quebec proportionate to the size of its population?
For Montreal alone, this would represent a $500 million increase,
which, in turn, would create 10,000 new jobs in the greater
Montreal area. Why did the Prime Minister not make this
commitment yesterday? Is the Prime Minister serious about
Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, will the hon. member rise in this House and tell the public
that, under the equalization payment system through which the
Canadian government provides assistance to any region of Canada
experiencing financial difficulties-and they say they appreciate
it-last year, because its revenue was below a certain level, Quebec
actually received an extra $500 million from the federal
government?
Will the hon. member rise in this House and admit that our good
policies have resulted in lower interests rates over the past 18
months and that the Quebec government actually saved $625
million because there is a good, responsible government in
Ottawa?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
sad that the finance minister's vision for single mothers on welfare
does not extend to granting them jobs down the road. That is what
they really want.
The GST saga continues. The Liberals promised taxpayers they
would axe, scrap and abolish it-the Liberal equivalent of ``I'll
respect you in the morning''-then they covered that whopper up
with a billion dollar pay-off that doubled the tax in Atlantic
Canada, followed by the Deputy Prime Minister's resignation.
Then they broke their promise to end the GST on reading and now,
just like the Tories used to do, they have cooked the books to bury
the billion dollar pay-off and fudged their deficit figures.
Since we have known for a long time that their word is not any
good-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question now.
Mr. Solberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the finance minister
tell Canadians why he is now prepared to sacrifice the fiscal
credibility of the country in order to pull another fast one on the
voters?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us be very clear. Despite the obvious problems of the hon. member
for Medicine Hat, the auditor general has expressed a clear,
unambiguous approval of the government's books. There are no
reservations. He has given us a clean opinion.
As a matter of fact we have never had a reservation on the books
since we have taken office. The auditor general said that the
government had acted in a way that was even more prudent than he
would-I was about to use the word conservative, but I caught
myself.
When we took office we found that the previous government had
made a series of commitments that were not consolidated in the
books. As a result the books did not provide a proper statement of
the government's financial condition. We have made sure that any
liability is recognized at the time it is incurred. That is proper
accounting. That is what we have done.
(1440 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the finance minister's chin is growing.
The government just put hundreds of new tax auditors on the
payroll to ferret out these same types of scams in the small business
sector. If the finance minister did these things in a private sector
company he would be in jail.
Will the finance minister commit today to stop the creative
bookkeeping and meet the same standard that he expects small
business people to meet when his auditors come knocking on their
doors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we had done in the private sector-
An hon. member: Accounting 101.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Exactly. Accounting 101.
If we had done in the private sector what we did here it would be
called accrual accounting, which is what most businesses happen to
use.
5601
The hon. minister has promised to give the member a lesson
in accounting 101 anytime he would like to have it.
What we have done is recognize the liability at the time it was
incurred. If what the hon. member wants to do is accuse the
government of in fact having done better on the deficit this year
than we announced, that is a lot better than what the previous
government was accused of, which was to always understate the
deficit.
The fact is we probably have the cleanest books of almost any
government around.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there was a lot of wishful thinking on the Prime Minister's
part yesterday, in Montreal. The Prime Minister also shed tears
over the plight of the city.
However, we looked at the Liberal agenda, which will be-
The Speaker: I would ask you to not use props.
Mr. Duceppe: You are right Mr. Speaker, I should not have
shown this, it is awful.
I looked at the list of resolutions for the Liberal Party congress,
which will form the basis of their platform. I found 20 priority
resolutions relating to the economy, however, not one of them had
to do with Montreal. The only thing about Montreal was a very
short reference in the eighth paragraph of one of these 20
resolutions, a ``whereas'' clause. There will not be much room for
Montreal on the Liberal agenda.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: how can he tell Quebecers
that he is prepared to take the first steps, that he is shedding tears
over the plight of Montreal, that he wants to do something for
Montreal, when nothing will be said about Montreal during the
Liberal congress?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess my visit to Montreal did not go unnoticed. I guess
the announcements we made regarding Canadair did not go
unnoticed in Montreal. The other initiatives we are taking in the
Montreal region must be effective, given that the Bloc Quebecois is
so upset today.
Let me say one thing: we implement programs in every region of
the country. We know, and I acknowledged it before, that, because
of the current problems in Quebec, where everyday the provincial
government says it will soon hold a referendum, businesses are
leaving the province because these irresponsible people will not
recognize that, twice, Quebecers have opted to remain in Canada,
since it is in their best interests.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for once the Prime Minister used the right word, which is
a rare occurrence. He said his visit did not go unnoticed. He is
right. His visit was not remarkable, it merely did not go unnoticed.
The Prime Minister talks about uncertainty. But who is
generating uncertainty in Quebec when the Prime Minister of
Canada challenges democratic rules when he threatens to partition
Quebec, when he goes so far as to have his picture with Howard
Galganov in one of his members' pamphlets? Who is generating
uncertainty? Who has an interest in generating uncertainty, if not
the person who has made a career of denigrating Quebec?
I ask the Prime Minister: How can he reconcile the speech he
delivered yesterday in Montreal with the fact that all his actions
relate to plan B, a plan which even Daniel Johnson repudiates?
(1445)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spent 33 years in public life and I learned a long
time ago that insult is the weapon of the weak, the weapon of those
who have no arguments.
I have been in this House for over 30 years and I was elected for
28 years in a riding that is 98 per cent francophone. I have always
protected the interests of my constituents based on my conscience,
and they have always renewed my term of office.
I have also always respected democracy, but I know these people
do not want to respect democracy. They do not want to accept
defeat. They do not want to admit that Quebecers want to remain
Canadians, and this is why Montreal is currently in trouble. People
are leaving Montreal because of the political uncertainty. But we
say it is possible to be proud Quebecers and to be proud Canadians
at the same time.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general pointed out yesterday that the Minister of Finance has
fudged the public accounts to the tune of $1 billion and once again
the Liberal government has violated its own code of ethics, the
accounting code of ethics, its own rules by fudging the deficit
numbers not just this year, but next year and the year after. We will
see the Minister of Finance take credit for it.
He may want to give 101 accounting courses but he needs 101
ethics courses.
Is the minister cooking the books?
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to be very judicious
in his comments. I would ask him now to please pose his question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance fixing the
books this year to give himself a billion dollar cushion next year
5602
because of his high tax, high unemployment, interest free loans to
Liberal contributors coming off the rails sooner than we think?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are implications coming from members of the Reform Party
that the auditor general did not express a completely clean opinion
as to the books of the government. I repeat that the auditor general
did. And the hon. member ought to have at least the decency to
recognize this.
In terms of when a liability should be recognized, it is a
generally accepted accounting principle, generally accepted in
international commerce as well as domestic commerce, that a
liability should be recognized when it is incurred. The liability was
incurred in the year in which it was booked.
What the auditor general has said was that all the details of the
agreement had not been fully worked out. If the hon. member
would like to hang round the House for about 15 minutes at the end
of question period, that particular question will be answered for
him.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think that
was a pretty long and technical answer. It added up to
fuddle-duddle. The point is the auditor general pointed out that he
is breaking his own rules and accounting rules and everybody else's
rules to accomplish what he has set out to.
Why does politics become more important that truth in
accounting, honesty in reporting and responsible management of
Canadian finances?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry if my answer was a little too technical. Perhaps one of his
colleagues might explain it to him.
Let it be very clear that at the time we took office there were a lot
of doubts expressed as to the credibility of the government's
financial projections.
(1450)
It was very clear to us that if we were going to re-establish
confidence in the management of the economy by the new
government, it was important that we recognize liabilities when
they occurred, that we be as prudent as possible and that we go the
extra mile to do so.
That is what happened in this case. It may well be that the
auditor general has said we have been excessively prudent but I can
tell members that is not a bad accusation to carry in the
international money markets.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in the Public Accounts of Canada the auditor general
accused the government of breaking its own accounting rules to
distort its deficit. Yet the Liberals were the first to cry foul when
the former Conservative government pulled a similar stunt.
Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that he has
deliberately inflated the 1995-96 deficit by close to one billion
dollars so as to purposely reduce the real deficit for 1996-97 by a
corresponding amount?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have just said, the auditor general has given a very clear opinion
on the government's financial statements. What he said was that
because the agreement in principle, not the detailed agreement, had
been signed, the amount should have been included in another year,
but we wanted to be more cautious, because it is very important to
establish the federal government's credibility on international
markets. That is what we have done.
I repeat, the auditor general has given a very clear opinion about
the federal government's books.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary, will the Minister of Finance admit that he is
actually cooking the books, purely with an election in mind, in
order to mislead the public about the federal deficit?
The Speaker: The question is not in order.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Trade.
[Translation]
When I have a second, I will be able to ask my question.
[English]
The government strategy is to increase exports and double them
by the year 2000. Could the minister please inform the House how
he intends to meet this target, and how the government will achieve
its jobs and growth strategy by the beginning of the next century?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, coming off a record year of export increases, I
am pleased to inform members of the House that in the latest
statistics for the month of August we reached an all time record of
$23.3 billion. That is an export level that we reached for the first
time. Furthermore, we reached a trade surplus in that same month
of again a record of some $4 billion.
For the first time in a dozen years we turned the corner in terms
of the current account surplus. We are getting new trading
companies involved in this trading operation, particularly small
and
5603
medium size businesses because that is where we are creating the
jobs.
For every billion dollars of new exports, 11,000 jobs are
sustained in this country. We are becoming more proactive. We are
retooling, re-engineering our services so that the small and medium
size enterprises continue to grow, continue to provide for record
export levels.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in this House I asked the government to explain the
connection between Bombardier's receiving huge government
handouts and the fact that it contributed $170,000 to the Liberal
Party over the last three years. I got no answer.
Section 121.(2) of the Criminal Code specifically outlines the
rules against government kickbacks.
My question for the Prime Minister is would he explain-
(1455 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I have a difficult time in that I allow quite a huge
preamble, but I never know where some members are going when
they ask their questions. It seems to me that there is an insinuation
here.
I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his last words
about kickbacks.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw
that comment.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for that and I ask the hon.
member to put his question now.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, would the Prime
Minister explain the difference between the spirit of section 121.(2)
of the Criminal Code and the ongoing relationship between
Bombardier and the Liberal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nobody pays much attention to the type of completely
distorted statement by the member, but we cannot expect much
more from him.
The reality is that we have a law in Canada on electoral expenses
and contribution and it is all public. I have a list of corporations
that have given to the Reform Party, and I do not call those
kickbacks. They are people who are contributing.
What we did yesterday or the day before with Canadair was to
help a company that is becoming extremely competitive in the
world today. It is sixth in the world as a builder of planes and it will
be fourth soon.
I want to tell people that the company is very successful. It
contributes to my party. It may contribute to other parties. It is all
public. All contributions are public.
It is completely unacceptable to accuse us of providing a loan,
which is to be repaid, to a successful Canadian company because it
has given a contribution to the Liberal Party. But we know the level
at which this member of Parliament loves to operate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, the minister asked about our policy on disclosing
severance settlements. I remind you that our policy is the same as
the Quebec government's, which is based on Quebec jurisprudence
and puts severance pay in the same category as regular
compensation, which is in the public domain.
If the minister is willing to be open, I am giving him another
chance and asking him again to confirm that General Boyle
received over half a million dollars in severance pay, and whether
or not he intends to make this agreement public?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I told him
yesterday, I hope my hon. colleague understands that the rules are
the same for everyone. Not only for General Boyle, but for every
public servant, every member of the military, or anyone else
working for the Government of Canada.
The settlements reached with General Boyle are within the rules
established by Treasury Board. If the hon. member wants to find
out more, he knows what he must do, because we in Canada have
laws on the protection of personal information, which, I hope, will
be respected in both Canada and Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42
will confer upon Chief Justice Lamer and his wife Madame Justice
Tremblay-Lamer a pension benefit that does not exist under the
current Judges Act. This has raised a concern that a perception has
been created that the impartiality of the chief justice may have been
compromised.
(1500)
University Professor Ted Morton has stated:
5604
Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved-the timing of this
proposed change could not be worse. Sceptics will claim it is unacceptable that a chief
justice who is about to benefit from the justice minister's proposed pension policy
change now sits in judgment on the justice minister's Quebec reference-the most
politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.
Did the justice minister anticipate that his proposed pension
reform could undermine the perception of impartiality of the chief
justice and, if not, would he care to comment on Professor
Morton's concern?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should first caution the hon.
member that he is speaking about the office of the chief justice of
Canada, the highest office in our legal system in this country.
I caution the hon. member that he is speaking about a person who
occupies that office, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who for over
30 years as a judge has demonstrated an unimpeachable character
and integrity. I caution the hon. member to approach this issue with
those factors in mind.
By raising this issue in this way, this hon. member has
demonstrated more than anything else his own lack of judgment
and his own regrettable approach in the business of politics.
This bill, as the hon. member well knows, is a technical
amendment identified years ago, indeed before there were even any
spouses on the bench. It was brought forward in Bill C-42 at the
first appropriate time.
An hon. member: This is not an appropriate time.
Mr. Rock: It deals not just with the chief justice and his spouse.
There are other judges on benches in Canada who are married to
each other.
An hon. member: Who? Name one.
Mr. Rock: It does nothing more than bring judges' pensions into
line with all the other public service pensions, including members
of Parliament's pensions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: I suggest that the hon. member should do his
homework, learn the facts and not come to this House with
suggestions that call into question the integrity of the chief justice
of this country.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The minister is aware that there is strong support from the
government of B.C., the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations and other
key stakeholders for the establishment of a United Nations
international biosphere reserve in Clayoquot Sound on the west
coast of Vancouver Island.
Will the minister tell the House and Canadians whether the
Government of Canada supports the designation of Clayoquot
Sound as a biosphere reserve and, if so, whether the government
will contribute a fair and equitable share to help make this a
reality?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question and his
concern. It is an issue that obviously touches a very passionate
chord in British Columbia and indeed with all Canadians.
The government is currently looking at this. I know my
colleague the minister of heritage, myself and others in
government, together with the ambassador for the environment, a
proud resident of British Columbia, the Hon. John Fraser, are
working hand in glove.
We hope at a very early juncture to bring a very successful
conclusion to this very real issue.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
According to the United Nations Agriculture and Food
Organization, there are 800 million hungry people in developing
countries. Next week at the world food summit what is Canada
going to do to help the world's hungry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada takes the world food
summit to be held in Rome in November very seriously for a
number of reasons.
Canada played a pivotal role in the founding of the FAO in 1945.
We hosted the 50th anniversary ceremonies of the FAO in Quebec
City in 1995 where the foundation for this summit was laid. It is
also worth noting that Canada is one of the world's most productive
nations in food and food products so we have a particular
responsibility as we head to the Rome summit in November.
We will be emphasizing the principles of peace, democracy and
human rights in our presentation.
(1505 )
We will be talking about the proper functioning of the world
trading system so that it will be reliable from both the point of view
of exporters and importers. We will be talking about the
contributions to be made to productivity and sustainability by
organizations like the PFRA and CIDA and private organizations
like the UPA. We will also want to talk with both exporters and
importers about
5605
how we can all work better together on security of supply in the
world and a vastly improved distribution system.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Michael Ausserwinkler, Deputy
Governor of the Province of Carinthia of Austria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
5605
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the
honour to lay upon the table a notice of ways and means motion to
amend the Excise Tax Act as well as explanatory notes. I ask that
an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada has
reached detailed agreements with the Governments of Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new
harmonized sales tax system as of April 1, 1997. The detailed
agreements are based on the principles outlined in the
memorandum of understanding that was signed earlier this year.
Any successful negotiation requires goodwill and good faith by
the parties involved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
the governments of the three provinces concerned and especially
my counterparts in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland
and Labrador for the manner in which they and their officials
handled the issues involved in these negotiations.
(1510)
[Translation]
What helped all of us to conclude these negotiations successfully
was that we shared a common objective: to give consumers and
businesses a sales tax system that is simpler, more efficient and
more equitable. It is a practical example of how the federal and
provincial governments can collaborate to make our federal system
work better.
[English]
For consumers, the new harmonized system will offer several
important benefits. First, thanks to tax inclusive pricing,
consumers will know the full price of their purchases before they
get to the cash register. This is something Canadians have
consistently insisted on in consultations about GST reform. At the
same time, consumers will continue to know how much tax they
are paying because receipts and invoices will show either the
amount of tax paid or the rate at which tax has been charged.
Consumers will also benefit because sales tax rates will be
substantially lower than at present in each of the participating
provinces. In Newfoundland, sales tax rates will be almost five
percentage points lower. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick they
will be almost four percentage points lower.
[Translation]
The harmonized sales tax will be good for businesses as well.
They will have to deal with only one tax, not two. They will have to
complete only one set of forms, not two. And, they will have to
deal with only one tax administration, not two. The new system
will be straightforward and simple. For example, there will be no
separate requirement for businesses to register for the harmonized
sales tax. Businesses that are registered for the GST will
automatically be registered for the HST. Furthermore, registered
businesses will continue to use the current GST return to calculate
net tax remittances. When reporting tax collected and remitted, as
well as claiming input tax credits, there will be no need for
registered businesses to identify separately the federal and
provincial components of the HST.
[English]
During our negotiations with the three Atlantic provinces,
concerns were expressed about the taxation of books and its impact
on literacy. We took those concerns seriously. They came from the
Atlantic ministers themselves, but they were also expressed most
articulately and most forcefully by a number of members of the
federal Liberal caucus.
Members may recall that in our economic and fiscal update of
October 9 we said that one of the key roles of government was to
5606
help give Canadians the tools they need to take advantage of the
new economy. In that context the question that we have to answer
today is at a time of limited resources how can we best support
efforts to promote literacy.
Our answer is to target assistance to educational institutions and
organizations which play a direct role in the area of such concern to
us. That is why I am tabling today a notice of ways and means
motion that provides a 100 per cent rebate on all books purchased
by public libraries, schools, universities, colleges, municipalities,
certain charities and non-profit organizations and other frontline
literacy groups.
