CONTENTS
Thursday, October 31, 1996
Bill C-64. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5919
Bill C-65. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5919
Bill C-34. Consideration resumed of report stage andGroup No. 1 motions 5920
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5920
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5921
Division on the motion deferred 5925
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 5925
Motion moved and agreed to 5929
Consideration Resumed at Second Reading 5929
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 5929
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5932
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed on motion for secondreading and amendment 5938
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5940
Division on amendment deferred 5942
Bill C-47. Consideration resumed at second reading 5942
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5942
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 5948
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5951
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5954
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5954
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5954
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5955
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5956
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5956
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5958
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5958
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5958
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5958
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5959
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5960
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5960
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5963
Bill C-47. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5965
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 5968
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5974
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5977
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5981
Bill C-236. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5983
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5988
5917
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 31, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report
entitled ``Getting Government Right: Improving Results
Measurement and Accountability with Departmental Performance
Reports'', the President of the Treasury Board's annual report to
Parliament.
Madam Speaker, I also have the honour of tabling 16 pilot
reports on performance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour
today of tabling ``Getting Government Right: Improving Results
Measurement and Accountability''. This is the second annual
report of the President of the Treasury Board, a report that focuses
on results, performance and accountability.
My report does not stop at listing the key reviews and their
objectives, but also shows what Canadians have a right to expect
for their tax dollars.
[English]
This report states what 16 government departments and agencies
expect from their activities. We have devised a new format that
makes this report easy to read. Our new approach is based squarely
on program review decisions and departments' business plans. This
is the first time the government has compiled this information in
one document.
I am also tabling today 16 departmental performance reports.
These pilot documents demonstrate our new results based way of
managing in the public sector. They will help Canadians
understand the objectives of each department and agency as well as
the progress made in meeting those objectives.
Federal departments and agencies must from now on meet three
requirements: first, identify and communicate the results expected;
second, improve the measurement of these results; and, third,
improve the way they report to Parliament.
[Translation]
The documents I am tabling today show that we are honouring
our commitment to constantly improve the information we give to
Parliament and to Canadians, in a way that is open and transparent.
Having the right information at the right time will allow Parliament
to perform its work better. Improving the quality of information
will ensure better informed discussions and debates within
government, in this House, and among Canadians. The quality of
these debates will, in turn, lead to better decisions, improved
accountability and, ultimately, better government.
I would like at this point to draw attention to the untiring work of
the hon. member for St. Boniface, who has led parliamentarians in
defining their needs for information on expenditure management.
With his help, we have developed documents that are more concise,
more clear, and focused on results.
These reports are an important step in the process of planning for
the next fiscal year.
[English]
If the pilot documents meet our expectations, we plan to seek the
permission of the House to require all departments and agencies to
table separate reports on planning in the spring and on performance
in the fall.
5918
I think that the efforts of members of the government to
objectively assess how well they met their commitments will be
encouraging to everyone.
Focusing our attention on results and demonstrating our
achievements are an important step in our efforts to get government
right.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would invite the minister to continue along the path he
has begun toward more accountability and greater transparency in
public administration. In particular, I would invite him to ensure
that members of Parliament and ministers also have an obligation
of accountability and transparency.
(1010)
I would also invite him to keep the promises made by the Liberal
government about revitalizing democracy. Too often in the past
three years the impression has been that the public service and the
federal administration are often being led by the mandarins, that
the mandarins are often telling the ministers what to do, and the
ministers are letting themselves be pushed around by these
mandarins.
Revitalizing democracy, as the Liberals so well presented it
during the last electoral campaign, means more transparency in the
work of committees. This was not been the case in connection with
the family trusts, particularly the transfer to the United States of
two billion dollars, in which there was no transparency whatsoever,
but rather a systematic camouflage operation. I think there is a
good deal to be done in this area.
The question of revitalization of democracy, accountability and
transparency raises the whole question of political party funding.
We can boast of having a grassroots funding structure, but the
major federal parties do not have that.
I would therefore invite the minister to continue along the path
on which he has begun, so that accountability, transparency and
revitalization of democracy will be made concrete, rather than
remaining mere empty promises.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the work described by the minister stems from the
recommendations of the sixth report of the public accounts
committee tabled in March 1994.
There is no doubt that the President of the Treasury Board has
taken his responsibility to report to Parliament very seriously. We
now have several detailed documents from Treasury Board which
include the main estimates, the annual report on review and these
new performance reports.
It is now up to parliamentarians to do their job and review these
documents to see what is missing and what can be improved. The
Treasury Board Secretariat, along with the public accounts and the
auditor general, have also recognized the need to improve
measurement of results and to improve accountability in the public
sector.
I applaud the recognition but in reviewing these documents I
note that we still have a long way to go. There is one question to
ask at the end of the day after reading these reports. Has the system
been improved and will these reports assist in reviewing and
improving government policy? I do not feel this question has been
answered.
Last year Treasury Board reviewed 19 priorities or key
government programs. I do not dispute the fact that all 19 programs
were reviewed. Many of them were reviewed by standing or special
committees. After the review, have the necessary steps been taken
to improve the programs or to change the way the services are
delivered? Let me offer four examples.
Last year Treasury Board said that the government reviewed the
GST, family trusts, the infrastructure program and TAGS, the
Atlantic groundfish strategy. What has happened as a result of the
review? With the GST we note that the government has initiated
harmonization which includes four provinces, but not abolition.
The answer is to hide the GST in the sticker price which is not a
very creative solution.
The review has taken place on family trusts but the loophole is
still open. Infrastructure: $85,000 per job has been spent and the
unemployment rate is still 9.9 per cent. The youth unemployment
rate is still double that. There has not been a very creative response.
What have we learned about the TAGS program? It is in as bad if
not worse shape. Even those who have received the benefits of this
program are extremely unhappy and the Pacific fishery is still in a
terrible situation.
I do not believe we have made progress in these programs. The
review has been interesting but the outcomes have not illustrated
any improvements in the government's decision making process.
Please do not get me wrong. I can understand that quantum leaps
are virtually impossible. However, one critical attribute of a well
performing government organization is that it seeks optimum
performance. It will not settle for second best.
In the review of the GST, family trusts, infrastructure and TAGS
there are no descriptions of optimum performance. We have no
benchmarks to tell us whether or not the programs are performing
well or meeting the needs they were created to meet. Let me
illustrate my concerns with something more concrete.
One of the so-called faults of a public institution is that there is
no bottom line, no hard data, but in some cases this is not true. Last
month the auditor general reported on the quality of service in the
5919
public sector. He found that 30 million phone calls to government
departments went unanswered, 20 million in Revenue Canada
alone. This figure seems like a concrete starting point. Revenue
Canada is largely a service department. Finance sets most of our
tax policy.
(1015)
In looking at the performance report submitted by Revenue
Canada, the problem is mentioned which is a start. However, no
concrete plans are put forward to solve the problem. No
benchmarks are given to Parliament to help us eventually measure
the success or failure to deal with the problem.
The department says that Revenue Canada is aware that some
clients have had difficulty getting through by telephone. The first
step is to address the problem, which has been done. But where is
the progress? Where is the improvement? Meanwhile the
department continues to explore further opportunities for
redesigning and improving telephone systems.
This explanation would not fly at a board of directors meeting.
The CEO would ask for goals, plans and back-up plans. Once again
the Reform Party has asked the government to clarify its goals. Are
we trying to improve our programs or are we trying to explain away
our problems?
* * *
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present in both
official languages to the House, a report from the Canadian branch
of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the
42nd Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which was held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from August 17 to 24, 1996.
* * *
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-64, an act respecting the
inspection of fish and marine plants.
He said: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), I
wish to advise the House that it is the government's intention to
refer this bill to committee before second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-65, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure on behalf of the
Government of Canada to introduce for the first time federal
legislation to promote and protect endangered species across the
country.
Like my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, it is
also our intent pursuant to the same standing order to send this bill
to committee before the commencement of second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1020)
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the
House of Commons a petition stating that Canada is indivisible and
that the borders of Canada and its provinces and territories, as well
as its territorial waters, cannot be changed other than by all
Canadian citizens exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or by the process
prescribed in the Canadian Constitution.
This petition is signed by residents of Saint-Laurent, Montreal,
Dorval, Pointe-Claire, Lachine, Toronto, Pierrefonds and other
places in Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I welcome this opportunity to table
a petition signed by 860 petitioners, residents of the Outaouais
region, the federal riding of Verchères and the greater Montreal
area.
Your petitioners call upon Parliament to take steps to abolish the
Senate, and their petition is based on the following. First of all, the
Senate consists of non-elected members who are not accountable
for their actions; the Senate's operating budget is $43 million
annually; the Senate refuses to account for its votes to the
committees of the House of Commons; the Senate does not fulfil its
mandate for regional representation; and the Senate duplicates the
work done by the members of the House of Commons.
5920
Considering the need for adopting modern parliamentary
institutions and also the motion being debated by this House, on
which the House will be asked to vote next week, your petitioners
ask that the Senate be abolished.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I wish to
inform the House that because of the ministerial statement,
government orders will be extended by 11 minutes.
_____________________________________________
5920
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 30, consideration of Bill C-34,
an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural
products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the
Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance
Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of motions in
Group No. 1.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-34 and to have the
opportunity to briefly discuss the state of this country's agricultural
sector.
First let me address the matter of Bill C-34. Its basic objectives
are fairly admirable. It is supposed to streamline, to clarify, to
modernize, to incorporate. These modern day management
terminologies are rather appealing as debt and taxes rise and
services degenerate.
This bill seeks to combine four separate acts and an agricultural
program into one more concise piece of legislation. I am very much
in favour of reducing administration costs and bureaucratic
entanglements. The reduction of bureaucracy at any level is
something that the Reform Party has been strongly advocating ever
since the party's inception.
I am also in favour of making this Parliament more democratic.
Bill C-34 exemplifies how the Liberals, despite red book promises
to allow all MPs a greater role in drafting legislation, are
continuing to ram through legislation without proper consultation
from Canadians and their elected representatives in this House.
Each and every amendment to Bill C-34 proposed by the Reform
Party was turned down by the Liberal dominated agriculture
committee. It is my hope that we will have better luck with these
amendments now that they are in the House, but I will not hold my
breath.