This rebate is not an isolated gesture. We introduced several
measures designed to support learning and education in our 1996
budget, an increase in the education tax credit and increases to the
limits on the transfer of tuition and education credits and
contributions to registered education savings plans.
The 100 per cent rebate that I am announcing today means that
there will be no GST on all books purchased by educational
institutions and learning organizations across Canada. It means no
GST on all books distributed freely in primary schools, in
secondary schools and other educational settings. It means tax
relief on books not only for structured learning in our schools and
colleges but for lifelong learning through public libraries and front
line literacy groups. These measures are effective immediately and
on a national basis.
(1515)
We have also agreed to administer a point of sale rebate in the
three harmonizing provinces which will eliminate the provincial
component of the tax on books. In short, there will be absolutely no
increase in the taxation of books as a result of harmonization.
Indeed in many cases there will be a decrease.
In closing, we do not claim that today's measure answers all the
challenges we face with respect to literacy in this country.
However, by targeting assistance in this way we can get greater
impact for every dollar we spend at a time of limited resources.
Obviously more needs to be done. My colleague, the minister
responsible for literacy, is working hard to get groups right across
the country to identify and to develop the best means for working
on this problem. We will continue to work closely with her to
ensure that progress is made.
More often than not, real and lasting progress in government
occurs in measured steps. Today's announcement on a harmonized
sales tax and the rebate on books is a real, constructive and a
concrete step forward in the administration of sales taxes in the
promotion of literacy in our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as strange as it may seem, I would like to offer the
Minister of Finance my congratulations, but I will then move right
on to three complaints.
I congratulate the minister on taking a step in the right direction
by abolishing the GST on books purchased by educational
institutions, non-profit organizations and other organizations
working in the field of literacy.
This is also a victory for the Bloc Quebecois, for I would remind
the finance minister that, since 1992, when there were seven
members of the Bloc Quebecois in this House, we have been
calling for the complete removal of the GST on all books sold, not
only in the case of educational institutions and non-profit
organizations, but everywhere, in all provinces, in whatever
manner, for the purpose of eliminating illiteracy in Canada.
We are claiming a victory, because of the initial hard work done
by our seven colleagues, and because the Bloc Quebecois, as the
official opposition, carried on this fight for the complete removal
of the GST on books.
Just as the Minister of Finance often slips bad news in with the
good, the bad news is that this agreement with the Maritimes is
going to cost Canadians almost one billion dollars. This is one
billion dollars that Canadians outside the maritimes, as well as
Quebecers, will have to pay for a political agreement with the
Maritimes to fool the public into thinking that the government is
doing something about the GST. If it had had to do anything, if it
had had to keep its red book promise, it should have abolished the
GST.
Now it is buying off the maritimes, and pretending to the
Canadian people that it has taken action and sorted out part of the
problem, when in fact nothing has been sorted out, and this
political agreement has cost one billion dollars, 250 million of
which will come from Quebecers, to make the Minister of Finance
look good.
Second, I must protest the minister's lack of transparency,
because nowhere in his statement does he mention this one billion
in compensation that we will have to pay.
A second instance of lack of transparency pointed out by the
auditor general: the minister doctored his figures in the last budget
to include in the financial year ending on March 31 the $961
million, nearly one billion, he will pay to the maritimes. Why did
the minister do that? He did it so that next year, he would have even
better news for us about reducing his deficit. That is doctoring
figures. That is cooking the books.
(1520)
The auditor general said it as follows: ``Ottawa violates its own
accounting rules''. To make himself look good, the Minister of
5607
Finance included an amount in the previous financial year, before
the agreement was even signed with the maritimes. Now that is
carrying transparency a bit too far.
Another case of lack of transparency is the minister's refusal to
release the formula and the parameters for establishing this one
billion dollar compensation for the maritimes, despite the fact that
the Quebec government and other provincial governments, at the
last meeting of Finance ministers, asked the federal government to
come clean, for once, and release the formula for establishing this
billion dollar compensation.
For instance, why should Quebec not be entitled to this kind of
compensation, since it harmonized the QST with the GST back in
1991 and 1992? The government says Quebec is not entitled to
compensation, but it never released the formula for calculating this
compensation. That is a lack of transparency.
I want to congratulate the minister on partially abolishing the
GST on books, but at the same time I have serious reservations
about the transparency of the process. As far as the Minister of
Finance is concerned, transparency does not exist.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance at this week's Liberal Party
convention will claim that he has delivered on his red book promise
and got rid of the GST. This is a false claim. Rolling the GST and
PST into one in a small part of Canada does not meet the
expectations raised by Liberals during the last election.
Of course, we have heard the Liberals reply to this criticism:
``Read the fine print. We never promised to eliminate''. In my
experience neither voters nor candidates read the fine print in red
books. Not even an experienced politician with a name that
reminds us of the police did so. No more proof is needed.
I could raise many shortcomings of the new blended GST-PST.
Let me mention just a few.
First there is the added cost for national retailers who have to
print a different set of flyers, catalogues and price tags on
merchandise for distribution in the Atlantic provinces and who
have to change computer programs and cash registers. The Retail
Council of Canada estimates this cost for all retailers to be $100
million.
The second criticism of the agreement for the new blended retail
tax is that it costs the rest of Canada $1 billion. This payment is
basically a bribe which the government was forced to pay because
of the embarrassment caused by the red book. The Liberals
obviously decided that the political cost of this payment was
smaller than that of the broken red book promise, especially after
their spin doctors told them to emphasize the fairness of the
payment in light of adjustment costs incurred. We will see whether
such payments will be made to other provinces in the future.
Quebec tried to get equal treatment and failed.
We will also have to see what such equal treatment will do to the
deficit. I also worry about the distribution of this adjustment
assistance. Will it reach the small retailer who has to adjust his cash
register and buy new computer software? How much will it cost to
distribute this money to such users?
The third criticism of the deal is that it increases incentives for
the underground economy. In the finance committee we heard how
evasion of the GST is rampant in a number of industries; in
construction, automobile repairs and many other services.
Such tax evasion is more rewarding; the larger is the gain. Since
the blended tax is higher than the GST alone there will be more
underground activity in untaxed income.
Fourth, the PST was a retail sales tax. In order to prevent the
cascading of taxes business buyers did not have to pay the tax. As it
turned out, for reasons I do not understand, many firms did pay it
anyway to the tune of many millions of dollars. The blended tax
falling on consumers only has to be higher in order to make up the
money paid by business under the old system.
Fifth, the blended tax will not get rid of the complexity of the
basic GST system. As the minister well knows, it is a nightmare.
Municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals get special
deals. Doctors and other professions enjoy yet another treatment.
But most annoying is the special treatment given to food. ``No GST
on food''. What a slogan. What a nightmare in practice.
(1525)
Five doughnuts are not food; six are. Frozen pizza is a food.
Pizza in a restaurant is not. I will not go on with the many examples
of costly deviations from a value added tax on all transactions, as
recommended by most economists and serving extremely well the
people of New Zealand.
The trouble with today's announcement is that this complexity is
now even higher. Books are no longer books free of tax. There are
good books like the ones bought by libraries and universities and
not so good books bought by everyone else. What a sham. What an
administrative nightmare, a typical political compromise that
serves no one.
Finally, I cannot help note that the minister in his statement
claims that the tax will benefit consumers. I have trouble
understanding this. I thought that the blended tax was revenue
neutral. Are we now to understand that it lowers taxes?
If it does, what will be the effect on the provincial and federal
deficits? If it is revenue neutral, how then can it benefit consumers?
5608
In sum, the entire scheme of the blended GST-PST tax in the
Atlantic provinces is one gigantic failure. It cannot be justified
economically and socially. It can be justified only by someone
whose judgment is clouded by the desire to extricate the Liberal
Party from the serious political hole of their own making.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all
due respect, I would like to have unanimous consent to say a few
words in response to the minister's statement.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity. I thank my colleagues for allowing me
to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
The Minister of Finance and many members of this House know
that Canadians want a society in which the costs of maintaining a
stronger community are distributed fairly with those who have
gained the most from the community paying their fair share of
taxes.
Instead, Canadians are getting a society in which rich and
powerful individuals and corporations get away with paying less
than their fair share, leaving the rest of us to pay the freight on
reduced public services.
With respect to harmonization, it is the New Democratic Party's
position that harmonization is not a fair way to deal with some of
the tax situations in this country.
Members will recall that in the 1950s federal government
revenues were shared 50 per cent by individuals and 50 per cent by
corporations.
By 1996 those shares have changed from 50 per cent by
corporations down to 6 per cent by corporations, with individuals
paying about 94 per cent of the tax revenues in this country.
Corporate tax revenues in Canada, combined federal and
provincial, right now are the lowest of all the G-7 nations. In fact,
corporate taxes amount to 6 per cent of the gross domestic product
in Canada, with the G-7 average being around 10 per cent.
The Liberals in opposition promised to abolish the GST. In fact,
the GST is not only remaining, but they have expanded it to include
harmonization.
Members will recall that when the federal sales tax was in place,
corporations paid about half the federal sales tax and individuals
paid for about half the federal sales tax. When the GST was
incorporated, we saw with respect to the harmonization of the GST
corporations paying zero GST and individuals paying 100 per cent
of the federal sales tax, which is now the GST.
It amounted in very simple terms to about a $7 billion or $8
billion tax increase under the former Conservative government,
which is now not only embraced by the Minister of Finance and by
the Liberal government but supported and expanded to include
harmonization of this tax.
We are very concerned about this effort because the
harmonization, if taken across this country, would be yet a further
tax increase. This is not a very fair way to deal with Canadians who
are in many ways either underemployed, unemployed or facing
significant personal challenges when it comes to personal financial
conditions.
To expand the GST and the PST into a harmonized program
really is a shortsighted effort by the government to give
corporations a very significant tax cut.
(1530 )
In summary, I just want to say that New Democrats and many
Canadians whom we have talked to across the country believe in
fair tax reforms based on the two fundamental principles of
fairness: fairness to those who are participating in our economy,
and also on the ability to pay.
Those who can pay their fair share should be paying their fair
share. We have seen 35 tax increases under the Minister of Finance.
We have also seen Bill S-9 being passed which contained
significant tax cuts for corporations and significant tax breaks for
very wealthy Canadians which the Minister of Finance agrees is
really an unfair tax but he embraces it and supports it.
What the minister is doing here is really unfair to Canadians. It is
something I think his party and his government will have to
account for once an election is called.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 39th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I
intend to move concurrence in the 39th report later this day.
I also have the honour to present the 40th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference of June 19, 1996 in relation to Bill C-270, an act to
amend the Financial Administration Act (session of Parliament).
The committee has considered Bill C-270 and reports this bill with
one amendment.
5609
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited
Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of my bill can be
succinctly stated. It is to ensure that the only valid marriage in
Canada is one between one man and one woman. There are a few
cultures and religions in the world which allow multiple wives or
husbands but that is not part of Canada's history, tradition or
values. There are one or two countries or states which either permit
or are thinking of permitting persons of the same sex to marry but
that is not part of Canada's history, tradition or values.
Canada's history, tradition and values are being challenged right
now in our courts. The United States has already passed similar
legislation to defend the institution of marriage. It is time for
Canada to do the same. This bill will ensure that marriage remains
what Canadians have always known it to be: a legal union between
a single female and a single male.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 39th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1535 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there have been consultations among the parties in the House and I
believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following
motions.
I move:
That, pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young
Offenders Act (phase II), and specifically to observe how the youth justice system
operates in practice, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs (six
members: four from the Liberal Party including the chair, one from the Bloc Quebecois
and one from the Reform Party), be authorized to travel to Alberta, British Columbia
and Whitehorse from Sunday, October, 27 to Friday, November 1, 1996 in order to hold
public hearings, visit sites (young offender facilities and programs), and meet with
officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move:
That, in relation to its study of circumpolar co-operation, seven members of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (five from the
Liberal Party, one from the Bloc Quebecois and one from the Reform Party) be
authorized to travel to Cambridge, England; Oslo and Tromso, Norway; Stockholm,
Sweden; and Copenhagen, Denmark; and that seven members from the committee
(four from the Liberal Party, two from the Bloc Quebecois and one from the Reform
Party) be authorized to travel to Moscow, Murmansk and St. Petersburg, Russia; and
Helsinki, Finland during the period of November 2 to 9, 1996 in order to meet with,
among others, parliamentarians, government officials, and indigenous peoples, and
that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to present a petition urging Parliament to table a bill to
protect endangered species. This is only part of the petition, which
was signed by a total of 70,000 people.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I also
want to present two petitions which seek amendments to the
Criminal Code to increase the penalties on those convicted of
driving while impaired.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure
to present a petition signed by some 10,000 Canadians whose
signatures form part of a petition with 70,000 names.
These Canadians are concerned about the plight of endangered
species in Canada and that there are compelling ecological,
economic and ethical reasons to save Canada's irreplaceable wild
species. Therefore they call upon Parliament to enact enforceable
legislation that will protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
four petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre today.
5610
The first group of petitioners requests that Parliament pass
legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including
publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of
application and transferring serious offenders to adult court.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition requests that the Government of Canada not amend
federal legislation to include the phrase sexual orientation. the
petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals
receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married
people.
(1540 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
third petition concerns age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): The final petition,
Madam Speaker, deals with changes to the coat of arms of Canada.
The petitioners are concerned about the secrecy which surrounded
the process and request that all future changes proposed to official
symbols be open to wide public consultation.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to
this House two petitions signed by the residents of York North. The
subject matter of these petitions is closely related as they deal with
deficit reduction and job creation, two priorities for this
government.
The first petition draws to the attention of the House the
government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per
cent of the GDP and the fact that we have surpassed that goal.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to keep its
commitment to Canadians and pursue its actions on the deficit so
that the government will reach its deficit target of 2 per cent of the
GDP by 1997-98.
The second petition draws to the attention of the House that in
the past year alone short term interest rates have declined three
percentage points, that for the last two and a half years inflation has
averaged less than 2 per cent and by 1997-98 the federal deficit will
have been reduced by $25 billion.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that
since this Liberal government took office, over 600,000 jobs have
been created.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to continue to
work diligently to create a healthy environment for jobs and
economic growth.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to present
petitions with approximately 10,000 names for a total of 70,000.
Mr. Volpe: Read out all the names.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I am going to read out all the names, yes,
absolutely.
These are signed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They
call upon Parliament to enact enforceable legislation that will
protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, whereas section 43 of our Criminal Code allows school
teachers, parents and those standing in the place of parents to use
reasonable force for the correction of pupils or children under their
care; whereas such reasonable force has been interpreted by the
courts to include spanking, slapping, strapping, kicking, hitting
with belts, sticks, extension cords and causing bruises, welts and
abrasions; and, whereas such legal approval of violence against
children is contrary to their fundamental right to security of the
person and to equal persecution and benefit of the law without
discrimination as guaranteed by our charter of rights and freedoms,
the petitioners in this petition call upon Parliament to end legal
approval of this harmful and discriminatory practice by repealing
section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have 10,000 signatures
on a petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the following.
The plight of endangered species in Canada is a national problem
that continues to worsen and that there are compelling ecological,
economic and ethical reasons to save Canada's irreplaceable wild
species. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact enforceable
legislation that will protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too have a petition to present. It
bears 4,000 to 5,000 names.
These petitioners want parliamentarians to know that the plight
of endangered species in our country is a national problem and a
problem that is getting worse almost every day. The petitioners call
upon Parliament to enact enforceable legislation that will protect
Canada's endangered species.
5611
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to present petitions signed by 70,000
residents of Canada.
The petitioners warn that the difficulties experienced by
endangered species in Canada are growing and that there are
serious environmental, economic and ethical reasons to protect
Canada's irreplaceable wildlife.
(1545)
[English]
Therefore the petitioners ask Parliament to enact enforceable
legislation that will protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
humbled in that I only have 75 petitioners who request that the
federal government amend the Divorce Act to ensure that
grandparents have the right to access, that they be allowed to make
inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education
and welfare of their grandchildren.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am even more humbled because I have just 50
Canadians, but they are 50 very important Canadians.
These petitioners pray that the Parliament of Canada declare and
confirm that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of
Canada can be modified only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens
as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or
through the amending formula as stipulated in the Constitution.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
further evidence of the ground swell of support for endangered
species legislation and on behalf of the Endangered Species
Coalition, I present 500 to 600 pages of signatures of petitioners,
residents of Canada, who point out that the plight of endangered
species in Canada is a national problem that continues to worsen;
that there are compelling ecological, economic and ethical reasons
to save Canada's irreplaceable wild species.
These petitioners call on Parliament to enact enforceable
legislation that will protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have three petitions today.
The first was forwarded to me by Mrs. Janette Lavery of my
riding of Mississauga South. The petitioners draw to the attention
of the House that there are profound inadequacies in sentencing
practices concerning individuals convicted on impaired driving
charges.
These petitioners ask that Canada must embrace a philosophy of
zero tolerance, that victims of crime must be given the highest
priority and that in cases of impaired driving causing death or
injury sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the crime.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure that the sentencing given to anyone convicted of driving
while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired does
reflect both the seriousness of the crime and zero tolerance by
Canada toward this crime.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petitioner comes from Somerset, Manitoba. The
petitioners 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 society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the final petition comes from Schefferville, Quebec. The
petitioners 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 and other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wish to inform the House that tomorrow, October 24, will be a
designated day.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have the
honour to inform the House that Bob Kilger, member for the
electoral district of Stormont-Dundas, was appointed as a
member of the Board of Internal Economy replacing Don Boudria,
member for the electoral district of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
5612
for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 42, first
supplement to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled: An
Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1550)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I wish to
inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement,
Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
when you called Order Paper questions I stood and was not
recognized.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, Question No. 73 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 73-Mr. Cummins:
With regard to ground fish on the west coast, (a) what species are ``below average
in abundance'', (b) what species are ``very low in abundance'' and (c) what is the
scientific data to support the above?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): (a) The following species are
considered generally ``low to average in abundance'', slope
rockfish (Pacific ocean perch, redstripe rockfish, yellowmouth
rockfish, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish), inshore rockfish
(red snapper and other inshore species).