(1025)
The point I want to make today is that I do not believe the
farmers who might be watching the debate are really all that
concerned about Bill C-34. The farmers in my riding of Prince
George-Peace River are struggling to bring in their crops. It is
winter up there now. I was home last weekend and saw that things
are disastrous, to say the least.
I spoke with the crop insurance people in Fort St. John which is
my hometown. They were telling me that in the B.C. Peace region
probably around 25 per cent of the crops on average have been
harvested. That would vary in some areas.
Last weekend I travelled to the small farming community of
Buick Creek which is north of Fort St. John. The farmers up there
were telling me that they have hardly turned a wheel. The land is
just a quagmire and they are lucky if they can get a load or two.
Obviously, less than 10 per cent has been harvested in that area.
Things do not look good.
As well, when I was speaking with the department of agriculture
representatives, specifically Bill Greenhalgh of the provincial crop
insurance branch, he informed me that only about 21 per cent of
this year's crop is covered by crop insurance. That is about 80,000
acres out of roughly 384,000 acres.
I urge the federal minister of agriculture to join with his
counterpart in British Columbia and tour the B.C. Peace region. He
should see the state that the crop is in himself. I cannot emphasize
this too strongly. He should go there to meet with farm groups and
talk to the individuals involved.
In consultation with my colleague from the Alberta riding of
Peace River I know that things are bad there as well. When it comes
to weather, the border between the provinces does not make a
difference. Although they are a little more advanced in the amount
of crop they have harvested in the Grand Prairie and Peace River
regions, there are pockets throughout the Peace River region which
have virtually harvested no crop. It will indeed be a very sad
Christmas for a lot of farm families in the Peace River country this
year.
The farmers were hopeful because of the improvement in grain
prices over the last few years and the amount of rainfall they had
5921
this summer. It looked like it was going to be a good crop.
However, when the rains continued into the harvest season, the
fields turned into quagmires. The farmers could not get their
equipment on the land in some areas. Harvest conditions were
non-existent. They would be lucky to have one day out of 10 when
they could go out in the fields with their combines.
Farmers have paid a horrific price to try to get the little bit of
crop off that they have. It will be years before they will see the true
cost in damage to equipment and land. I want to re-emphasize that
government representatives should be travelling to the Peace River
country to see firsthand what the situation is.
The second issue I want to raise on behalf of the farmers of our
area is that I wrote to the former Minister of Transport almost a
year ago raising the issue of rail shipping costs. There are two port
destinations to which Peace region farmers can ship their product
by rail, either Vancouver or Prince Rupert.
The port of Prince Rupert is severely underutilized, even though
it has facilities superior to the port of Vancouver in many respects.
It is ice free 12 months of the year and has a better berthing
capacity. That means a ship can be completely loaded at the
terminal, whereas in Vancouver because of water depth, a ship can
only be partially loaded at one terminal and then it must be moved
to another to be topped up. More important, Prince Rupert is a day
and a half shorter to grain export markets on the Pacific rim.
(1030)
Finally, I received a reply last spring from the present Minister
of Transport concerning the difference in the cost of rail transport
between the port of Prince Rupert and the port of Vancouver. In that
letter he stated that the problem of rail rates is a commercial matter
between the affected parties, namely the shippers and the two
railways and that it is government policy not to intervene in such
business decisions.
A month later, following continued protest, the transport
minister finally acknowledged the gravity of the situation and
initiated the northwest transportation corridor task force.
Ironically, this task force was not going to hold any hearings in the
Peace River country until the mayor of Dawson Creek and I made
our concerns known. Two meetings have now been scheduled for
early next month in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek so the farmers
in the area can make their concerns known to the northwest
transportation corridor task force.
It really comes down to the issue of the difference between the
rail rates. I am told that even with some recent changes, it still costs
$3.81 more per tonne to ship grain to Prince Rupert than to
Vancouver even though the distances are virtually the same. It used
to cost $8.08 more because of the switching charges B.C. Rail is
charged in Prince George to go on to CN track. I hope that issue
will be properly addressed.
In the time I have left, I would like to briefly touch on one other
issue, the shortage of rail cars in the Peace River country. Despite
the fact that we do not have much crop off, ironically we cannot get
enough rail cars to ship the crop that is there. My office spoke with
Mr. Mike Burton, an elevator agent in Fort St. John for Cargill, who
said that he had orders for 70 cars and could only get 17 the other
day.
I would suggest that Peace River farmers have been well
accustomed, to use an old farm saying, to sucking the hind teat,
when it comes to agricultural services and attention by the
government. We really do not believe it is the right way to go and
we would like to see the government pay more attention to the
Peace River country and our farming needs.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
before speaking on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague
from Kindersley-Lloydminster, I would like to comment on the
confusion that seemed to exist among the hon. member's
colleagues in the Reform Party reflecting in essence his party's
view of the thrust to be given the many legislative changes on
agriculture.
It is disappointing to see the reluctance of the Reform Party and
especially the ideological barriers colouring its rather limited
contribution to the ongoing debate in the Quebec and Canadian
agricultural sector.
Now, moving to serious matters, to Bill C-34. While the motion
before us today was amended a number of times in the past few
days, it still contains elements that run counter to the concern the
government must have for farm producers.