A number of stocks of slope and shelf rockfish are fished, which
individually may be from below average to average in abundance.
More detail can be obtained in the annual report of the Pacific
Stock Assessment Review Committee Groundfish Subcommittee.
Although slope rockfish have generally been considered ``below
average'' for some time, there are indications (at least in areas
north of Vancouver Island where the major fisheries occur) that
abundance of these species could be ``average'' rather than ``below
average''. Additional data and analysis will be required to define
stock status more precisely.
There are indications that some flatfish stocks (English sole,
rock sole, Dover sole) are declining in abundance due to poor stock
replenishment during the past decade, particularly in areas to the
north of Vancouver Island. Additional data and analysis will be
required to more clearly define whether these are ``below
average''.
(b) The following species/stocks are considered ``very low in
abundance'': Pacific cod (all stocks), lingcod in the Strait of
Georgia (offshore lingcod are considered at ``average'' abundance),
Petrale sole.
(c) The information above comes from the latest assessment of
Pacific groundfish stock status, conducted under the auspices of
PSARC in July 1996.
Many kinds of scientific data are used in assessing the status of
Pacific groundfish stocks: catch and fishing effort data (from sales
slips, fishing logs, dockside monitoring, observer programs), data
from surveys conducted on Department of Fisheries and Oceans
vessels or in co-operation with industry (using trawls, traps, and
acoustic methods), biological sampling data (length, weight, age,
maturity), and data on ocean conditions (temperature, salinity,
ocean climate trends, currents). The particular mix of data used
depends on the specific species and stock. Details on the data and
analyses used in assessing stock status are included in the annual
reports of the PSARC groundfish subcommittee and in working
papers on specific stocks.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for
the Production of Papers No. 6, in the name of the hon. member for
Malpeque.
[Text]
Question No. P-6-Mr. Easter:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause
to be laid before this House copies of the operating agreement between the Grain
Transportation Agency Administrator, Canadian National Railways (CN) and
Canadian Pacific Ltd. (CP) dated April 1, 1993, with respect to railway cars supplied
for grain service by the Government of Canada.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the operating agreement between the Grain Transportation
Agency Administrator, Canadian National Railways and Canadian
Pacific Ltd. is not available for tabling at this time.
5613
The government is currently in the midst of structuring the
process by which it will dispose of its 13,000 hopper cars, which
are governed by the above mentioned agreement. As part of this
process, discussions with the railways about revising the operating
agreement are currently ongoing.
Public release of this document at this time may well harm the
government's ability to negotiate fabourable revisions to the
operating agreement, ultimately resulting in a negative impact on
the possible value it will get for its hopper cars.
As the document is a private agreement between the railway
companies and the government, the companies' views were sought
on this matter. They have expressed similar concerns about the
tabling of the agreement at this time.
I therefore ask the Honourable Member to withdraw his motion.
[English]
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Bodnar Madam Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5613
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Health) moved that
Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive technologies and
commercial transactions relating to human reproduction, be now
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47-
[English]
-an act respecting human reproductive and genetic technologies.
This government is committed to a regime that protects the
health of Canadian women and children, reflects Canadian social
values and ethical standards and recognizes the needs of infertile
Canadians.
It is our view that a caring society demonstrates its concern by
using science and technology to aid those who would otherwise be
denied the joy of parenthood, while protecting those who risk being
harmed both now and in the future.
Probably the most difficult question most of our parents and
indeed some of us in this Chamber faced was how to name their
new baby. The choices confronting those who want to become
parents today are often much more vast, more technologically
complex and have greater repercussions for generations to come
than we have ever as individuals and as a society had to deal with.
Couples having difficulty conceiving a child have to decide to
seek outside intervention, or not to seek it, as the case may be. They
have to make decisions about drugs and treatment regimes. They
have to balance their desire to have a child against the potential
risks involved. Sometimes these would be parents have to decide
whether to involve a third individual, an anonymous donor, in their
search for parenthood, whether they are willing to undergo invasive
and difficult procedures such as in vitro fertilization and what to do
with the embryos that may be created as a result of this procedure.
Women who are already pregnant, whether through natural or
assisted means, have to decide together with their partners whether
to undergo prenatal diagnosis and what to do with the information
once they have it. It is our opinion that we have to develop a two
pronged approach to deal with many of these issues.
First, through the legislation before us today, we are proposing to
prohibit certain unacceptable technologies. Second, we are
developing a regulatory regime to manage safe and effective
technologies that are permissible.
(1555)
The technologies and practices that would be prohibited under
today's legislation are ethically and socially questionable. They
pose significant threats to the health of those who use them and to
the children who are born as a result of their implementation. They
have significant adverse effects on the physical and emotional
well-being of children and they pose significant threats to the
health of the population.
This legislation I believe is valuable in its own right, an
important first step in addressing public concerns. But this is yet
not enough. That is why the government has also released a
position paper outlining a proposed regulatory framework for those
technologies that, while acceptable, still require regulation to
ensure the safety and well-being of women who depend on them,
the children who emanate from their use and families that are
created from them in Canada.
What we are proposing is not, as one can imagine, an easy task.
Its complexity has required us to consult the status of women,
heritage, finance, treasury board, industry, human resources devel-
5614
opment, citizenship and immigration, the solicitor general,
agriculture and of course the justice department. All of these
ministries have been brought into the consultation process for
developing this legislation because they all have interests in the
legislation and in the regulatory regime that we are planning.
This government's willingness to tackle an issue of this
complexity is in accord with the pledge made in the red book to
make the health of women and the well-being of children a priority.
It is concrete evidence of our commitment to the health, safety and
ethics in the field of new reproductive and genetic technology.
New reproductive and genetic technologies have the potential to
enhance the health and well-being of women, children and
families. Technologies such as artificial insemination and in vitro
fertilization, the process of retrieving eggs from a woman's body,
fertilizing them either with her partner's sperm or with that of a
donor and implanting the resulting embryo back into the woman's
body, have enabled children to be born to those who otherwise
might never become parents.
Prenatal diagnosis has been used not only to identify birth
disorders, for example, but to identify anomalies that can be
corrected at birth thanks to the knowledge gained through
diagnostic procedures. These technologies can confer significant
benefits on those who use them. They also, unfortunately however,
hold within them the potential to threaten human dignity and to
treat women and their children as well as the whole reproductive
process as mere commodities.
To give one example, to date at least seven advertisements have
appeared in student newspapers seeking women willing to sell their
ova. In return for cash, they ask otherwise completely healthy
women to take powerful drugs with unknown long term effects to
stimulate multiple egg production and to undergo invasive and
often painful medical procedures to retrieve those eggs. This is an
inappropriate use of medical treatment. Even worse, it reduces
women and the eggs they carry inside them to sheer commodities.
It is understandable, I think members will agree, when we
consider the applications of technology like this one why new ways
of intervening in the reproductive process have created hope for
many Canadians but have also become a source of unease. The
profound social, ethical, legal and health questions they raise
challenge our most fundamental values.
Canadians have asked the federal government to exercise
national leadership to manage these technologies in a way that
protects those most affected and reflects our collective values.
(1600 )
The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies was
created in recognition of the important role of the federal
government in the area of new reproductive and genetic
technologies.
Members in the House will recall the report entitled ``Proceed
with Care'' as an impressive document, not only for the
comprehensiveness of its 293 recommendations but for the means
by which the commissioners arrived at those recommendations.
Each of those recommendations was based on an ethical framework
encompassing the principle of an ethic of care and eight guiding
principles and on a thorough understanding of Canadian social
values and attitudes.
This comprehensive and solid basis makes it difficult to disagree
with the commission's conclusions that it is necessary to establish
boundaries around the uses of new reproductive and genetic
technologies prohibiting the most egregious and regulating those
that are safe and ethical.
Since the release of the commission's report, the federal
government has been working on the type of public policy called
for by the commission. Because the responsibility for health is
shared among the federal, provincial and territorial governments,
discussions have been held between the two levels of government
to identify possible areas of collaboration.
At the same time, Health Canada held bilateral consultations
with some 50 key stakeholders on their reactions to the
commission's recommendations. Those consultations expanded on
the work of the royal commission. They confirmed that Canada
needs a legislative and regulatory infrastructure to deal with the
new reproductive and genetic technologies. Further, they
demonstrated the necessity for the federal government to exercise
national leadership in this area.
In exercising this leadership, we have been guided by a policy
framework that includes a set of ethical guiding principles and a
focus on the implications of the technologies for children. We have
also focused on the prevention of infertility. It is sometimes
identified as a priority both by the commission and by our own
extensive consultations.
We feel that we must be guided by these basic principles. I will
enumerate them for members. First, we must balance individual
and collective interest in recognition both of the importance of
reproductive autonomy and of the reality of the individual
decisions in the area of reproduction that may affect the larger
society.
Second, we must strive for equality between men and women.
That does not mean that this issue affects men and women in the
same way. The physical and social burdens and risks of
reproduction are borne primarily by women and this reality should
be acknowledged and be reflected as well in this reproductive
policy.
Third, we must protect the welfare and dignity of vulnerable
persons and groups and particularly the children who may be born
through the new uses of these technologies, but also individuals or
5615
couples seeking to use the technologies, as well as persons with
disabilities.
Fourth, prevention must be a first priority to lessen the need for
medical treatment of infertility. In cases where treatment is
necessary there should be a progression from the simplest and least
invasive treatment to the more complex. The principles of evidence
based medicine must be applied to reproductive health care.
Fifth, non-commercialization of reproduction and of
reproductive materials is essential. Commercialization modifies
reproduction, offends human dignity and may lead to the
exploitation of vulnerable persons or groups.
Sixth, accountability is paramount. Individuals have the
responsibility to safeguard their reproductive and sexual health.
Governments and medical practitioners have a responsibility to
protect the reproductive and sexual health of their communities and
of the individuals they serve.
(1605 )
I have given these ethical guidelines certain actions where
clearly indicated for the government. It has begun to address the
safety issues identified by the royal commission, among them the
reported use of fresh semen for donor insemination with its
attendant risk of HIV transmission and the potential risks
associated with the use of fertility drugs.
Regulations concerning the process of testing and distribution of
semen for donor insemination became legally enforceable on June
1 of this year and a surveillance program for drugs used to treat
infertility is also being developed.
The voluntary moratorium on some new reproductive and
genetic technologies was introduced one year ago. We recognized
then that legislation in the area of new reproductive and genetic
technologies would require a lengthy development process,
therefore the moratorium was announced to cover nine problematic
uses of reproductive and genetic technologies, together with the
creation of an advisory committee on the moratorium.
This was a positive first step. It has helped the key medical
specialties at work in this area in their process of policy formation.
However, some unethical practices continue to be offered in
Canada.
Many Canadians continue to feel that these issues are too serious
for voluntary compliance. Government is responding to these
concerns through this legislative action in order to transform the
voluntary moratorium into one that is mandatory.
The Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act is based
on the common policy and ethical ground identified in extensive
consultations with more than 50 stakeholder groups, and with the
provinces and the territories. This legislation gives voice to the
widespread agreement that some activities conflict so sharply with
Canadian values and are so potentially harmful to the interests of
the individual and of society that they must be prohibited.
The government has met three goals in this legislation:
protecting the health and safety of Canadians; ensuring the
appropriate treatment of human reproductive materials; and
protecting the dignity and security of all persons, especially women
and children.
The prohibitions listed in the legislation include the nine original
prohibitions in the voluntary moratorium, together with five
additional prohibitions not originally contained in the moratorium.
In each case, the risks they pose to vulnerable Canadians and the
offence they give to such basic values as equality between men and
women and the non-commodification of reproduction justify a
strong legislative response.
Let me outline them and explain in the process the ethical
underpinnings for each prohibition. The first of these prohibitions
is on sex selection. Attempting to select the sex of a child for
non-medical purposes is abhorrent to most Canadians. I think most
members here will agree. In fact, all of them agree. Despite the
inclusion of sex selection in the interim moratorium, there are still
at least two clinics in Canada offering this service.
Sex selection can take a number of different forms. It is
prohibited under this legislation with only one exception. Sex
selection is simply the most basic form of sex discrimination. To
value a child primarily on the basis of his or sex is demeaning to
the child and contrary to any principle of respect for human life and
dignity. It also poses significant threats to the well-being of
children.
The knowledge that a child was born primarily because he or she
was the ``right'' sex can cause significant harm to a child's sense of
self-worth, to say nothing of his or her siblings who must suffer
with the knowledge that they are not the right sex.
If sex selection were widely used, it could cause the male-female
birth ratio to become skewed with unknown consequences for our
nation.
(1610 )
However, the government recognizes that some very serious
genetic disorders are sex related and that parents facing this
situation will want to know the sex of the fetus. The legislation
allows for this possibility. All other the uses of sex selection
techniques are explicitly and firmly prohibited.
The second prohibition is on the manipulation of reproductive
materials. A number of prohibitions contained in the act fall into
the category of manipulating eggs, sperm, zygotes or embryos for
5616
various purposes. Many of the practices included in this category
are somewhat familiar to us, usually from the late, late show on
television for those who are insomniacs. Without making light of
the issue, that is where they should stay.
Members would be horrified to see what some of those
prohibitions include. It suggests practices that are beginning to
develop that must be nipped in the bud. One of those is cloning the
genetic materials of living or dead human beings or of zygotes,
embryos or fetuses. This could produce identical copies of single
persons which would diminish the value of human individuality.
We do not know yet what the health implications of being a clone
might be. We know even less about whether there are any long term
implications for population health by having large numbers of
people who are genetically identical.
Another example is that of creating animal-human hybrids
whether by using animal gametes together with human gametes or
by implanting a human embryo in an animal or an animal embryo
in a human. These procedures could potentially produce creatures
that would be half human, half animal. The presence of these
hybrids is not unusual in folklore but it is eminently undesirable in
real life. The formation of such hybrids violates the most basic
norms of respect for human life and dignity and denies the
embryo's connection with the human community.
A third example is that which involves the altering of the genetic
structure of reproductive material so that the alteration can be
passed to subsequent generations or to germ-line genetic alteration.
This has the potential to permanently alter the human genetic
heritage at unknown risk to future generations.
We lack even a preliminary understanding of how genes interact
and of how altering one gene would affect others. We do not know
how altered genes would act in subsequent generations. It would be
inconceivable hubris on the part of any society to risk the health of
future generations in this way and completely contrary to any
concern for the vulnerability of the children of the future.
A further example is the potential to manipulate the materials of
reproduction that coexist with the speculation about the possibility
of ectogenesis, that is, maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb
until it is born. Its pursuit dehumanizes motherhood and
marginalizes women from their previously central role in
reproduction.
We have no idea what the health effects for children born in this
manner would be. The interactions between a woman and the fetus
she is carrying are essentially still a mystery to us. One thing is
clear, however, as we learn more about them. These interactions are
of far greater significance for the health and well-being of the child
than we might suspect. The royal commission describes
ectogenesis as ``morally reprehensible''. We would all be
challenged to find anyone who would disagree with that finding.
The third prohibition under this legislation affects reproductive
material from fetuses or cadavers. It is an indication of the speed
with which developments have been made in this field that when
the royal commission released its report, the issue of retrieving
sperm or eggs from dead persons had not yet emerged. As members
of the House are aware, it has since become a very real possibility.
(1615)
Thus it is no longer sufficient to prohibit the use of fetal eggs as
was the case in the interim moratorium. Bill C-47 must also and
does prohibit the use of eggs or sperm from cadavers. To create a
child from the reproductive material of a dead person or from eggs
retrieved from a fetus is a frightening proposition and could create
unknown psychological harm to children born in this manner.
We know that miscarriages are often the source of fetal eggs and
we know that fetuses often miscarry because they carry disorders.
Without knowing more about what that disorder is and whether it is
genetically based, it would be taken unjustified and unjustifiable
risks with a child's health to permit the use of the fetus' eggs.
The use of gametes from the deceased in order to create a child is
a violation of reproductive autonomy. Even if a person gives
permission for his or her gametes to be collected for fertilization
after death, the potential for psychological harm to a child born in
this way is too great to ignore. This prohibition is not intended to
apply to the use of eggs from the fetuses or sperm or eggs from
cadavers in research. Rather it is designed to prevent research
aimed at producing embryos from this process.
The fourth prohibition is with regard to surrogacy. The effects of
the prohibitions I have discussed so far relate primarily to what
happens in laboratories. Surrogacy occurs much closer to home.
Agreeing to carry and give birth to a child and then surrendering
that child to another person or couple in return for monetary gain
poses tremendous ethical and health related difficulties.
Surrogacy commercializes reproduction and women's
reproductive capacity and it commodifies children. It forces
women to undergo the risks and burdens of assisted conception and
then of pregnancy and birth. It poses risks to the emotional
well-being of children. When the child becomes the subject of a
custody dispute or when the child is not wanted by either the birth
parents or the commissioning couple, these harms are magnified.
Criminalizing such arrangements carries with it potentially
serious penalties for those convicted. For that reason the targets of
criminal prohibition have been carefully chosen. Anyone paying or
offering to pay a woman to carry a child only to surrender it at birth
5617
will be subject to a criminal penalty, as will any third party acting
or offering to act as an intermediary in the surrogacy arrangement
for profit.
Women who agree to bear children for others are often
vulnerable because of the disparities in power and resources
between themselves and those paying for their services. Rather
than further burden such women with the risk of prosecution, the
new prohibition targets the persons paying for such services. The
behaviour of the so-called surrogate is not and will not be
criminalized. As well, the legislation permits volunteer surrogacy
arrangements so long as no payment is involved.
The fifth prohibition is on the buying and selling of reproductive
materials. The prohibition against buying or selling eggs, sperm
and embryos is consonant with that against commercial surrogacy
arrangements.