We are aware of the fact that Bill C-34 involves developing
programs for the marketing of agricultural products, which means
having products to market, which provide a profit for producers, at
a fair price to consumers. This means, for the producers, having
more effective tools to recover the costs associated with operating a
farm.
(1035)
The amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from the third
party removes two of the elements that form the very basis for this
bill. It would eliminate the government's role as regulator of the
agricultural market as set in clause 31 of the bill and ensure
impunity in the case of refusal to provide information leading to a
better analysis process in order to properly define the principles
underlying clause 31.
I get the impression that, through Bill C-34, my hon. colleague is
trying set a kind of precedent in order to apply the principle in the
debate on restructuring the Canadian Wheat Board. I must tell my
5922
hon. colleague from the Reform Party, however, that any such
legislative change can in no way apply to the Canadian Wheat
Board because of its status and prerogatives. In this context, what
the hon. member is asking in his motion is to limit the important
contribution of the government in stabilizing costs in the agri-food
sector.
Concretely, this enables the government to maintain the price of
a given product at a certain level in the event of crop failure or,
conversely, when harvest is too good and plentiful.
To illustrate the problem, we could take the example of the 1988
maple syrup production. You may recall that, in 1988, record
amounts of maple syrup were produced. Consequently, maple
syrup producers found themselves with barrels of grade A1 and
even AA syrup that they could not sell even for less than a basic
price, to at least cover their operation costs. In the case of maple
syrup, the government had decided to support prices by buying up
maple syrup surpluses from producers, and thus avoid a price drop.
Stocks were stored, to be put on the market later, at a time of
relative shortage, or in a year when production would be much
more limited. This is why the price of maple syrup fluctuates very
little from year to year. The Reform member seems not to know
this basic economic rule.
Based on the same approach, the second motion of the Reform
member seeks to ensure impunity for an action preventing the
government from obtaining information that might be necessary to
fulfil its role of price stabilizer. Obviously, and you will agree with
me, this way of thinking is totally unacceptable, since it defeats
government efforts to make things better for farmers.
The member's logic is even more flawed when you consider the
high level of confidentiality governing this type of government
intervention. From an administrative point of view, no one has any
business knowing someone's personal situation, since the
substance of this bill is to take action for the good of farm
operators, based on a global and collective vision.
Before concluding, I remind the House that Bloc Quebecois
members were and continue to be in agreement with the general
principle of Bill C-34. However, we strongly oppose the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. We care too much about farmers, given
their role, to risk a lowering of their industry's standards of
operation.
(1040)
In conclusion, I ask Reformers to reconsider their opinion and
their position, for the good of consumers and farm producers.
Should there be a very bad crop, prices could increase unduly
and eliminate a number of farmers. In three, four or five years,
there could be a shortage of farmers, or else prices could remain
unusually high.
For the good of the general public and of farmers, consumers and
processors, it is important to support the substance of Bill C-34 and
to oppose the two amendments proposed by the Reform member.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, you have
played a little trick on me, because you told me there would be a
Reform Party member going ahead of me. I therefore had 10
minutes to prepare, but no matter, I will give my speech anyway.
As you know, the riding of Lotbinière, which I have the great
honour to represent, is one of the largest agricultural ridings in
Quebec. It is therefore with great interest and a sense of duty,
Madam Speaker and dear colleagues, that I rise today to speak to
Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.
First of all, I am pleased to note that the bill tabled is intended to
combine four acts into a single act that provides support for the
marketing of agricultural products.
This bill affects the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie
Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products
Cooperative Marketing Act and the Agricultural Products Board
Act. It also takes in the Cash Flow Enhancement Program.
My party, the Bloc Quebecois, is generally in favour of the
objectives of Bill C-34, because it is essentially consistent with
what the industry is calling for and seems more in line with our
values and agricultural development models in the province of
Quebec.
Nonetheless, I would point out an important budgeting
inconsistency. If clauses 25 and 30 are financial in nature, the
government hopes to be able to pay farmers under the advance
payments program and the price pooling program.
We have learned that $40 million a year for three years have
been set aside under the advance payments program. In other
words, there should be $120 million after three years. Where it all
goes badly wrong is when Agriculture and Agri-Food starts to take
money for marketing programs out of the envelope reserved for the
income protection program.
This transfer, this misappropriation frankly, of envelope funds
means an equivalent reduction in the money available for
protecting the incomes of farmers. By acting in this manner, the
federal government is unfortunately once again cutting into
Quebec's share.
Like it or not, Quebec's share of income protection programs for
farmers is already, yes already, lower than what it is entitled to,
given the relative weight of agriculture for Quebec.
(1045)
There is a distinct feeling that once again, Quebec gets the short
end of the stick. It is the same old story: Quebec does not get its fair
share, on a per capita basis.
5923
You will remember what my colleague, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, said in the House last week when he
named various sectors in which Quebec did not receive its fair
share.
Remember the case of raw milk cheese, where more than 50 per
cent of the producers were from Quebec. A ban on this product can
have a very serious impact on Quebec producers. My point is that
when the government introduces measures, as in the case of raw
milk cheese, it often does so at the expense of Quebecers.