Eggs and sperm are the basic building blocks of life. They
contain the unique genetic heritage of the human being who
produces them. When combined, they form embryos that have the
potential to become human beings. To reduce these materials to
commodities that can be bought, sold or exchanged for other goods
or services is a grave offence to the principle of respect for human
life and human dignity.
The practice of permitting payment for sperm and eggs also
carries significant health risks. Short term financial need can
induce a donor to be less honest about his or her own health and his
or her own genetic family history. Unfortunately donor screening is
only effective when the potential donor is forthcoming with
information regarding his or her health.
Paying sperm donors thus increases the risk to the women who
will receive the sperm and the children who may be born as a
result. The risks inherent in paying for donated sperm accrue
primarily to the recipients and to the children born as a result.
There are relatively very few risks to the donor. Selling eggs on the
other hand holds the potential for significant physical and medical
harm to the donor as well.
(1620)
A woman who agrees to sell her eggs is generally perfectly
healthy. She would have to be in order to pass the same types of
screening procedures that are used for sperm donors. She is quite
probably not infertile. Yet this perfectly healthy woman will be
prescribed fertility drugs with their unknown long term health
effects to stimulate multiple egg production. She will also undergo
invasive and painful medical interventions to retrieve these eggs.
In exchange for the risk and burdens she will bear, she will go home
probably about $2,000 richer but she will have taken unknown risks
with her own health and her own future fertility.
This government cannot permit the health of vulnerable women
and children to be put at risk by allowing a payment based system
of sperm and egg donation to continue.
The legislation does allow doctors, clinics and sperm banks to
recover expenses involved in the collection, storage and
distribution of sperm, eggs and embryos. In addition, because the
current practice of paying sperm donors is a significant incentive in
donation, there will be a phase-in period for this aspect of the
regulation to ease the transition from a commercial to a non-profit
and volunteer based system.
The legislation is an advance on the interim moratorium because
it prohibits payment for the donation of the human reproductive
material for research purposes. This decision was made on the
grounds that there is no compelling argument to be made for
treating donations for research purposes any differently from
donations for other purposes.
The sixth prohibition relates to embryo research. A further set of
prohibitions not included in the interim moratorium have been
added as a result of our extensive consultations. They have to do
with embryo research.
Under the terms of Bill C-47 it will be illegal to use any human
sperm, ova or embryos for research purposes without the explicit
permission of the donors. Every person has the right to control the
use of the products of his or her own body. Failure to obtain consent
violates the principles of individual autonomy and respect for the
vulnerable.
It will also be illegal to fertilize eggs or to create embryos
outside the human body solely for the purposes of research. Some
couples choose to donate surplus embryos from in vitro
fertilization for research purposes. We acknowledge their
generosity in facilitating research that could help other infertile
couples. But the field of embryo research is growing and some
scientists have argued for a more abundant supply of research
embryos than can be achieved through donation. This government
does not accept this argument.
Regardless of the potential for embryo research to give us much
more information about the human condition, the need for embryos
for research is not compelling enough to justify their creation and
use solely for this purpose. All human embryos have the potential
to become human beings. To create them without this end in mind
commodifies them and undermines human dignity.
Finally, it will be illegal to conduct research on human embryos
any later than 14 days after conception. Since human embryos may
eventually become fetuses which will become human beings, the
question of how far into their development research should be
permitted is far from merely academic. The issue has been widely
debated and there is an international consensus that 14 days is an
appropriate end point. Bill C-47 signals agreement with the federal
5618
discussion group on embryo research which accepted this
international standard.
In addition to the specific prohibitions that I have outlined here,
the legislation makes it an offence to offer to provide or to offer to
pay for any of the services prohibited in the act. This will also help
to prevent the creation of a supply and a market for these services.
(1625)
The legislation sets significant penalties for those who are found
to be in violation of any of the provisions of the act. There is a
maximum penalty of $500,000 or 10 years in prison. As a
government we are committed to the principles of
non-commercialization of reproduction and the protection of
vulnerable women and children. This legislation and the penalties
for disobeying it demonstrate that commitment.
Critics of this legislation will argue that prohibiting reproductive
practices violates Canadians' rights to reproductive autonomy. I
think they forget that no right is absolute when it causes harm to
society as a whole or to other individuals. We are mindful of the
need to respect reproductive autonomy, but we are also mindful
that the practices and uses of technology prohibited in this
legislation have the potential for tremendous harm to children, to
women and to the value of human life in our society.
Indeed many of the practices that are being prohibited in this
legislation themselves have significant implication for women's
reproductive autonomy. Factors that affect women's relative social
and economic status can render the whole concept of reproductive
autonomy meaningless. Some women may be tempted for instance
to sell their eggs or to enter into commercial preconception
arrangements to support themselves. Without adequate protection
such as those found in this act, women can be particularly
susceptible to the adverse consequences of these technologies.
Unlike most medical treatments in which the individual alone
bears the burden or benefit of the intervention chosen, those using
new reproductive technologies pass on those benefits and those
burdens to their children. New reproductive technologies have
implications for children's health, including the unknown risks
arising out of the use of fertility drugs.
Children born through the use of donor gametes face legal
uncertainty concerning their familial relationships, and they face
uncertain impacts on their emotional well-being. Families of
children born through donated sperm or eggs told the commission
of the great strain caused by trying to keep the child's origin secret
and by the lack of information available to them when and if their
child asks about his or her genetic parents.
This legislation does not offend reproductive autonomy. It
balances the need to protect the interests of vulnerable women and
children with the right of individuals to become parents and the
needs of research that will help them attain that goal.
Some may claim that prohibition against buying or selling
sperm, eggs and embryos may result in a shortage of sperm for
donor insemination. As I said earlier, the prohibition on buying and
selling sperm will be phased in over time. This will allow sperm
banks and medical professionals to adjust their recruiting practices
and will also allow for education and promotion to encourage
voluntary donation.
Human reproduction is far too precious to make the use of
donated gametes a matter for the marketplace. Our commitment is
to the realization of an open gamete donation model with no
commercialization and no anonymous donation. This is in line with
the international trend away from commercialization and toward
more open systems. We are not alone in addressing this issue in this
fashion. There are strong international precedents for all aspects of
this legislation.
For instance, since 1990 the United Kingdom has prohibited the
creation, storage or the usage of an embryo unless subject to a
licence. The conditions of the licence include prohibitions against
retaining or using an embryo later than 14 days, placing an embryo
in an animal, cloning, or mixing human and animal gametes.
Separate legislation prohibits commercial surrogacy arrangements.
Germany too has had a wide range of prohibitions in place since
1990, including fertilizing ova for any reason except pregnancy,
using technology for sex selection, artificial fertilization after the
death of a gamete donor, artificial alteration of human germline
cells, cloning, and the creation of animal-human hybrids.
(1630 )
Recently France has created a series of new offences, including
the creation or use of human embryos for commercial purposes and
the creation of embryos for research or experimental purposes.
Most Australian states prohibit a variety of new reproductive
technologies including cloning, the production of animal-human
hybrids, altering the genetic structure of an egg or embryo and the
sale of gametes or embryos.
This legislation puts Canada squarely in the position of
supporting an international trend to limit the uses of science and
technology when they contravene deeply held societal values.
This legislation is also squarely within the Canadian tradition of
using the criminal law to protect Canadians' health, safety and
common values. Most health law is based on misuse of the criminal
law and the courts have traditionally recognized these as valid
exercises of Parliament's authority.
5619
The decision to prohibit certain technologies and practices was
made in light of a commitment to the health and well-being of
women, children and families in Canada. It is based upon a strong
ethical framework that incorporates the fundamental principles of
the non-commercialization of reproduction and the protection of
those at risk, particularly the women who use them and the
children who are born as a result.
The timely passage of this legislation will provide the needed
protection not only to women and children but to a society that has
shown it is apprehensive about its impacts.
Its passage, however, still leaves an estimated 500,000
Canadians affected by infertility. The inability to have one's own
biological child is a source of grave distress to many people. We
take this issue seriously. We believe there is a need for national
leadership in responding to the needs of the infertile. That is why
the legislation before the House today is but one part of the
government's approach to a comprehensive management regime
for new reproductive and genetic technologies.
The royal commission recommended, which in this regard has
been confirmed by the government's own consultations, that
technologies that are ethically and socially acceptable to Canadians
and that have been shown to be both safe and effective should be
available to Canadians within a regulated framework.
Madam Speaker, I realize you are signalling that I am at the end
of my time, but I feel that the seriousness of the topic would
warrant a few more moments of reflection. I ask if the House will
give its unanimous consent to extend my time another few minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Volpe: Madam Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues on
both sides of the House for your graciousness.
We cannot ignore the reality that these technologies are already
in use in Canada. In 1994 an estimated 8,500 donor insemination
cycles were performed in hospitals and clinics across Canada. This
is in addition to an unknown number of cycles conducted in the
offices of private practitioners. Currently about 5,000 cycles of in
vitro fertilization are performed each year in Canada. These
procedures result in the birth of as many as 2,000 children each
year. So far, however, the regulation of these infertility treatments
has fallen almost exclusively to the medical professionals
involved. It is clear from both the royal commission's work and
from the government's consultation that self-regulation is not
sufficient given the wide ranging implications for women and
children.
In the late spring of this year we released a position paper
outlining the proposed regulatory regime when Bill C-47 was
introduced. We have been discussing the proposals in this paper
with the provinces and territories and with all the stakeholder
groups. We are working to develop a consensus on the most
effective regulatory framework for managing new reproductive and
genetic technologies. This component of the management regime
will be introduced in a second bill which will amend the bill before
the House today. The result will be a single piece of legislation
containing both prohibitions and regulatory controls that will
provide a comprehensive management system.
The government is proposing a system which would regulate the
collection, processing, distribution and use of reproductive
material to provide infertility treatments such as in vitro
fertilization and donor insemination and in the conducting of
medical research. The same system would also deal with the
collection, processing, distribution and use of human fetal tissue
for medical procedures and medical research.
Three principles will guide us in our regulatory proposals. First,
the protection of the health and safety of Canadians in the provision
of medical procedures and in the conduct of medical research.
Second, the assurance of appropriate treatment of human
reproductive materials and the fetal issue and the recognition of the
potential to form life. Third, the protection of the dignity of all
people, especially women and children, in relation to the use of
human reproductive materials in fetal tissue.
(1635)
Another function of the regulatory regime would be to establish
registries of information regarding the use and long term effects of
new reproductive and genetic technologies. These registries would
include a donor offspring registry to collect data on the identity of
all sperm, egg and embryo donors and any resulting children that
might be born from their use; a fertility treatments registry to
gather information about the provision outcome of infertility
treatments; a drug surveillance program for fertility drugs to track
any adverse effects of the drugs on the women and men who take
them and any children born as a result of their use; and a health
surveillance system to track any short or long term health effects
for children born from assisted reproduction.
I have outlined how we will proceed with our legislative
program for a comprehensive management regime for new
reproduction and genetic technologies. It is a management regime
that will protect the interests of vulnerable Canadians, particularly
women and children, while addressing the needs of infertile
individuals. However, the new reproductive technologies cannot be
seen in isolation from concerns about overall reproductive and
sexual health.
5620
This government made a red book commitment to a
multidisciplinary approach to women's health and one that
recognizes the important role of social and economic factors. In
this spirit we are developing a framework for sexual reproductive
health to co-ordinate national efforts and to facilitate a coherent
and integrated response to issues related to sexual and reproductive
health.
This framework will provide the basis for a comprehensive
strategy for the prevention of infertility with an emphasis on
educating Canadians about healthy sexual practices.
The federal government has recently completed the first phase in
the provincial-territorial consultations on the framework. Health
Canada is also examining the implications of a more open system
of information sharing in gamete and embryo donation.
There is a growing recognition that, like adopted children,
children born through donated gametes or embryos may wish to
know about their genetic parents and even their identities and that
the inability to get such information may have negative
consequences for them.
Moving toward a more open system with more readily available
non-identifying information would be consistent with the goal of
the protection of the vulnerable and consistent with the need to
recognize the well-being of children as a priority.
Finally, this government is committed to working with the
provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations and the
public to examine the place and future direction of prenatal
diagnosis and genetics in society.
Even though I am not finished, I realize that I am wearing
everyone's patience a little, but I think members can appreciate the
seriousness of the content of this bill. I hope that all members will
look at it with the same sort of grave approach with which we all
have addressed the issue to date and give it not only their thorough
and diligent consideration but their support as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-47, which is now at
second reading. Bill C-47 is a bill respecting human reproductive
technologies and commercial transactions relating to human
reproduction.
New human reproductive technologies raise many concerns and
questions, primarily with respect to the technologies per se. Their
development, use and commercialization is growing at a rate that
even the main players involved can hardly sustain.
But these concerns are even more troubling, from a social and
ethic point of view, when we try to determine what the balance
should be between the use of these reproductive technologies and
human beings' control over their bodies, which technologies are
morally acceptable and which are not, and to what extent they may
be used by researchers and infertile couples.
Also, as this exponential growth in genetic medicine and new
reproductive technologies, or NRTs, is taking place, a dwindling
birth rate is causing some concern and prompting more and more
people to turn to these technologies, which emphasizes the urgent
need for a framework governing this developing sector.
(1640)
What kind of framework is required? That is the question we
must ask ourselves as we consider this bill.
Many organizations dealing with NRTs and the official
opposition as well have pressed the federal government to do the
responsible thing and table amendments to the Criminal Code. In
response to these various questions, on June 6, the Minister of
Health introduced Bill C-47 and a regulatory scheme dealing with
NRTs.
Again, this government is proving unable to stick to what was
recommended in terms of criminalizing certain procedures. True to
itself, it is trying once again, with its proposed regulations, to
encroach on exclusive provincial jurisdictions.
Bill C-47 answers but a fraction of the numerous questions
raised by this growth sector. It prohibits a number of human
reproductive technologies and genetic manipulations as well as
commercial transactions relating to human reproduction.
Under these provisions, 13 human reproduction and genetic
engineering techniques are now prohibited. Of these, eight were
already subject to so-called voluntary moratorium, where those
who keep pushing the limits of these technologies further and
further were in charge of ensuring that such procedures no longer
be used. Needless to say that this voluntary moratorium was a total
failure.
The government has always been lax on the issue of new
technologies; that is nothing new. As early as 1977, a Canadian
coalition of feminist groups asked that a royal inquiry commission
be set up immediately to study the impact and the regulations of
new reproductive technologies. According to the coalition, it was
essential and urgent to hold a debate on the progress made in the
use of these technologies and to regulate them. This was in 1977,
almost 20 years ago.
The inability of the federal system to adapt and to improve
things was once again demonstrated, since we had to wait 12 years
before the federal government would listen and finally pretend to
act. Twelve years passed. Finally, on April 3, 1989, the government
announced, in a speech from the Throne, that a commission of
inquiry would review new reproductive technologies and their
impact. Twelve years during which there was neither act nor
guidelines to regulate a scientific sector that was evolving by leaps
and bounds. Twelve years during which everything was allowed in
5621
the name of humanity and science. This is scary, considering that
the world's worst atrocities were often committed in the name of
humanity and science.
The Baird commission, named after its chairperson, was
supposed to complete its work in two years, but finally tabled its
final report in November 1993. During these years, the commission
heard over 40,000 witnesses and reviewed the works of more than
300 researchers from all over the world. This exercise ended up
costing close to $30 million. Incidentally, not one province was
consulted at the time of the Baird commission.
In its final report, which required incredible dedication, the
commission made 293 recommendations to the federal
government. These range from restricting certain practices to
completely prohibiting others, such as paying surrogate mothers
and selling ova and sperm.
The conclusions and the main recommendations are somewhat
similar to those of similar studies conducted abroad, including the
Warlock report, released in Great Britain, in 1980. However, the
Baird commission also made recommendations beyond the scope
of its initial mandate, going as far as dealing with issues as varied
as the effect of tobacco and drug use, health and safety in the
workplace, family law and civil responsibilities.
(1645)
But regardless how good a report is, nothing will change if there
is no political will on the federal government's part to take the
necessary action to correct a situation. This is precisely what is
happening with the new reproductive technologies.
After ten years of public debate, after a royal inquiry
commission spent four years, at a cost of close to $30 million, to
produce a huge report of over 1275 pages and to make 293
recommendations to the federal government, and after experts
from Health Canada and the Department of Justice spent over two
years reviewing the report, the government was still not prepared to
make a move in 1993.
However, in May of 1994, the Minister of Justice said a bill
would be introduced in the fall of that year. The answer came over a
year after the minister's statement and, far from being the promised
bill, it was in the shape of a so-called voluntary moratorium
imposed by the former health minister, in July 1995.
This moratorium, with its contradictory tag of ``voluntary'',
asked the principal players in the field of new reproductive
technologies to refrain from certain practices, which I will
enumerate for you: preconception contracts, in which a woman is
paid to be a surrogate mother; the sale or purchase of human ova,
sperm or embryos; the selection of a child's sex without a medical
reason; free in vitro fertilization for women unable to afford this
service in exchange for ova; the alteration of human genetic
material present in ova, sperm or embryos and its transmission to a
subsequent generation; experimentation to maintain an embryo to
term in an artificial uterus; the cloning of human embryos; the
creation of hybrids of humans and animals; the use of ova from
foetuses or cadavers to produce babies or for research purposes.
A voluntary moratorium on these practices was outrageous.
Greeted with absolute indifference, this moratorium was a bald
admission of the Liberal government's complete lack of vision in
this area.
The former minister herself said that these new technologies
were unacceptable, that they threatened human dignity and raised
serious social, ethical and health questions, in addition to
relegating procreation, women and children to the status of mere
commodities. And the response was a voluntary moratorium.
It would allow the main stakeholders in the field of new
reproductive technologies the freedom, however, to decide whether
or not to continue with what they were doing. In this field, where
science is evolving so quickly that even specialists are having
trouble keeping up, the main stakeholders were going to be both
judge and judged. And during all this time, when the sheep were
being guarded by the wolves, the wolves were looking out for
themselves and expanding their activities, without a worry in the
world.