To get back to the bill on agricultural marketing, we should insist
that the budget for advance payments programs not be taken out of
the budget for income protection programs. I think that is a major
irritant for farmers in Quebec.
When that happens, the farms in my riding and throughout
Quebec will at least be treated fairly under this program.
The budget envelope for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
income protection programs in 1997-98 is $600 million. This
represents a drop of $250 million or 30 per cent from the prebudget
level of $850 million. If the federal government goes ahead and
siphons off funds from the budget for income protection programs,
$120 million will have been taken out of this envelope over a
period of three years.
To be perfectly frank, it is unconscionable to use part of the
budget for protection of farm incomes to finance the advance
payments program which, I may remind the House, is a program
for the marketing of agricultural products. What connection is
there between the advance payments program and income
protection programs? None at all.
When the Minister of Finance tables his budget, does he do so
fully intending to deceive taxpayers in Canada and Quebec? Should
the budget not do what it is supposed to do? That would make
sense. However, if we follow the logic of this government, should
we infer that the existing figures do not mean a thing since they no
longer correspond to the envelope they were supposed to cover? I
am sorry but this is outrageous.
The budget for the income protection program is already
inadequate, so there is certainly no reason to take money out of this
budget, unless the government wants to penalize Quebec farmers.
If the federal government, through the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food, takes money set aside for income protection
programs to finance the advance payments program, which is a
program for marketing agricultural products, why did it not make
those changes right now?
First of all, it would take real political will to change the
situation and ensure that the money used for advance payments
comes directly out of the funds set aside for the agricultural
products marketing programs. I think the government should invest
more money in the budget for marketing programs and stop cutting
and siphoning off funds from one budget envelope to another. The
solution is simple, but it is also vitally important.
As a result, in the future, the incomes of farmers in Lotbinière
and throughout Quebec would be better protected. They could also
take $120 million from the budget allocated to income protection
plans, but we would not be any better off than today in that there
would be less money for Quebec farmers in this area and
distribution would be even more inequitable for the other nine
provinces in the Canadian federation.
Another possibility mentioned by some would be for the
government to inject new money into programs aimed at marketing
agricultural products and transfer money from the budget
earmarked for income protection programs.
(1050)
In my opinion, this is a partly acceptable solution. That is why
my party, the Bloc Quebecois, is asking the federal government to
make the changes required to correct the situation and ensure that
Quebec farmers are treated fairly.
In clear, simple terms, we are asking the government to take the
money for the advance payments from the budget set aside for
income protection programs. This is a major irritant for
agricultural producers in Quebec, including, of course, those in my
riding of Lotbinière.
The government tells us this bill will have no impact on Quebec
producers receiving advance payments, except that it would be
much harsher on those who do not repay their advance payments.
We can only conclude that this bill will have a much bigger impact
on Quebec producers.
Furthermore, with its new eligibility rules, Bill C-34 would
exclude any kind of co-operative marketing. In fact, one of the
eligibility requirements for producers must be rejected, especially
the one about their being able to decide when to sell their crops.
This requirement would exclude crops marketed co-operatively.
One of those most affected would be the VEGCO Group of Quebec.
In closing, I agree that the federal government should use
taxpayers' money efficiently by rationalizing its programs so that
farmers receive the same benefits and meet the same obligations.
But there is a major inconsistency in the way the budget is
allocated and, if the government were left to itself, it would reduce
Quebec's share of income protection programs even further.
I feel I have a duty to defend the interests of the farmers in my
riding of Lotbinière and those of Quebecers.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to have the opportunity to
speak on
5924
the act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural
products. First of all, I think it is important, especially in light of
the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, to realize that the
basic principle that matters here is that agriculture is a unique and
very different industry, and that it has to be dealt with as such.
A well targeted approach must be used so as to not do this
industry a disservice in trying to put it on the same playing field as
other industries. Agriculture, as you know, is dependent on the
weather, markets, all kinds of factors that are intangible and
difficult to predict.
The Reform motion seeks to delete the clause enabling the
minister to buy, sell or import agricultural products so that prices
will be more stable, thereby improving marketing conditions. My
reaction, after meeting with farm producers in my riding over the
summer, is that the Reform Party is displaying a rather blatant
ignorance of several industrial sectors. There are many areas of the
agricultural industry where such measures are required.
There are indeed many areas, be it maple syrup, potato or milk
production, where the government must have a handle to regulate
the market. Otherwise, the situation will revert to what it was 15 or
20 years ago. One year, producers make good money, but the next
year their profits drop and the operation has to close down. This is
not good for anyone involved, neither for the family business nor
for the economy at large.
(1055)
It is imperative that this amendment be defeated so that the
minister may continue to exercise a regulating role, ensuring some
stability for our economy and our agricultural industry. Just
compare the typical farm producer, in Quebec and Canada to their
counterpart in the U.S., where they practice this kind of extreme
competition without any government involvement, and you will
see that the economic situation of American producers is definitely
not as good.
American farmers are much more dependent on economic
cycles. By comparison, in Quebec and in Canada, we have
managed to develop an agriculture which, although it is not easy
and requires a lot of effort and sacrifices on the part of farmers,
allows them, through stabilization policies, to carry on their
operations. Quebec was a pioneer in this regard. It has been
periodically and systematically involved, to provide good
conditions to its farmers and make sure that succeeding generations
would take over farming operations.