It is hard to believe, when we look at the pathetically
insignificant action taken, that this voluntary moratorium was
designed to do anything more than mislead the public into thinking
that something was being done.
Less than six months after the moratorium was imposed, and
faced with criticism and warnings about the predictable
ineffectiveness of these measures, the government had a brilliant
idea: create an advisory committee-another one; when they no
longer know what to do, they create advisory committees, they
create agencies charged with overseeing the advent of new
reproductive and genetic technologies and advising the deputy
minister of health on the extension of the moratorium to practices
other than those initially targeted.
In other words, this committee had no authority to enforce the
moratorium because the moratorium was voluntary, and reported
infractions observed not to the government but to the deputy
minister of health. As though anyone at the health department
needed a committee to tell it what everyone knew already, which
was that the voluntary moratorium was not putting a stop to
anything, and that the situation, far from improving, was taking a
turn for the worse.
A striking example of just how bad the situation was becoming
was an advertisement placed in a University of Toronto student
newspaper last January. This classified ad was for a white woman
between the ages of 23 and 32 who would be willing to sell her ova.
Although no specific amount was mentioned, we know that such
5622
transactions can turn to about $2,000 or more. This ad caused a
general uproar among the public, both in Quebec and Canada.
(1650)
The uproar was not about to die down, because a similar ad
published at Wilfrid Laurier University promised financial
compensation, not for the sperm collected, since there is a
moratorium on this, but to pay for the time and travel expenses of
the generous donor. Needless to say, this ad was intended as a direct
attack on the voluntary moratorium requested by the Minister of
Health at the time.
Following these disturbing ads in student newspapers at
universities, the former Minister of Health said she was upset and
very concerned about the fact this was being done commercially
and that women and children were more or less being treated as
merchandise. She announced a bill that would contain vigourous
measures-she said in a matter of weeks-to prevent trafficking in
sperm and human ova. This was on January 16, 1996.
In any case, the government managed to table a bill on new
reproductive technologies. There will be two stages. Bill C-47,
which defines prohibited procedures, and later, regulations that will
be added to the bill. Here, we say to improve Bill C-47.
After many years of waiting and statements by the federal
government that it would do its duty with respect to NRT, we
expected the bill to be far more thorough and comprehensive than
is the case with Bill C-47, introduced by the Minister of Health.
This bill is an admission by the government that the voluntary
moratorium requested in July 1995 was a failure. Bill C-47, in that
it recycles provisions that were already part of the moratorium and
adds a few new provisions, may be seen as a more forceful version
of the existing moratorium.
We will take a closer look. In section 1-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Honourable
members, 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
Rosedale-Bosnian Elections; the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway-Canada Pension Plan; the hon. member for
Lévis-the Joffre Shop.
Mrs. Picard: In clause 1, the French text lacks the precision of
the English text. In fact, the term «manipulation génétique» used in
the French version is more restrictive than the English term
``genetic technologies''. Furthermore, the difference between the
short title and the long title is astonishing. The long title is about
reproductive technologies and related commercial operations,
while the short title adds the term ``genetic technologies''.
Furthermore, a distinction should have been made between
assisted procreation and basic research. In the former, care and
treatment are involved, while the latter is about genetic research.
These are two specific areas that should be kept strictly separate.
In clause 2, which concerns definitions, we see that the
definition of certain terms does not correspond to the medical
definition and that a number of technical terms were left out. This
will be fertile ground for legal debate when the first violations are
dealt with.
In clauses 4(1)(a) and (b), the cloning of human embryos and
making animal-human hybrids were already covered by the
moratorium. The same applies to the altering of genetic material in
clause 4.1(e), and the use of reproductive material from cadavers or
foetuses in clauses 4.1(f) and (g).
In clauses 4.1(h) and (i) we see other controversial measures that
were also part of the notorious moratorium, such as choosing the
sex of a child on the basis of non-medical criteria.
(1655)
The same goes for clauses 4(1)(j) and (k) regarding ectogenesis,
that is to say, maintaining an embryo in an artificial uterus.
As provided for in clauses 4(1)(c) and (d), Bill C-47 also applies
to the fusion of human and animal zygotes and the implantation of
a human embryo in an animal.
Clause 5 formally prohibits paying a surrogate mother or using
intermediaries for that purpose.
Clause 6, which prohibits the sale or purchase of ova, sperm or
embryos, including their barter or exchange for goods, services or
other considerations, was already in the moratorium.
Clause 7 bans the use of any sperm, ova or embryo without the
informed consent of the donor.
Clause 8 makes Bill C-47 coercive by providing for fines of up
to $500,000 and prison terms of up to 10 years. The government
wants to send a clear message.
In this respect, if we take the analysis a little further, we can
predict that any such fines would be appealed to the Supreme
Court. In fact, under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
the person.
The 1988 Morgentaler ruling and the 1989 Légère decision
established that section 7 of the charter may include certain choices
made about one's own body. This section is tied to the notion of
human dignity, which includes the right to make certain
fundamental decisions free of any government intervention.
Clause 12 gives the minister the right to designate inspectors and
analysts. The door is open to giving the minister the power to
designate the staff of the agency he would create in phase 2 of the
government policy. This clause is typical of the Liberal govern-
5623
ment, which could not care less about the openness this kind of
appointment requires.
Bill C-47 is an incomplete measure that is far from meeting the
expectations raised by this government. He admits it himself on
page 48 of the information paper on setting limits for health
protection purposes, which states that the government is now set to
start the third and most complex phase of its NRT management
information scheme, which consists in developing regulations. The
admission could not be clearer and goes to show that most of work
lies ahead.
This second phase the federal government is hoping to complete
consists in regulating new reproductive technologies by
introducing another bill, which will amend Bill C-47. As I said
earlier, we have been waiting for comprehensive and responsible
legislation since 1977. When all is say and done, there should be a
single piece of legislation covering both prohibited procedures and
regulations respecting authorized procedures. These procedures
would include: in-vitro fertilization; insemination by a donor; the
use of foetal tissue; the preservation, manipulation and donation of
ova, sperm and human embryos; research on embryos;
pre-implantation diagnostic, and postmenopausal pregnancy.
But the proposed regulations contain an element that has become
a trademark of the federal government, and this one in particular,
namely a national agency to control and monitor new reproductive
technologies.
This agency would be responsible for issuing licenses,
inspecting clinics and enforcing regulations. It seems it would also
be in charge of monitoring the development of NRTs and advising
the federal health minister in this respect.
While officially operating at arm's length from Health Canada,
this agency would be required to submit to the will of the minister.
Page 35 of the aforementioned document states that, by law, the
minister could establish general guidelines for the regulatory body.
So much for independence.
(1700)
It goes without saying that setting up a national agency will
inevitably result in the establishment of national standards over
which the provinces will, of course, have no authority at all.
Even more disturbing is the fact that, in addition to the measures
to prohibit or regulate NRTs, this body could be given the
responsibility of developing and implementing measures affecting
areas other than NRTs.
The Bloc Quebecois repeatedly asked the federal government to
criminalize certain practices relating to NRTs. While the provinces
have jurisdiction over health, it is incumbent upon the federal
government to make changes to the Criminal Code. While this bill
appears to meet our wish that certain practices be criminalized, it is
not at all an amendment to the Criminal Code which comes under
the responsibility of the provincial governments, including
Quebec. Rather, this is a parallel act unrelated to the Criminal Code
and whose implementation will come under federal jurisdiction.
Indeed, the consent of the Attorney General of Canada is
required to initiate proceedings. This implies that the compliance
and enforcement activities relating to this act will not come under
the responsibility of provincial authorities. This opens the door to
the establishment, as already announced, of a national agency to
control NRTs. It is this body which, given the federal government's
will, would be responsible for managing and implementing
applicable rules and, more importantly, which would deal with
eventual proceedings under the future act. Such is the real purpose
of the bill before us. It is a far cry from what the official opposition
asked.
Federal involvement in the health sector, with all the duplication
and the unilateral and successive cuts to the funds for the
provinces, is a good example of the inconsistency and
ineffectiveness of federal interference in an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
I do not know how many times I have read the Constitution Act.
According to sections 92(7) and (8) of the act of 1867, and based on
the interpretation made by the courts, health and social services
should come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. But this
did not prevent the federal government from getting constantly
involved, since as early as 1919, and even forcing Quebec to
comply with so-called national standards and objectives.
This intrusion, made possible thanks to the federal government's
spending authority, allows this government to get involved in areas
that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
The federal government is thus able to redistribute monies in the
form of subsidies, tied to conditions that the provinces must meet
unless they want to be cut off altogether.
However, these transfers have been reduced in any case, whether
Quebec and the provinces met the standards or not. For the past
fifteen years, successive cuts have created a shortfall of $12.3
billion in the case of Quebec alone, including $7.9 billion for health
care.
These repeated cuts in funding for health care do not show a
government that is terribly concerned about the health care system.
Of course, these successive reductions in funding were never
accompanied by an increase in flexibility with respect to meeting
national standards.
This kind of blackmail of using our own tax money, threatens the
very future of the health care system as we know it today.
5624
Although the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government have
pleaded with the federal government to withdraw from health care,
the latter has always turned a deaf ear. We see a good example
today in Bill C-47 and, especially, the draft regulations which have
been announced. However, the government can no longer afford
its ambitious policies. We urge the government to give back these
financial resources and withdraw altogether from an area that is
the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
By the way, there has been a first step in Bill C-47, which
provides that a province may withdraw from enforcing this
regulatory component. However, once again, the first step will be
the last.
(1705)
First of all, it will be up to the federal government to decide
whether an equivalent system exists or not. Quebec and the
provinces would have no say in this decision. Similarly, should the
federal government decide whether an equivalent system exists, it
could withdraw from this provincial jurisdiction and then reverse
its decision at any time, on the grounds that the province no longer
meets the requirements, and it could do so unilaterally, without
consulting the province.
Second, it would be not be possible for a province, even if there
were an equivalent system, to escape the prohibitions described in
Bill C-47, much less receive adequate financial compensation.
In concluding, it is clear that with Bill C-47, this government is
looking at far more than criminalization. It is trying to interfere
with health care and with the treatment of certain products
connected with NRT, activities that clearly come under the
jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
This is a contradiction of what was requested by the official
opposition and the Government of Quebec. It is a contradiction of
the division of powers, and finally, because of increasing federal
intrusion in health care, it goes against the principles of efficiency
and common sense.
I will tell you why the Bloc Quebecois will not vote for Bill
C-47. We are against the bill for the following reasons: there is no
amendment to the Criminal Code; several clauses, definitions and
terms are vague, which could lead to interpretation problems; the
bill is incomplete; it announces the creation of a national agency
which is unacceptable; and Bill C-47 perpetuates federal intrusion
in an area over which Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction.
We want to ask the Minister of Health and his officials to go back
and do their homework.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to the subject of human reproduction and the
genetic technologies act. This bill is very timely. Research is
advancing at an unprecedented rate. We do not yet know the limits
of our own research and perhaps we do not know even if there are
any limits at all.
The ethical questions raised by our accelerating knowledge are
enormous. Just because we are now able to do something, does that
mean we should do it? Clearly there are ethical limits to our
activities and our answers to these ethical questions will define our
society since they deal with the very definition and determination
of life.
The commission itself has noted that this issue has moral
implications for Canadian society. It is important therefore that all
of us put aside our partisanship, study these issues with the
sincerity that is deserved and bring our most deeply held beliefs
and those of our constituents to bear.
In my own case, as a Christian, I believe that life is a gift of God.
While animal and vegetable life are wonderful, beautiful, valuable
and necessary life forms, human life is something more. It is
distinct, it is different. That is why all people are special and human
life must be treated with special dignity. To be human is to be
noble. It is a thing of high honour. We are not worthy of that dignity
because of utility, because of what we can do or how well we can
communicate, or how strong, or how smart or how useful to society
we are; humanity is in and of itself a priceless identity.
It is no wonder that the commission wrestled so strenuously with
these reproductive issues, since the technology and practices
covered in this bill, for example, have spiritual, moral, as well as
economic, scientific and social consequences. Perhaps that is why
it entitled its report ``Proceed with Care''.
(1710)
Since this is the second reading debate I would like to identify
the principle of the bill and take a position on it. I would also like to
identify two major objections to the bill in its present form in the
hope that these will be remedied in committee or by subsequent
legislation.
On the content of the bill, clause 4 expressly prohibits 11 listed
procedures referred to by some authorities as NRGTs or new
reproductive and genetic technologies. These include the cloning
of human embryos, the transfer of embryos between humans and
other species, the creation of animal-human hybrids, genetic
manipulation and the taking and either implanting or fertilizing
sperm or eggs from cadavers or fetuses. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the
bill expressly prohibit two other activities impacting on human
reproduction, namely the commercialization of surrogacy
arrangements and the buying and selling of eggs, sperm, zygotes,
embryos or fetuses.
5625
My first objection is that not all 13 activities proscribed by the
bill are of the same order or deserve to be subject to the same
prohibitions. For example, there will be legitimate debate in
scientific quarters as to whether all of the 11 procedures listed in
clause 4 should be subject to a blanket prohibition or whether
some of the proscribed activities should be allowed to proceed
under strict scientific controls for the sake of increasing our
understanding of human life and enhancing its proper
development.
It is also apparent that those activities listed in clauses 5 and 6
relating to surrogate mothers and providing the prerequisites for in
vitro fertilization are qualitatively different from the activities
covered by clause 4. They should, therefore, be subject to a
different form of regulation so as not to put unnecessary obstacles
in the way of childless couples and their doctors seeking to
improve the couples' chances of having children. In other words, I
am saying that the bill should be split, that the subject matters of
clauses 5, 6 and 7 should be dealt with in a different manner from
the activities proscribed in clause 4.
The broad principle of the bill before us is to bring all the
described activities under regulation by law. This principle of
regulation by law is one which I support and I would urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
As I said earlier, we are dealing here with the very building
blocks of human life. We are not dealing with property. We are not
dealing with inanimate matter. We are dealing with human life.
While I and my party are great believers in the marketplace, I do
not believe that marketplace mechanisms are appropriate
mechanisms for governing technologies and procedures for the
reproduction of human life. None of us believes that human beings
should be bought and sold, although there was a time when
European and American law tolerated such practices and such
transactions were governed by market mechanisms.
The most basic principles of Canadian law and Canadian society
condemn and prohibit any trafficking in human life. I would not
like to see those principles violated by now permitting unregulated
market forces, the impersonal play of supply and demand, to
regulate reproductive or genetic altering practices.
At the same time, most of us in the House have great respect for
science and the managerial and peer group assessment processes
which govern scientific activity. We are also well aware that
self-regulation of the development and application of new
technologies by science is not without danger and in the past has
been insufficient to prevent gross misuse of technologies such as
nuclear and germ warfare technologies, destructive to human life.
As history has shown, science can be counted on to ask of
technology can we. It cannot always be counted on to ask should
we. If the scientist out of moral conviction does answer the
question should we, and the answer is no, science does not have the
capacity to ensure that no means no.
For these reasons science itself cannot stand as the sole
regulatory gatekeeper of new reproductive and genetic
technologies. I therefore suggest that regulation of the reproductive
technologies and genetic altering practices identified in the bill
cannot be left to unregulated market forces or to the good
intentions of the science community but must be made subject to
regulation by law. This is the basic principle of the bill for which I
would urge qualified support.
(1715)
The second objection to this bill is more substantive. While
agreeing with the principle that the reproductive technologies and
genetic altering practices referred to in this bill should be subject to
regulation by law, I do not believe that this should be regarded as
synonymous with direct regulation by the government.
The preamble of the bill states that the Parliament of Canada
acknowledges the health and ethical dangers inherent in the
commercialization of human reproduction. The Parliament of
Canada should also acknowledge that there are health and ethical
dangers in direct state regulation of reproductive and genetic
technologies. Historically, the greatest abuses of reproductive
technologies and genetic research have not been perpetrated by
private enterprise for commercial reasons; they have been
perpetrated by governments for ideological and political purposes.
The most frightening example of such atrocities is of course the
Nazi regime which conducted genetic experiments in the name of
racial purity, in the hope of creating a super race. Experiments in
the former Communist bloc and even by well-intentioned
governments throughout the western world testify to the dangers
when the state is allowed to play the role of God.
Unfortunately the enforcement and regulatory section of this bill
is very rudimentary and incomplete. It is the weakest part of the
entire bill. It calls for offences under the act to be determined by
inspectors designated by the minister and calls upon the courts to
impose fines or terms of imprisonment in respect to offences under
the act. The governor in council is empowered to make regulations
for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act.
We have no confidence that this rudimentary regulatory regime
is adequate for the purposes of the act and are convinced that it is
not adequate to prevent abuses of reproductive technologies and
genetic altering practices by the state itself. It is our understanding
that this bill is to be followed soon by another statute specifically
outlining a better form of regulation. Our recommendation would
5626
be that regulation of these technologies by law be assigned to a
quasi-judicial regulatory tribunal acting at arm's length from the
government itself.
In summary, I would therefore urge hon. members to support the
bill in principle, the principle being that the practices described in
this bill should be subject to regulation by law.
Second, I urge members to support the splitting of the bill so that
technologies and practices immediately applicable to assisting
childless couples to have children are dealt with separately from
the other practices prohibited by this bill.
Third, I urge members to recognize that total state control over
the technologies described in this bill could be as dangerous to
Canadians as unfettered commercialization and that regulation of
such activities should be entrusted to a quasi-judicial regulatory
body at arm's length from the government.
I must add that my support in principle does not imply support
for any subsequent bill setting out this regulatory framework.
Unless such a bill spells out adequate safeguards against abuse of
power by the state as well as by the marketplace or by scientific
researchers, we will be obliged to oppose it at that time.
I trust that these observations will be helpful to other hon.
members. I look forward to their contributions in the debate, as the
secretary of state mentioned earlier, on this very grave and serious
matter.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants
on debate. Colleague, before you begin, unless there is direction
otherwise, we will be ringing the bells at 5.30 p.m. I just say that so
you will know how much time you have.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak
for themselves: the children who were born and who will be born
from the use of new reproductive and genetic technologies.