Amendments such as the one proposed today by the Reform
Party would also have the effect, in the medium term, of creating a
great deal of uncertainty about agriculture. This is an industry in
which a bad year, or a surplus that cannot be disposed of, creates a
serious problem. People simply cannot invest their life in such an
industry.
The Reform Party should go back into the field. It may not
represent the same type of farmers as we have in Quebec, but its
amendment is certainly not very appealing.
The other aspect is one that does not necessarily concern our
farmers, but is nevertheless important from a moral point of view.
An amendment such as the one proposed by the Reform Party
would impede international assistance, in that the Canadian
government would no longer have the means to take action in
emergency situations around the world, when it is necessary to
ensure that populations have food in situations of crisis.
We have to maintain the image developed over the years by our
country. It is generally agreed that Canada does a lot at the
international level. There are many flaws to work on, but the
general principle must be maintained. Unfortunately, the
amendment proposed by the Reform Party would not allow us to
meet that objective.
I also want to stress the fact that we must give particular
attention to small producers. This summer, I met with producers,
including some from the maple syrup industry. Maple syrup
production is an industry with big and well-organized chains that
offer interesting product lines. However, we should promote
home-made products that could be exported.
Obviously, maple syrup is one such product, but if we wanted to
set up a guaranteed vintage program, for example, like the ones for
wine and other products, if we wanted to single out our product and
obtain a higher price because of the quality or special
characteristics of maple syrup from a particular area, for instance,
we still have quite a long way to go.
Governments are very sensitive to lobbying from groups of well
organized stakeholders, but the people who can help small rural
companies to grow must still make a major effort. They must be
given access to foreign markets, and I hope that a bill such as the
one we are about to pass will be a help and not a hindrance.
In summary, the government must be able to maintain its role of
protecting the income of farmers. The government must not be
prevented from buying up surpluses, from taking the necessary
time. In this connection, we have a very interesting example. A few
years back, there was a surplus of apples. The federal government
bought up a large quantity of them and was then able to resell them
to a company that makes juice. In this case, the producer got his
price, the government was able to cover its expenses and, in
addition, the juice was produced in Quebec, in Canada.
(1100)
This allowance for a regulatory role meant that jobs were
maintained, production kept up and the link between the person
doing the processing, producing the apple juice, and his market was
5925
also maintained. The market is therefore not disrupted, resulting in
greater stability for the agricultural economy.
This is perhaps what agriculture needs the most. Yes, we have
good producers, yes, we must adjust in terms of research and
development. The government has done some things that we did
not like. We must not, however, lose sight of the important fact that
if we compare agriculture in our country to that in other countries,
there are certain advantages that we want to keep. We will not
improve the situation by creating uncertainty for producers.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the
Reform Party's amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill
C-49, the Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary
Measures) Act.
Wherever I travel in my constituency or throughout the country I
speak to people who are terribly cynical. They are not cynical about
life necessarily, but they are definitely cynical about the political
process.
For example, a couple of weeks ago I met a lady who told me in
very plain language her estimation of politicians. I was a bit
surprised at the vociferous nature of her attacks. She said: ``They
say one thing and do another''. We all know this is not necessarily
true, or it is not altogether true, but it gives an idea of the cynical
attitude that exists in our country.
The pervasiveness of the cynical attitude begs a major question:
Why is this so? Why are so many Canadians so cynical about their
political leaders and the political system? Why are they so angry?
One of the biggest reasons I have heard why politicians have
such a bad reputation is the lavish patronage this government, like
governments before it, has dished out and still dishes out to its
party friends.
As members of Parliament we want Canadians to have faith in
their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will do what they say
they will do fairly and honestly. We need a measure of this trust to
do our jobs properly in representing our constituents and the
nation. As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive
reputation for ourselves simply by doing our jobs well.
(1105 )
For example, we could pass legislation which would eliminate
partisan appointments to key government positions. That would
ensure that key appointments would be ratified by an appropriate
body.
Unfortunately Bill C-49 is not that kind of legislation. For that
reason it should not pass the House of Commons. Bill C-49 allows
the shameless abuse of patronage to continue. This bill will only
perpetuate and reinforce the cynical attitude that Canadians already
have toward their leaders.
How does patronage relate to Bill C-49? This bill is supposed to
be the second legislative step in the government's program to
streamline the operations of federal agencies, boards and
commissions. It is also supposed to change the appointment
process,
5926
reduce the number of governor in council or cabinet appointments,
more closely manage some agencies and eliminate redundant
bodies.
This bill has an enormous flaw. It does not ensure that
employment positions to government agencies, tribunals and
boards are awarded strictly on the merit principle. It allows the
government to continue to build its legacy of patronage abuse.
A moment ago I mentioned that partisan appointments made by
this government and former governments helped to create the
cynical attitude Canadians have toward politicians. Patronage
causes people to think this way for two distinct reasons. First, the
government broke its word to Canadians regarding patronage
appointments. The Liberal red book, now called by many
Canadians the Liberal dead book, promised that a Liberal
government would make appointments to boards, commissions and
agencies on the basis of competence, but that has not happened.
These positions are still granted to the Liberal Party faithful.
When Canadians are not told the truth, who can blame them for
being cynical? Just to give an idea of how blatant the Liberals have
been in breaking their word, let me read a bit of their patronage
record.
First, there have been 18 partisan appointments to the Senate, the
institution the Prime Minister said in 1991 should be elected, equal
and effective. Second, Richard Campbell, a former campaign
manager, was appointed a director of Marine Atlantic. Third,
Richard Cashin, a longstanding member of the Liberal Party and
MP from 1962 to 1965, was appointed a member of the Canadian
Transport Harvesting Adjustment Board. Fourth, Dorothy Davey,
wife of former Liberal Senator Keith Davey, was appointed to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. Fifth, Fred Drummie, the
executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence, was
appointed to the International Park Commission Board. Sixth,
Raymond Guay, Liberal MP from 1963 to 1980, was appointed to
the International Trade Tribunal. Seventh, Roy Heenan, partner in
former Prime Minister Trudeau's law firm, was appointed to the
CBC board of directors. Eighth, Ethel Teitelbaum, Pierre Trudeau's
former executive assistant, was appointed to the Immigration and
Refugee Board. It goes on and on.
This Liberal government, after saying it was going to be above
board with Canadians, after saying it was not going to be like the
Tories and after saying it was going to make appointments to
boards and commissions based on merit, not based on loyalty to the
Liberal Party, has made over 200 patronage appointments. What a
shame.
What is even more shameful is that some Liberal members, point
blank, support these practices. Last week the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood said: ``I believe in patronage. I have
always believed in patronage. I am not going to change''. It is no
wonder Canadians are cynical when there are members of
Parliament who have this kind of attitude.
Patronage appointments create cynical attitudes for a second
reason. It says to people that the government is more interested in
scratching its friends' backs than in protecting the interests of our
nation and treating every Canadian fairly.
For example, there is a serious problem in our justice system.
Since coming to power the Liberals have appointed lawyers who
are not competent crown prosecutors. When a judge must depend
only on the evidence brought to the courtroom by the lawyers and
the prosecution's presentation of evidence is lacking or faulty, the
judge still must adjudicate on the basis of the evidence and the law.
No wonder justice is not done. No wonder the justice system is not
protecting our citizens from criminals. No wonder people are
cynical, when the evidence is not properly presented and the judge
is forced to let people go free without facing the consequences of
serious criminal activity.
(1110 )
Patronage jeopardizes the interests of Canadians when political
appointments are made to governing bodies like the National
Parole Board and the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now even
these boards are left without the credibility they need to properly
serve their purposes.
By all the criminals released from jail on some form of early
release in 1995-96, a total of 165 serious crimes were committed.
These included 15 murders, 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual
assaults, 21 major assaults and 71 armed robberies.
We were told when the National Parole Board released these
individuals they were not considered risks. Boy, was it wrong.
Historically people who sit on parole boards have been well paid
patronage appointees with little or no knowledge of criminal
justice. Parole board members now must have some background in
criminology or corrections. But the point is still the same. When
Liberal cronies with very limited knowledge of the criminal justice
system are appointed to the National Parole Board, the chance of
poor decision making increases. Canadians need and deserve
certainty of safety before the Liberal government looks after its
party needs.
The same case can be made for the Immigration and Refugee
Board. Many of the 215 appointees to this board are political
appointees. For example, I found a list printed in the Vancouver
Sun, October 5, 1995. The list outlines the British Columbia
Immigration and Refugee Board members and when they were
appointed. Only nine of the nineteen appointees have any formal
training or education in immigration law. Immigration and Refugee
Board members are responsible for hearing the oral testimony of a
asylum seekers and for determining whether claimants qualify for
refugee status. When the government appoints its cynical buddies
and bagmen to the IRB, incompetent decisions are a certainty.
In March last year the citizenship and immigration committee
heard from two former members of the IRB. These men stated that
5927
at least half their former colleagues did not have the educational
expertise needed to do their jobs. Let me quote from the testimony
of one of those witnesses, Mr. Bauer. He said:
I would say, and I think most of my colleagues would have agreed with me, that
about a quarter of the members of the IRB are incapable of even properly conducting
a meeting. Even as second members, some of them are a bit embarrassing. I say that
rather reluctantly, and I do not say it lightly, but I can assure you that it is true.
Approximately another quarter, with a tremendous amount of training, education,
coaching and monitoring, might be able to barely get through the process
single-handedly, although I would think there would be a number of legal and
procedural problems arising that would cause a great deal of difficulty with the
board.
We have seen the incompetence described by Mr. Bauer in
action. For example, on November 12, 1995 the Federal Court of
Canada had to throw out a refugee board decision that denied a
woman asylum. This woman was first ordered by her boss to
submit to sexual assault and then convicted of prostitution. Mr.
Justice Frederick Gibson who overturned the decision said ``there
should be a new hearing because the board made legal mistakes and
overlooked key evidences''.
This is a classic example of what happens when patronage
appointments are made to government boards. We cannot blame
people for being cynical when we have a government that takes
care of its friends better than it takes care of the people of our
refugee and immigration process and those seeking safety of
Canadians.