Most medical treatments involve only individuals who consent
to bear the benefits and burdens of the treatment. Assisted
reproduction techniques such as donor insemination and in vitro
fertilization are different. There are the interests of another party to
consider, those of the children who will be born through their use.
As a society we sympathize with those who are infertile and wish
to help them reach their goals at having a child. But we must not
forget that we have to consider more people than just those
suffering from infertility.
(1720)
The health and well-being of children must be of paramount
importance in the decisions we make about new reproductive and
genetic technologies. The value of children in our society is
self-evident but it is important to state firmly and unequivocally
that children are not a means to an end. They are of value not
because of the great gifts they possess, not because of the way in
which they fulfil their parents' dreams and not even because of the
joy they bring to their parents. Children are of value merely
because they exist, because they are.
This government does value children. It believes that the
hallmark by which our society can be judged is the priority that is
placed on the interests and well-being of children. The government
has established a transparent and explicit framework for its policy
on new reproductive and genetic technologies.
Concern for children's interests is the vital aspect of that
framework. The government also approaches the issue of children
and new reproductive technologies from the perspective of a need
to protect those who are vulnerable to adverse consequences of
these technologies. And who indeed is more vulnerable in our
society than a child?
New reproductive and genetic technologies affect children in
different ways. Some practices and procedures have consequences
so adverse and so easily apparent that prohibition is the only
possible response. The consequences of other uses of technology,
adverse or otherwise, are less obvious, or they are controllable
through policy regulation. These include implications of the
technologies for children's physical health, both immediately and
in the long term, and the implications for children's emotional
well-being. In cases where donated sperm or eggs are involved,
new reproductive and genetic technologies also raise serious issues
about the legal status of children.
The government by putting forward this legislation is proposing
that some practices and procedures are so important for various
reasons that there is no alternative than to prohibit them and to set
criminal penalties for their use. Practices that turn children into
commodities to be bought and sold are among them.
That is why for instance this legislation makes it a criminal
offence to buy or to sell human sperm or eggs. Sperm and eggs are
the building blocks of human life. To make them into commodities
subject to the conditions of the market is to commodify children
and to turn them into products. This is ultimately dehumanizing. It
will affect in the long term the way we as a society value children
and how we value human life.
Permitting payment for sperm and eggs also increases the
possibility of health problems for the children who might be born
as a result of these donations. Studies have shown that when a
donation is made for payment, donors have less reason to be honest
about the state of their health and about their genetic family
history.
5627
One study found much higher instances of HIV-positive donors
among those who were paid than among those who donated on
a purely voluntary basis. Men or women in financial need may
be less likely to consider the welfare of others in responding to
this financial incentive.
Commercial surrogacy arrangements go even further along this
road to the commodification of children. Instead of sperm or eggs
changing hands for money, it is a live baby. Those involved in the
practice will assert that it is not the baby that is being sold but
rather the reproductive services of a woman. Commercial
surrogacy is simply the practice of paying a woman to give up her
baby. We do not permit human beings to be bought and sold in any
other context and it is an insult to children to allow this to continue.
I have heard from a significant number of constituents in my
riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants regarding the issue of
reproductive technology. Many constituents have written to my
office or spoken with me personally on this matter. They have
consistently expressed opposition to the commercial use of
reproductive technologies. Our government has listened to these
concerns and through this legislation it is responding.
(1725)
This government is determined to remove the profit motive from
pregnancy and birth. It has accordingly prohibited anyone from
paying or offering to pay anyone to surrender a child or from acting
as an intermediary in such an arrangement.
The prohibition on cloning is also justifiable in terms of its
impact on the health of children. We simply do not know the health
implications of creating large numbers of genetically identical
people, either for individual children or for the population as a
whole. The use of fetal eggs to create a human embryo could be
harmful if they are from a miscarried fetus, since genetic disorders
are one of the most frequent reasons for early miscarriage.
Practices such as commercial surrogacy arrangements, buying
and selling of sperm or eggs, cloning, or using reproductive
material from fetuses or dead people have no place in a society that
claims to value children. The physical health of children can be
severely affected in the short term by the use of new reproductive
and genetic technologies for the simple reason that their use
increases the likelihood of multiple births.
For example, 30 per cent of deliveries from in vitro fertilization
are multiple: twins, triplets or even quadruplets. These babies are at
a high risk of being born prematurely and of having a low birth
weight. This can mean problems ranging from cerebral palsy and
poor eyesight to short attention span and poor learning skills as
these children grow up. In fact, Canadian and American studies
have found that 20 to 25 per cent of low birth weight babies suffer
from a form of serious disability and will continue to need attention
and care in varying degrees for much of their lives.
Other health effects of new reproductive technologies just
simply are not known right now. They will not become apparent
until enough children are tracked through the various
developmental stages until they reach adulthood. This is why the
advent of new technologies has to be treated with such caution.
Children are our country's most valuable asset. Our recognition
of their value is found in Canada's signature on the United Nations
declaration on the rights of children. They are so vulnerable to the
decisions made by adults. Concern for children's health and
well-being requires that their interests be a priority in making
decisions about new reproductive and genetic technologies. The
legislation before the House today has taken that perspective.
The government has prohibited activities that, by
commercializing reproduction and reproductive materials, make
children into commodities, products for sale on the market. It has
prohibited activities whose impact on the future health of children
is harmful. It has in other measures proposed to set in place
mechanisms to ensure that all new reproductive and genetic
technologies that are offered in Canada are provided with the
interests and needs of children paramount so that children are
treated with the care and respect that they deserve.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we only have one minute left in
the debate.
[Translation]
We have an order of the House to proceed to the recorded vote at
5.30 p.m. Because of the ministerial statement we must add 17
minutes to the debate.
I am told that the 17 minutes will be lost because of the call of
the bell. We have a government order with which we must proceed.
* * *
The House resumed from October 22, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and
the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading of
Bill C-5.
Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
5628
(Division No. 142)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-147
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-43
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Caron
Comuzzi
Cullen
English
Guay
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Lefebvre
McGuire
Mercier
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
(1755)
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was late for
the vote. Had I been on time I would have voted with my party.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed; and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member
for Chicoutimi at the third reading stage on Bill C-29, an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.
5629
(1800 )
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I would propose
that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberals voting nay, with the exception of
the member for Fundy-Royal who had to leave.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the new whip and at the
risk of a two-minute delay of game, we are going to vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, as the NDP whip, New Democratic
members in the House will vote no on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, as House leader and party whip and
anything else you want from me, I am voting in favour.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cast my ballot in
support of the government's position.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 143)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
Ménard
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-66
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-122
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Caron
Comuzzi
Cullen
English
Guay
Jacob
5630
Jordan
Keyes
Lefebvre
McGuire
Mercier
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
_____________________________________________
5630
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on Motion M-1, standing
in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has
informed the Chair in writing that owing to his recent appointment
to the ministry as Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for the Francophonie, he is precluded from
moving Private Member's Motion M-1 standing in his name in the
order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
Consequently, in accordance with the Speaker's duty under
Standing Order 94(1)(a) to ``make all arrangements necessary to
ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business'' I am
directing the Clerk to remove Motion M-1 from the Order Paper.
(Motion withdrawn.)
* * *
(1805 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace
enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel should be
put to a free vote in the House for approval or rejection.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on votable motion
M-31 which provides Parliament the opportunity to address the
important issue of peacekeeping. If passed, M-31 will ensure that
members of the House are properly consulted whenever we send a
large contingent of our men and women in uniform on dangerous
missions abroad.
It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace
enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel should be
put to a free vote in the House for approval or rejection.
The reason my motion would only deal with missions involving
100 or more personnel is to allow the government sufficient
flexibility to deal with the kinds of small missions that come up
from time to time such as observer missions, de-mining operations,
election supervision, without requiring full parliamentary
approval.
Motion M-31 is very simple and straightforward. There are no
tricks here and what it all boils down to is this. As members of
Parliament we have a responsibility to our country and to our
troops. When soldiers from my riding or any member's riding are
ordered to put their lives on the line, I want to know that all
members of Parliament looked at all the facts and made the best
decision regarding the mission and any questions arising from the
mission.
It is not good enough that decisions are made by a few people
behind closed doors. The Canadian people expect all of Parliament
to face up to the responsibilities of sending our troops on these
missions. When our soldiers go it must be a Canadian decision
endorsed by the entire House of Commons. Before the decision to
go or not to go is made, members of the House owe it to our
soldiers to speak for them in a full debate and to cast their votes
only after careful reflection.
I point back to the times over the past 10 years when Liberal
members stood up to say much the same thing, that it was a total
disregard of this House when soldiers were sent off on serious
missions without first consulting them. The people in all of our
ridings expect us to have been consulted and expect us to have an
answer to the reasons why Canadian soldiers have gone on a
peacekeeping mission.
Not only are modern peacekeeping missions more risky than
they used to be but they are also much more expensive. The tab for
our various missions runs into the billions of dollars. That is money
coming straight out of the pockets of Canadians. We owe it to all
citizens who are funding these missions to evaluate the facts and
have a free vote before jumping in head first.
How many of us, in our ridings, have been asked why we are
spending whatever the figure is on a particular mission? Our troops
have done a great job but our voters deserve an answer from us.
The old way of simply handing over blank cheques to the UN is
no longer acceptable. Canadians want accountability. Canadians
want to know the risk and cost are worthwhile before the decision
is made, and the only way to get all of the facts on the table is by a
full parliamentary debate with a free vote at the end of it.
After that debate, the only way we possibly can show our
accountability is through that vote. Then members can put their
money where their mouths are and go on public record as
supporting or not supporting a particular mission.
(1810 )
Since we are not only talking about a huge amount of money but
the lives of our troops when we make this decision, it is vitally
5631
important that members be able to vote their conscience or vote the
wishes of their constituents. If ever there is a free vote on anything
in the House it should be for peacekeeping. It should not be
political. It should not in any way be partisan. It is an obvious item
for a free vote. The lives and welfare of our soldiers cannot be a
partisan matter. Similarly, it cannot be a situation where a whip
instructs members how to vote. This is a life and death decision
that must be left up to the elected members of the House to decide.
I realize that this is private member's hour so there is not a huge
number of people here, but there are more people here now than
when we have had some of our rather sham debates on
peacekeeping missions that have occurred after hours.
Not all the facts were known at that time. The decisions in many
cases had already been made and reported in the press. There was
no opportunity for input of members to be incorporated into the
government plans. There was no free vote. In fact there was no vote
at all on any of these debates. No wonder there was so little interest
by members. No wonder there was so little media attention. No
wonder Canadians were not informed as they should have been. No
wonder that when Canadians would ask members about the validity
of the missions, those members were not able to give an answer.
Over the next few months two major peacekeeping missions are
supposed to expire. All current indications show that these
missions will be renewed. The blank cheques are already in the
minister's hand. While I have no doubt that some mockery of
consultation will occur, it will be what it has always been, a mirage,
an image and a fraud on the Canadian public.
It does not have to be that way. I know there are members on all
sides of the House who would dearly love to have some real input.
They would love to discuss all of the facts in a full debate and then
make a decision that is best for the country by means of a free vote.
In particular, I am thinking of the members of the foreign affairs
and defence committees. I am thinking of members whose sons or
daughters are in the military. I am thinking of members who have
military bases in their ridings or members who are veterans. All of
these members have something to contribute and it does not matter
if they are Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, Reformers or New
Democrats.
This debate is about the lives of our young people and the place
our country has in the world. For many years peacekeeping has
been a major factor of Canadian foreign policy. It is up to all of us
as members of Parliament to take the responsibility seriously and
speak to these motions.
I am pretty sure that the Liberal whip has already instructed
some member opposite to give a speech saying something like this:
``We appreciate the idea of the member for Red Deer and the
Liberal Party is always concerned about peacekeeping and
consulting with the public, but we do not support this motion''.
Then we will probably hear some convoluted explanation of why
my motion is impractical or improper or unparliamentary, but it
will be one of those things.
I think back to a motion a couple of years ago on access to
information. Member after member got up and said that it was a
great motion and it was just what the House needed for
accountability but they were going to vote against it because the
government was going to act on it and they would have action
within the year. That was two years ago and there is still no action.
I urge whichever member has been chosen to give this speech to
think twice before that member gives it. The member should think
about his or her responsibility as a member of Parliament to
represent his or her people back home, to promote the interests of
the country and to support our troops. All of these things have to be
more important than blindly serving the all knowing party brass.
I urge other Liberal members who have not had instructions from
their whip to speak their minds freely. While they are doing this
they should take inspiration from what has been said in the past by
certain Liberal cabinet ministers. I am going to read a few quotes
and I want the Liberal members here to hold their ministers to their
words because their words support the principles behind M-31.
(1815 )
I will begin with the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: ``I
appreciate the co-operation of all parties in this new Parliament.
This way, the people of Canada will be able to express their views
to their elected representatives on an important foreign affairs
issue. I also want to point out that today's consultation will not be
the last on Canada's foreign policy''. In this case he was talking
about Haiti: ``I promise that as far as possible, future debates will
be held under better circumstances''.
Since a fuller, more complete debate will be of benefit to
Canadians, I can only assume that he would support M-31.
A second quote from the minister: ``We have learned our
lessons. We realize that when the United Nations takes on a role
there must be proper and effective resources to meet the needs''.
Parliament should know if these resources are in place. If they are,
then all the facts are laid on the table. And if they are not but the
government is going ahead with the mission anyway, clearly the
minister's words about having learned a lesson ring rather hollow.
A third quote: ``I also brought the views of Canadians to bear by
opening up this question on the Internet so we were able to ensure
that Canadians from a wide variety of perspectives would let us
know what their thoughts were''. Obviously the minister is
concerned about listening to people and obviously believing in
representative democracy as other parties in the House do. They
5632
obviously believe that members of Parliament then should have
their voice heard.
Another quote: ``We still need and want the expressions of
opinions of members of Parliament on what they think''. Obviously
the clearest way to get that is by a free vote in the House.
Finally, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs: ``We are finding
the solutions but we need to have the views of members of
Parliament''. From all these quotes one can see that the minister is
saying we should have fuller debate with the facts available to all
members so that they can make an educated decision on matters.
This is exactly what Motion No. 31 states.
The foreign affairs minister is not the only cabinet minister who
seemingly supports the principles of M-31. Let me turn now to
some quotes from the former minister of national defence: ``I think
the hon. members from Red Deer and Charlevoix have raised very
good points about getting a better handle on the cost before we go
into these missions''. Again, clearly the minister was stating he
believes more parliamentary debate would be the way to get that
information.
He goes on: ``With respect to the rules of engagement, we have
to be very sure that we know under what auspices we are operating
there. We have had some unpleasant experiences before, one in
Somalia, and we have learned a lot of lessons''. Again I point out
that he is strongly promoting the concept of M-31.
I think we will find as well that we have tried various
experiments in our committees to make this work. In fact, we have
moved a long way in looking at what we might do here.
A final quote from that minister: ``The mandate has to be
appropriate and achievable under the circumstances. We have to
know the rules of engagement. We have to know what the ultimate
force size and composition are''. This is exactly the point. We have
to know the facts, we have to have the briefing and we as members
of Parliament have to feel good about what we do when we spend
that money and risk those lives.
My conclusion from all of these statements is that it appears
there would be strong cabinet support for M-31 based on what I
have read and what I have heard in the House.
Time will tell whether those were hollow words or whether the
ministers really meant those words about consultation on an issue
as strongly felt by Canadians as peacekeeping.
Let me now turn to a discussion on one of those missions which
will expire in a month, the Haiti mission. This is a perfect example
of an ad hoc mission that is lurching from one crisis to the next.
The mission is due to expire yet we have heard nothing about the
continued Canadian role in Parliament. Members are being kept in
the dark. I expect a day or two before the debate we are going to
have a rush debate in order to extend the mission for another six
months.
(1820)
Members of this House who are on the foreign affairs committee
know that we were told this was just a six month extension, that
most things should be under control by then and that we would in
fact not be carrying on with the mission in likelihood come
December of this year. Putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery is
not going to solve anything.
The former minister of international co-operation in Haiti said
Canada will prove its friendship and solidarity. It is very nice for
the minister to say that and I am glad that he enjoys cutting
backroom deals with foreign leaders while keeping the Canadian
Parliament in suspense. I would like to remind this House that the
Liberals used to cry bloody murder when the Mulroney Tories did
the same thing. Although certain members of this cabinet have the
Tory act fine tuned, it appears, I know that most members would
agree that this should be openly discussed, openly debated and then
let all members consult with their constituents and make that
decision. M-31 would allow that to happen.
As far as Reform is concerned, we have to look at the Haiti
mission and the facts again, much as we did before. We know the
situations, we read the reports about what is happening there. We
know that illiteracy is still at 85 per cent and unemployment at 80
per cent plus. We know that Mr. Aristide is waiting in the wings.
We know there has been no great progress in democratization. We
know that there are under 100 rich families adding nothing back to
that country. We know that expatriates are not encouraged to invest
in the country.
Canadians need to know more. What are the benefits, the long
term solutions and is there a long term plan? We in the House of
Commons can put forward such a plan to look at a country like
Haiti. It is in our hemisphere. We can come up with a solution,
maybe it will take 20 or 30 years, but we have to at least give a
chance.
This is the kind of thing that this House can do. This House can
put forward a long term solution, one that Canadians will
understand, one that all of us will understand and together we will
agree on it. This last minute two hour debate rushed through the
day before is not a solution to solving these sorts of peacekeeping
problems.
Maybe the solution is to go to the OAS to begin the democracy,
to say to the 31 other countries it is time that we took the
responsibility. It is in our hemisphere, it is causing us problems, let
5633
us take it. Let us at least come up with another solution, not just a
band-aid that probably will not work.
Within this House we have the capability, the brain power, the
thoughtfulness, the intelligence, all these adjectives, where we
could actually create something better for ourselves. If there is any
area, foreign affairs has to be that area where we can be
non-partisan, where we can look at a solution with long term
benefits for all of us.
We should get unanimous consent for this bill. We should all be
able to agree to it. My constituents will be happy if I am working
for the good of the country, not for the good of my party, not for the
good of partisan positions but one showing co-operation,
leadership and using members of Parliament to the best advantage
of this House.
(1825)
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs but also as a member of foreign affairs and
international trade committee who has participated with the hon.
member for Red Deer and others in debate on the question of
Canada's peacekeeping missions, notably the most recent one in
Haiti.
I want to begin by challenging the premise of the motion which
is that unless there is a free vote in this House as is specified by the
motion, Canada's role in peacekeeping missions is not debated by
parliamentarians, that no debate has taken place.
That is manifestly not the case. With the committee of which the
member is a part, we have been in the process of attempting to find
a realistic way of obtaining the views of parliamentarians who are
interested in the question of peacekeeping to provide good, timely
and sound advice to the government on the question of renewal of
peacekeeping missions and on the question of new peacekeeping
missions.
In addition to that, we have been attempting to say that somehow
because the debate occurs near the end of a given mission on the
question of renewing that mission there has been no work done to
bring the issue to the stage at which it is brought for debate is again
a false presumption.
As the member knows, in dealing with issues that give rise to
peacekeeping missions the international environment is changing
all the time. At some point, with the facts at our disposal it is
appropriate to have a discussion to get reasonable advice from
members of Parliament on all sides of the House. That is what this
government has been attempting to do, particularly the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, using the resources of Parliament.
This continues to be the policy of this government and it will
continue to be the policy of this government. Whenever possible
and necessary, the House's opinion will be sought prior to
Canadian troops being sent overseas.
In the international context, however, the Government of Canada
must be able to act. More important, the government must be able
to act quickly. This requires flexibility. Canada has been at the
forefront of international peacekeeping policy for the past 40 years.
At the 50th United Nations general assembly in 1995, the
previous minister of foreign affairs, the hon. Andre Ouellet,
presented the Canadian study toward a rapid reaction capability for
the United Nations.
It recognized that a faster response by the United Nations in
times of crisis was required in today's world. The UN cannot act
without the support of leading peacekeeping nations such as
Canada.
This motion establishes a rigid process and risks tying the hands
of the Government of Canada when the international community
seeks our assistance. It does not recognize that each peacekeeping
mission is distinct and must be treated as such.
It does not recognize the importance that Canadians and the
international community place in our peacekeepers. Because of
that, the motion does not receive the support of this government.
[Translation]
In normal circumstances, when a peacekeeping mission is being
launched, reviewed or renewed, debate is encouraged, and the
House is asked to support the initiative. However, there may be
exceptional cases in the future in which time is of the essence. It
may be necessary to react quickly in order to avert a disaster.
In these conditions, the government cannot be slowed down by a
bill requiring a vote in the House before Canadian troops can be
deployed. The government must be able to quickly send Canadian
troops where they are needed. A requirement to hold a vote in the
House would prevent the government from doing its duty. This
could take time we do not have in these situations.
[English]
The face of peacekeeping and peace operations in general is
changing. The world community does not always wait for a stable
environment before intervening.
The United Nations and other international bodies now act to
prevent conflicts from starting and to keep them from spreading.
They deploy troops while fighting continues when there is no peace
to keep. The focus is now on action rather than reaction. In order to
fulfil its role as a pre-eminent peacekeeper, Canada must be able to
act quickly and decisively when asked to do so. A conflict can
escalate in a matter of weeks if not days. A ceasefire can
5634
deteriorate or a town can be destroyed. The intervention of
peacekeeping troops can help to prevent a situation from
disintegrating into a tragedy.
(1830)
[Translation]
We hope the world learned valuable lessons from peacekeeping
operations like the one in Rwanda. It is no longer possible to stand
back and do nothing. We must step in to avert a tragedy before the
situation gets out of hand. Waiting for order to be restored in an
area is no longer a viable solution.
Peacekeepers must sometimes be deployed somewhere on very
short notice. If the situation is dangerous, they are asked to stop
violence while it is occurring or before it starts and not after the
harm has been done. We must respond to the horror of ethnic
massacres with vigorous measures. Canada must play its part in
helping to maintain the safety and security we as a people value so
much.
This motion would prevent Canada from taking action. Our
peacekeepers are considered to be among the best in the world.
That is why the international community relies on Canada to
participate in almost every UN mission. The word ``Canadian'' has
become synonymous with peacekeeper. One of our Prime
Ministers, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize for coming up with the concept of peacekeeping.
In 1988, the peacekeepers themselves received a medal in
recognition of their services.
If we cannot respond to UN calls for help, other countries will
start questioning Canada's commitment to this organization, and
therefore its relevance as a peacekeeping tool.
If we chose to ignore the United Nations' demands, then many
other countries will question the confidence they have put in this
organization. We must not let this happen. When the UN and the
international community call, we must answer. We must be able to
react on very short notice, if required.
[English]
Peacekeepers have taken on more aggressive roles in peace
enforcement but they have also accepted the hat of humanitarian
relief workers. Not only do United Nations soldiers separate
warring parties, now they must also feed, shelter and protect the
civilian populations.
A prime example of this is the new Disaster Assistance Response
Team, DART. It is designed to begin the deployment of its 180
members to a humanitarian disaster within 48 hours. The team will
provide the infrastructure necessary for UN organizations or
non-governmental organizations to follow in the coming weeks. In
the interim, DART will provide medical and structural support for
the surrounding community.
This could not happen if there was a postponement due to a
required debate within the House. A situation could decay just as
rapidly in a humanitarian emergency as it can in times of armed
conflict. The delay could cost the lives of hundreds of innocent
people. It could even make deploying the force impossible.
If they had arrived according to schedule, then the force may
avert further disaster. Canada must be in a position to stop a
tragedy from developing. If we are capable of doing this let us not
be entangled by unnecessary legislative requirements when people
are dying. Let us not create reasons why we cannot help those who
need our assistance in order to survive. Let us not antagonize and
shame the Canadian people.
[Translation]
Canada would lose its status as a leader among countries
providing peacekeeping troops if it could not react when the help of
Canadian men and women is requested. Last year, Canada released
a study entitled ``Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the
United Nations''.
We have seen in the past that reacting quickly is a must in a crisis
situation. With this report, Canada is now providing a model for the
future.
I realize that my speaking time is up. I will therefore wrap up
quickly. The government agrees that a debate on our commitments
should be held either in this House or before the Parliament of
Canada.
(1835)
It is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada
can make any commitment, every time Canada makes a
commitment, for the reasons I stated in my remarks.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
going to speak to Motion M-31 introduced by the Reform Party
member, the purpose of which is to give Parliamentarians a greater
voice when Canada sends soldiers to take part in United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
It is very laudable to give Parliament a greater say in these
decisions. Nonetheless, there are some changes we would like to
see made to the proposal. As for the substance of this proposal, I
think it is desirable to involve parliamentarians in debates of this
importance.
We know that, on a number of occasions, this has already
happened. Emergency debates have been held to back decisions
which, in some cases, had been taken, or were to be taken, to send
Canadian soldiers to take part in peacekeeping operations. At the
conclusion of my speech, I will propose an amendment to this
proposal.
Many people in our ridings and in our families have a connection
with the armed forces; we all have such people in our ridings. Some
members have military bases or other military installations in their
ridings. The number of people involved in the military across the
country is large. In debates such as these, therefore, we can
5635
represent our constituents, who share with us their views and
opinions when we see them at various events and meetings.
The Bloc Quebecois has already made its views on this subject
known in its dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy, tabled in
November 1994 after the election. I am going to read you parts of
this report. The last paragraph deals specifically with the subject of
the motion put by the member of the Reform Party.
The Bloc Quebecois said that ``it considers that one of the
primary roles of the Canadian Forces on the international scene
must be to support peacekeeping operations by taking an active
part in them. Canada's willingness to help keep the peace is one of
its most important attributes and a major international
achievement. However, in the future Canada will have to define
more precise criteria for its interventions.
The costs and complexity of intervention will require a new
attitude on the part of the international community: the events in
Rwanda and Bosnia are eloquent evidence of this. Canada must
learn from the experience of all these peacekeeping missions. The
recent case of Haiti is a reminder of the need to base our
intervention on democratic legitimacy and rigorous planning. In
the future, mission objectives and orders will have to be carefully
established, under the aegis of the United Nations''. I continue:
``Although in agreement with the majority report's
recommendation on the necessity of giving the Canadian Forces a
special configuration, since the credibility of our intervention
depends on this, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to spell out the
direction that Canada should take in this area. First, we think that
Canada should rethink its current military alliances-NATO and
NORAD-so that their strategic missions reflect the UN's needs''.
``This approach would bring new vitality to these organizations
and update their usefulness in security maintenance and conflict
resolution, while enabling Canada to achieve the collective security
goals that are crucial for its own territorial security. In addition, we
consider that Canada should encourage the setting- up of a
permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping
missions abroad. We further think that Canada should set a ceiling
on the human resources it is prepared to devote to peacekeeping.
For example, it could limit the number of military personnel
committed to peacekeeping missions at any one time to a
maximum of 2,000 to 2,500''.
This is what we said earlier. There are now close to 2,000
Canadian peacekeepers abroad. These soldiers are generally sent
on a mission for a six-month mandate, so there is a rotation.
We concluded as follows: ``And lastly, Canada should submit
any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in
the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time
allows''.
(1840)
That is the context in which we want to propose an amendment. I
want to say here that peacekeeping is currently one of the main
areas of activity of our armed forces. I do not think that anyone is
under the impression that, overnight, Canada will be facing any
threat of invasion. Our role, as a country, is therefore much more to
provide personnel to contribute to the peacekeeping and
peacemaking effort around the world.
In fact, any review of DND activities should always be carried
out in a similar frame of mind, looking to allocate a larger portion
of the budget to peacekeeping missions, which are important
missions, while at the same time assuming a role that may be very
useful at home and in terms of operations of a more civilian nature.
That being said, savings could certainly be made by managing
along these lines.
The Bloc Quebecois policy, as set out in this report, has not
changed. A number of options are discussed as far as possible
positions regarding UN missions.
As for the amendment, I would like to point out that, in its
present form, it refers to a number of peacekeepers. A figure like
100 is rather restrictive. The opportunity of this figure could be
questioned. It is always difficult to set an arbitrary number. The
other question is: what would we do in the event of a major crisis, a
crisis erupting somewhere on the international scene, in any given
country, on July 31, August 2 or December 27? According to the
wording of the other motion, we would have to call an emergency
session of Parliament, with the delays that would entail.
To ensure that a decision may be made in any event, and later
approved by Parliament, we will submit in a moment an
amendment introducing a degree of flexibility in the process, while
ensuring however that, should this occur, if the government
decided to send troops and contribute to a peacekeeping force over
the summer or any other time when the House is in recess,
immediately upon its return, the decision would be put to a vote in
Parliament.
You will tell me: ``Yes, but the personnel have already been
sent''. Even so, if Parliament decided that it was not necessary, we
could go back on the decision and not renew the mandate at the end
of the six month term, or withdraw the peacekeepers, not
immediately of course, because replacements would have to be
found, and we do have commitments to honour within the United
Nations.
So that would influence matters somewhat. It would mean a
public debate could be held on the subject, people from various
sectors could express their points of view, and if the government, in
the view of the opposition parties, had not made the right decision,
this would be the time to say so. But it would allow more
flexibility, it would not have the disadvantage of having to
5636
convene an emergency session of Parliament. That is why our
amendment will introduce a little more flexibility in this regard.
I would like to say, while I am on the topic, however, that I
would like to see our troops receive more training before being sent
outside the country, so that they will have a better understanding of
the stakes involved, which are often political, economic or social,
in order to be able to represent us with dignity.
Many people have done extraordinary things during their
posting. It only takes a few unfortunate incidents like those in
Somalia, for example, or elsewhere to ruin the reputation it has
taken years to build. We must therefore step up our efforts to train
these people before they set out, to ensure that they have a clear
understanding of the work they will be doing, and that they
represent us well. I think we have some way to go, and we must
avoid any more events like those that took place in Somalia.
In conclusion, I propose as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``all'' and
substituting the following:
``projects of military commitments abroad involving Canadian troops must, as soon
as possible, be the subject of a vote in the House in order to recommend their
approval or rejection to the government''.
This would satisfy the objectives I have just mentioned. I would
like to table this amendment.
(1845)
The Speaker: This amendment is in order.
[English]
I see we have about 18 minutes left. It is my intention to
recognize the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the hon.
member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak to Motion No. M-31 which would give
members of Parliament the opportunity to register their
constituents' approval or disapproval of Canadian involvement in
major peacekeeping missions.
I am astounded and I wonder which planet the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been living on
when he makes remarks about how this motion would preclude
Canada from acting rapidly in response to a situation. When pray
tell has he ever seen the UN operate with such speed?
Furthermore, I was astounded to hear the member from the Bloc
asking what if it is on Boxing Day or what if it is on New Year's
Day? When we are sending real live red-blooded Canadians into a
harmful situation, putting them in danger, surely it is the
responsibility of the people in this House to be able to respond and
come back no matter when it is, in the middle of summer or
whenever. It is our responsibility to come back here and debate
whether or not it is appropriate to send our people to that
deployment. Surely holidays should not enter into it. Input from
parliamentarians is required if they are to fulfil their obligations to
Canada, to the Canadian forces and to their constituents.
The people in the Canadian forces are the only ones in our
society who are committed to laying down their lives on order
when they are in a combat situation. No one else is required to do
that. We are obligated to take account of that and ensure that when
we send them somewhere, it is appropriate that they go there, that
they are properly equipped and so on.
I will provide examples of mistakes. Look at when we sent our
forces to UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia. What was the
mandate? Nobody knew. How were they equipped? Inadequately.
We know that. How did they exist there? Very very poorly. They
were stranded. They were held hostage. Everything was wrong with
that mission, yet there is no question they did magnificently under
the situation, under the conditions that were imposed. But we did
not do our homework when we sent them there.
How many Canadians are aware that when we sent our troops to
Somalia they did not go as peacekeepers, they went as
peacemakers? They were to restore order there. At the time that
land was inhabited by warlords who drove around in jeeps and
other vehicles equipped with big machine guns. They attacked
anybody they could to take away their supplies and goods. Our
people went there to restore order and they did a good job of it.
When we deploy our troops overseas, what items do we need to
discuss, to approve and disapprove? First we need to find out what
the problem is. What has caused the situation to arise? What is
needed to resolve it? What sort of force is required to take action on
it? What action has already been taken? What have they tried? Has
it worked or not? Has it partially worked?
Is there a willingness on the part of the people who are in the
situation to resolve the situation? Do they want to achieve a
peaceful solution? Are peacekeepers in general welcome? Do they
want somebody to intrude into their affairs to try to rectify the
problem or cool it down? More important for Canadians, are
Canadian peacekeepers welcome? Would they be the ones who
would be welcomed in to try to resolve the situation?
Next we would want to know the composition of the force. How
big is it? How is it to be equipped? What skills should that force
have to accomplish the mission? Are the Canadian forces able to
accept this commitment within their present restrictions and
resources? Do they have the right personnel? Do they have enough
personnel? Do they have the proper equipment? If they do not, we
have no business sending them into that area.
5637
(1850)
We should also know how many and what other nations are
involved. What sort of involvement do they have? How may troops
are they sending?
What is the command and control? This is one of the most vitally
important things we have to resolve before we commit Canadian
troops to an action. How are they going to be commanded? Who is
in charge? And what recourse do we have to that command and
control centre? What are the logistics? Who is looking after
providing the requirements to keep our troops active and mobile in
the field?
When is the force to be there? How soon does it have to arrive
and once it is there, how long is it to be committed? Do we know
exactly what it is our troops are being asked to do? Do we have a
very clear idea of what it is they must do to resolve the situation?
Because if they do not, then we should not be sending them there. It
is something we should be deciding in the House.
If they are deployed under UN auspices, what access does
Canada have to influence the decisions that are made with regard to
things involving our troops? Does Canada have the right to
approach the security council or whoever is in charge to ensure that
Canadian interests are addressed? If they do not, I do not think we
should approve it. We should say: ``No way''. If we are sending our
troops down there, we should have a right to involve ourselves in
what is being decided for them.
One of the most important things is the rules of engagement.
What amount of force are our people allowed to use? Under what
circumstances can they use it? What are the rules governing the
whole deployment? Are they adequate? If they are not, again we
have to say that is not good enough, that we need better for our
troops.
Because of our debt situation obviously we have to be conscious
of the cost. We have to know how much it is going to cost. It is also
important that we find out who is going to bear the cost. If it is to be
paid for by Canada, which ministry is going to pay for it? Would it
be defence? Defence gets hit pretty often. Should it be foreign
affairs? Is there another agency that should be contributing to this?
What about the other people who are involved? What are they
contributing, not only by way of forces but in support, in money?
Are they assisting Canada? Are they supporting Canada, or is
Canada paying for a disproportionate amount of the involvement in
the deployment?
MPs are obligated to know the facts. We should discuss them and
we should be willing to come to this place at short notice any time
that we are contemplating deploying Canadians into a dangerous
situation. I believe that in such a situation it should be a
non-partisan decision. The parties should not be involved in it.
Obviously, the government has to take the final decision, but the
government should listen to what is going on.
The debates we have had until now have been meaningless with
no votes. They have been very, very close. In one case, two days
before the mission was to be renewed, we were debating it here in
the House and there was no vote at the end of it. Obviously, the
decision had been taken before that debate took place. This is not
appropriate nor adequate.
I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, the IFOR mission
in Yugoslavia is up for renewal on December 20 this year. So far we
have had no sign that there will be any sort of a meaningful
parliamentary debate on whether to renew that commitment or not.
It seems that since we are approaching the end of October we
should be debating that. It is not fair to the people who are
committed there for us to say at the last minute that we are not
going to play. Surely to gosh we should give them a couple of
weeks' or at least one month's notice that Canada unfortunately
will not be able to continue with it.
In this aspect perhaps at the moment our army troops have been
over committed to a number of things. Serious consideration
should be given to making the Canadian support to IFOR an air
support, a fighter squadron. This would be meaningful and would
have a lot of punch. It would give the army time to regroup, to
recover, to get back into training and to establish relations again
with their families.
(1855 )
If this Parliament does not have the intelligence, the capability
and the moral courage to address this situation, then it is a lot less
of an establishment than I believe it to be. This motion should pass.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion today, I begin by
pointing out that what this motion offers is in absolute keeping with
the Canadian peacekeeping policy process. In fact it supports the
philosophy which guides our present policy.
It has been and will continue to be the policy of this government
to bring before this House all issues relating to peacekeeping.
When it has been possible and necessary, that is exactly what this
government has done. We recognize the importance of full and free
discussion of any proposed deployment of Canadian forces
personnel and we attach great value to the opinion which this
House has to offer.
It is for these reasons this government has endeavoured to allow
for the debate of Canada's peacekeeping commitments at every
opportunity. Therefore the apparent objective of this motion to
generate discussion and debate of Canada's peacekeeping
commitments has already been accomplished by this government.
5638
I note here that we have heard a lot about non-partisan debate
from the Reform Party spokespeople tonight. In this House,
foreign affairs used to be quite non-debatable and people came
to a consensus. It is rather ironic that the spokespersons for the
Reform Party were on their feet asking for non-partisanship and
at the same time were castigating Liberals in past debates in this
House.
Motion No. M-31 calls for a free vote in the House. Our
government is derived from the system in Great Britain, the mother
of Parliaments. It is called responsible government. Under our
parliamentary system responsible government means that the
government of the day must make the decisions. Decisions have to
be made and sometimes as has been stated they have to be made
quickly.
We cannot compare this with the way the United Nations makes
decisions because we are in the throes of trying to upgrade and
modernize the United Nations and streamline its procedures and
that is the right way to go. The way debates are handled in this
House, decisions on foreign affairs or any other major events have
to be made by a responsible government in the long run. That
government is the one that has to live with the decisions.
While we are talking about peacekeeping, peacemaking and
what should be done in Parliament prior to a force going wherever
to smooth things out, let me emphasize to the greatest degree the
appreciation we should have as Canadians for the members of the
Canadian forces who go out and do Canada proud around the
world. Canadians respond responsibly. Yes there have been a few
hiccups along the way, but the hiccups totally disappear when we
consider the positive contribution our Canadian forces have made
to world affairs and indeed right here at home when disasters occur.
Think back to World War I and World War II and how Canada
acted. Why did Canada act? Because there was no United Nations
to bring countries together to make decisions. Everybody was
drifting off in their own direction and we drifted into World War I
and we drifted into World War II. That is why at the end of World
War II the UN was founded. Then when the communists started
becoming more and more aggressive during the cold war period of
the late 1940s, NATO was established, another group of nations
coming together for help. That did not exist in the earlier days.
(1900)
Korea, the first test of the United Nations peacekeeping, was a
very successful test in that the United Nations forced the North
Koreans back to the 38th parallel.
Canada took part in the Persian Gulf war. It has been into
peacekeeping and peacemaking of all kinds over the years. Then
there is aid to the civilian power by our Canadian forces.
I want to say here what a debt we owe to those Canadian forces
who participated in aid to the civilian power during the Saguenay
River disaster. The words of a person who lost their home, lost
everything, when he came up to the Prime Minister in the Saguenay
area when he visited there were: ``Mr. Prime Minister, the
Canadian forces have been with us since day one. We don't know
what we would have done without them. They have been
marvellous''.
When we see all this hype about Canadian forces today and all
the negative things occurring, let us give those men and women out
there a pat on the back. Let us tell them that Canadians should be
giving them the credit they deserve for the wonderful work they are
doing. The other problems go into insignificance.
Those young families sitting out there tonight may be watching
this debate. They have to be thanked, the rank and file of the
Canadian Armed Forces who are the very basis of what we are
talking about today.
Just to back up what I have been saying, the recent event that
supposedly occurred in Hungary with four Canadian soldiers,
remember the headlines the first day: ``Canadian soldiers assaulted
couple, Hungary police say'', headlines in a Hungarian newspaper.
After the investigation was made, they found that reports of
Canadian soldiers attacking a Hungarian civilian and his girl friend
were exaggerated, as Hungarian journalists in the Canadian
military now say.
In fact, information indicates that one of the Canadians was
himself beaten up in a street fight. Then the editor of the largest
Budapest daily newspaper said Monday that the story his paper
published on the weekend was not entirely accurate.
I want to thank the Ottawa Citizen for correcting that story.
While we castigate the media, when it does admit a mistake and
comes forward and corrects a story, it deserves our thanks as well.
I want to emphasize that while we are sending our Canadian
troops into all areas of the world, into all kinds of different
cultures, different languages, different geographical conditions,
different transportation conditions to do a job, for heaven's sake,
let the rest of us here at home get behind the spirit of the Canadian
forces and give them the boost they deserve.
They are an institution of this country, and a proud one. I want to
underscore that tonight while I am on my feet. This country since
the very conception of peacekeeping has been an international
leader in the field.
Canada's pre-eminence in peacekeeping has resulted from a
willingness to act in times of crisis. Indeed it has been our
willingness to become involved and our ability to do so quickly
that has won us the acclaim and admiration of the entire
international community.
5639
This is not to say that this government opposes debate. On the
contrary, we recognize that debate is essential, especially when
the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces may be put
in harm's way.
Debate on important peacekeeping issues is crucial and the
opinion of this House is valued.
(1905 )
That is where this government stands. We have had debates on
these issues in the past. There will continue to be debates in the
House, but I want to underscore that it is the government of the day
that must make the final decision. It is the one which is going to be
held accountable, so it will make the decision. If we are going to
have responsible democracy in Canada we have to have a
responsible government. That means that members of the
government respect the government which they support.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5639
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to rise this evening to raise again a question which I originally
raised with the Minister of Foreign Affairs respecting the role of
our election supervisors or election observers in Bosnia.
At that time I asked the minister if he would be good enough to
respond to the concerns which Canadians had as to what the role of
our observers actually was in an election of that nature and the
response was given by the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa. She pointed out the important role that our observers have
played in that particular community.
In following this up tonight I think it is worth reminding
members of the House and members of the public of the very
important role that our observers play in local elections. I have not
had an opportunity to do this, but as chairman of the foreign affairs
committee I get regular reports on this form of activity and have
often had the opportunity to observe the role that Canadian
parliamentarians and others have played not only in Bosnia but in
Nicaragua, in Palestine and in many other countries where there are
really serious concerns about the credibility of the election process.
It is appropriate that my opportunity to follow up on this issue
comes this evening on the heels of the debate which has taken place
on peacekeeping. In many ways the role that our observers play in
this type of activity is very similar to the role that our troops play in
peacekeeping. They are there to ensure the credibility of the
democratic process. They are there to ensure that peace will be
maintained in the region because there will be elections which will
replace the need for violence.
This is an extraordinarily important process and it is important
for us to be assured by the ministry that our observers are actually
performing the role which they are called upon to do and are able to
do it.
I ask the parliamentary secretary for the minister if he would be
good enough to elaborate on the role that our observers play. I
would like him to tell us what the prospects are for peace,
particularly in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia, now that these
elections have been held. What can we see from the fruits of all the
labours of our observers and peacekeepers? What can the
parliamentary secretary tell us about the present prospects?
In particular, I would ask him if he is able to comment on a
recent suggestion by the president of the war crimes tribunal,
which is seeking to bring to justice potential war criminals in the
former Yugoslavia. The president of that tribunal has actually gone
so far as to say that he is considering resigning from his post. He is
concerned about the integrity of the process of that tribunal because
of its failure to actually bring before the tribunal many of the
accused. Some 74 persons have been accused and only seven
people have been arraigned before the tribunal because many of the
accused are still in the former Yugoslavia, still unassailable, still
inaccessible and cannot be brought to justice.
(1910 )
I would like to take this opportunity to invite the parliamentary
secretary to elaborate some more on the answer which was given
before and assure the House that the role of our observers is an
important one, that they have achieved success in the former
Yugoslavia and that there is now ongoing opportunity for peace in
that region, including justice to be served by the international
tribunal.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Rosedale for his interest in this issue.
Indeed Canada can be proud of its key contribution to the
technical organization to the elections that were held in Bosnia on
September 14. Voting took place in a positive, non-violent fashion,
free of systematic obstruction. The elections constituted an
essential and reasonably democratic first step toward institution
building and democratization in Bosnia.
Twenty-two Canadian electoral experts were seconded to the
OSCE mission in Bosnia, many in senior positions. Canada also
contributed to the larger international effort to supervise and
observe the elections in Bosnia. We provided to the OSCE 15
5640
election supervisors and 30 election observers. Another 32
Canadians engaged with the UN also helped supervise the
elections.
Mr. Izatbegovic has been confirmed as the chair of the new
three-person presidency of Bosnia. We congratulate all three
members of the new presidency and encourage them to move
quickly once the other election results are confirmed to put in place
the common institutions established by the Dayton peace
agreement and to implement all aspects of the agreement.
Canada is committed to helping the parties face the enormous
challenge of this post-election consolidation period. We will do so
through our engagement in the peace implementation process, our
IFOR contribution and through our reconstruction program in the
former Yugoslavia.
Canada participates fully in international efforts to ensure a
lasting peace to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and to
provide relief to its victims. Since the signing of the peace
agreement for Bosnia and Hercegovina and the agreement on the
peaceful reintegration of Serb controlled territory in Croatia,
Canada has focused its efforts on promoting security as well as
social and economic rehabilitation.
Since January 1996 Canada has maintained about 1,000 troops in
Bosnia and Hercegovina as part of the NATO led peace
implementation force, IFOR.
Canada's humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflicts
amounted to over $65 million between 1991 and 1995. These funds
purchased and delivered food, medical supplies, clothing and
shelter. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
International Co-operation announced in April 1996 that Canadian
reconstruction assistance would total up to $40 million this year.
Finally, on the issue of war crimes, Canada has consistently led
and supported efforts to investigate and prosecute cases involving
war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I asked in this House
in late September prior to a meeting of federal and provincial
finance ministers on the Canada pension plan.
I urged the government at that time not to rush into changes to
the Canada pension plan but rather to take the time to consult
seriously and study more carefully the impact of its regressive
proposals and look at progressive changes to the CPP instead of
hitting the most vulnerable beneficiaries of the system.
Many Canadians believe that the CPP is in a state of crisis, that it
will soon be bankrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
CPP was established in 1966 as a publicly administered socially
insurance program. It is funded entirely by contributions from
employers and employees. There is no government funding. It has
had a significant impact on reducing poverty among the elderly. It
is a pay as you go plan which has been strongly endorsed by the
chief actuary of Canada who says: ``It provides all the flexibility
needed to avoid bankruptcy''.
Because of the weak economy and the high levels of
unemployment and bankruptcy the level of contributions has been
lower than anticipated and disability claims up to 1994 were
higher, although since then they have dropped dramatically. Thus
there is certainly a need to readjust the level of contributions from
both employers and employees to ensure future viability. This
review process is built already into the CPP.
Instead of looking at how we can strengthen and improve the
CPP, in particular to enhance the level of benefits of the lowest
income seniors, the Liberal government aided and abetted by the
Reform Party and its right wing allies in the Fraser Institute and the
Globe and Mail is laying the groundwork to attack the fundamental
principles of the CPP.
(1915 )
In February, the Liberals issued a so-called information paper. It
was full of distortion and inaccuracies. It ignored some proposals
for improving the CPP and took as a given that benefits must be
cut. Indeed, the Liberal MP for Winnipeg North Centre, who
chaired the rushed consultations, suggested that current benefits be
cut for CPP beneficiaries. There was absolutely no analysis of the
disproportionate impact of the proposed cuts on women despite
evidence that it would be women who would be most hurt.
The Reform Party has suggested that we abolish the CPP and
instead adopt the model proposed by Chilean dictator Augusto
Pinochet: individual private RRSPs for everyone. This would
destroy income security for millions of elderly Canadians and
eliminate the many advantages of the CPP.
I urge the government to stop this rush to weaken the CPP and
instead examine ways that public pensions can be strengthened.
This is all the more important when an increasing number of
Canadians are working at part time, temporary and contractual
labour with no workplace pensions. Certainly RRSPs are not the
answer. Too many Canadians simply cannot afford to save and
more and more are cashing them in.
The New Democrat governments of B.C. and Saskatchewan
have opposed cuts in benefits and have suggested that along with a
modest increase in contributions, the federal and provincial gov-
5641
ernments consider increasing the maximum level of earnings
subject to contributions. This has also been proposed by the
National Council on Welfare.
Finally, I want to urge the government to listen with care to
people with disabilities and their spokespeople. They are deeply
concerned about the impact of cuts in federal transfer payments,
the elimination of the Canada assistance plan and the impact that
has on disability programs. There are already totally unacceptable
lengthy delays in adjudication of Canada pension plan disability
claims. We understand that there may be even more cuts in the
number of officers working in this area. Some individuals,
including those with fibromyalgia, complain of serious problems in
the present process.
Therefore, let no one suggest that disability programs under the
CPP be weakened or cut. People with disabilities are too often
already living below the poverty line.
In conclusion, I urge the Liberal government to strengthen the
Canada pension plan and reinforce its basic principles instead of
heeding the right wing voices that would destroy it. As well, the
government should help to educate Canadians about the strengths
of the CPP and help to rebut the distortions and myths that have
given rise to a lack of confidence in the future viability of the plan.
Canadian seniors have sacrificed much for my generation
through the depression and two world wars. They deserve dignity
in retirement. They deserve economic security. I trust that will be
the objective of the review of the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question. Unfortunately, he is a little bit misinformed.
The federal government is certainly not trying to push through a
package of cuts to the CPP. It is not trying to destroy the CPP but
rather make sure it is there for all of us.
Responsibility for the CPP is shared among the provinces and
the federal government. Changes to the CPP require the agreement
of two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population.
The government has been working with the provinces to find
balanced changes which both provinces and the federal government
can accept to ensure that the CPP is fair and sustainable for current
and future generations.
The hon. member also alleges that the federal government has
not consulted with Canadians on the CPP. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The government and all provinces agreed to a
consultation paper which was released last February.
The federal government and all provinces held extensive
consultations across the country from mid-April to mid-June. The
federal government and all provinces released a report on the
consultations in June.
It may be that the hon. member has not read the report and is not
aware of what ordinary Canadians think of the CPP. The federal
government is continuing to work to find a package of balanced
changes which all provinces, including British Columbia and
Saskatchewan, can accept. The goal is sustainability and fairness,
listening to Canadians' concerns about the CPP and responding
with a package of changes that ensure it is there for all of us.
(1920)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 11 I
asked the Minister of Transport, considering the increase in the
number of railway-related incidents and accidents in Canada, for a
moratorium on the closure of one of the three track maintenance
shops operated by CN in Charny, in my riding.
In his answer, the Minister of Transport said:
There are from time to time minor variations among all provinces but essentially
when we look at accidents in the various categories in which they are analyzed, there
has been a slight increase in some of the derailments but not at all untoward and
certainly not out of the ordinary with respect to the normal variation statistics.
I hope this intervention produced some results, since last week I
was told that CN had decided to extend the closure date. It will now
be November 30 instead of October 30. I had hoped for a longer
postponement, but still, a month is better than nothing.
I did not want to let that pass. One question during Oral Question
Period is not much. I wanted to explain why, and I had read an
article published in Le Soleil on August 15, which said: ``A 50 per
cent increase in derailments in Canada during the first seven
months of 1996: from 97 in 1995, their number has now reached
146. For the month of July alone, they more than doubled, from 9
to 20''.
I would like to give you some more statistics, since I have a few
minutes left. For instance, the number of serious injuries as a result
of accidents in 1995 was 40, but the annual average during the five
previous years was 24. In 1995, the number of deaths caused by
accidents was 87, while before it was 73. The total number of
accidents for the last five years has gone up from 632 to 770.
I hardly need recall the figures given by Le Soleil on the number
of accidents on the main lines, a main line that goes as far as the
Maritimes, where accidents increased by more than 50 per cent.
5642
These figures were not produced by an outside office but by
the railway safety service of the Department of Transport, which
is the minister's responsibility.
This is not the first time I put this question to the minister. I had
done so before, on June 12. And now, months later, after the
summer recess, and despite the statistics and what we read in the
newspapers, the minister answers: ``These variations are not
important''. We are talking about 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Francis Gerard LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
respond on behalf of the Minister of Transport to what was said by
the hon. member for Lévis.
The decision by CN to close the Joffre Shop, which is
responsible for track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul is
a business decision and is not related to safety. Transport Canada
cannot examine every business decision made by a private
company.
The relocation of the shop in Charny will have no impact on
safety. The shop was responsible for the overhaul of track
maintenance equipment. Equipment overhaul schedules have been
modified to provide for more frequent light maintenance during
operations instead of a complete overhaul. The location of the shop
responsible for general overhaul has no impact on track
maintenance itself. CN has announced that the shop will close on
November 30, 1996.
For 1996, the cumulative statistics as of September 30, the most
recent figures on main line accidents produced by the
Transportation Safety Board of Canada, show a drop in the total
number of accidents in Quebec and New Brunswick.
This fact is corroborated by the figures of Canadian National,
according to which the Champlain district, which covers Quebec
and the Maritimes, is the only district where the ratio of main line
accidents has dropped between 1995 and 1996. Track maintenance,
which is essential to safe operations, will continue with equipment
that is always in good condition. Transport Canada works together
with the railways in order to provide Canadians with the highest
possible level of railway safety.
Transport Canada railway safety officers monitor railway and
track maintenance operations, equipment and level crossings to
guarantee the safety of our railways. The Railway Safety Act
authorizes them to restrict railway operations if they discover
unsafe conditions and to impose fines on companies in case of
violations.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins): A motion to adjourn the
House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.)