Patronage not only endangers the safety and interests of
Canadians, but it treats people unfairly. For example, the electoral
returning officer in my riding is now a Liberal appointee. The
person may be able to do the job competently but that is not the
point. The person who had the job was competent, had done it
through two elections but was fired to make room for this person.
The job was not advertised. There was no open competition. How
do the people in Cariboo-Chilcotin know that the most qualified
person got this job? In fact, they do not know. What they know for
sure, however, is that the Liberal government is more interested in
doing favours for its friends than in treating Canadians fairly.
(1115 )
A moment ago I mentioned that the Canadian public is cynical
toward politicians. The main reason for this cynicism is the
patronage appointments that this government and the Tory
government before it dished out and still dish out to their party
friends. Just as the government is to blame for the problem, it could
be part of the solution if it chose to do so.
The way for the government to give Canadians confidence and
earn their trust is by giving them a fresh start. This means taking
the Reform platform and putting it into action. We have an entire
section on how to make politicians accountable.
Reform's fresh start to Canadians, guaranteed, will do the
following. First, it will give Canadians the tools to ensure
politicians keep their promises by bringing in the means to recall
MPs who do not keep their word. Second, it will provide Canadians
with a better representation, more direct input into the democratic
process, and the ability to hold politicians accountable for their
decisions. Third, it will allow freer voting in the House of
Commons. Fourth, it will replace the current undemocratic,
unrepresentative Senate with a Senate that is elected, equal and
effective. Fifth, it will give voters direct input into the decision
making process through referendums and citizens' initiatives on
important issues. Sixth, it will involve citizens directly in
amending our most basic law, the Constitution.
Most important in relation to this debate, Reform's fresh start
guarantee will end patronage appointments by ensuring that
employment positions and contracts are awarded on the merit
principle and subject to open scrutiny by parliamentary
committees.
If the government amended Bill C-49 to include this kind of
provision, it would be taking an important step toward earning the
trust of Canadians and putting the needs and concerns of the
Canadian people over the interests of its Liberal friends.
In closing, I reiterate that a cynical mood exists in Canada
toward politicians and their public institutions. Patronage is one of
the root causes of this mindset. As members of Parliament we want
Canadians to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident in their
politicians, that their leaders will have the interests of the people
first in mind and that we will act fairly and honestly in representing
Canada and our constituents.
As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive
reputation for ourselves. For example, we could pass legislation
that would eliminate partisan appointments to key government
positions. Unfortunately Bill C-49 is not this kind of legislation.
For this reason it should not pass the House of Commons. Bill C-49
allows the shameless abuse of patronage to continue. It will only
perpetuate and reinforce the cynical attitude Canadians already
have toward their leaders.
Patronage creates a cynical mindset for two reasons: first, the
government broke its word to Canadians regarding patronage
appointments and, second, patronage says to people that the
government is more interested in scratching its friends' backs than
in protecting the interests and needs of society and treating every
Canadian fairly.
Therefore I urge the government to pass legislation not only to
end patronage appointments but to ensure that employment
positions and contracts are awarded on the merit principle. This is
one way we can earn the trust and confidence of people. It would
also be the fresh start Canadians are asking of their political leaders
and political institutions. It would be a fresh start that Canadians
truly deserve.
5928
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments.
The government's criterion is based on competence and merit. It
is an open process. The jobs are advertised and appear in the
official Gazette. Our selection process is transparent and is based
on job descriptions.
What the member said are his words and his imagination. The
record will show that since we have taken office the government
has appointed approximately 2,000 people to agencies, boards,
commissions and crown corporations since November 4, 1993. Of
this number 525 were reappointments. We do not know these
people, but they were reappointed obviously because they did a
good job. They knew what they were doing. They carried out their
functions quite well. We had transfers and promotions of persons
appointed by the previous government. The government then had a
principal concern, that appointees should qualify for the jobs they
do.
(1120)
It is meanspirited to make comments that cannot be backed. It is
meanspirited to say the government is not here to work for the
people. That is why I came here. I was one of the first to speak in
the House and I said that integrity and competence were important
to me. That is the way I operate. I am sure most members of the
House would like to do that.
The member talked about the member for
Broadview-Greenwood. As I recall at the time the member said
that bankers or industrialists appoint people they can work with,
people they had confidence in and people with ability. These
people are from right across the board. They may be Reformers,
Conservatives or Liberals. Why would that exclude them from the
job?
When the hon. member makes these comments he should give
examples. He should make them transparent and ask questions in
the House. That would make the process better. He should not just
rise to say that government is bad. I do not think so. We have play a
significant and important role for the people of Canada. The people
of Canada want us to be transparent. They want us to be honest. I
think most of us are.
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I am dismayed the hon. member
paid so little attention to what I was saying. I backed up what I said
with concrete illustrations.
With regard to the matter of competency, I pointed out the
serious problem in our justice system with the appointment of
prosecuting attorneys who are not qualified and who are not doing
their jobs well. Judges have problems dealing with evidence that is
not properly presented and are unable to hold people to account for
serious criminal activity. That is a very serious situation. It points
directly to the patronage appointments of lawyers who are not
qualified to do their jobs.
I also mentioned the situation in my constituency where the job
of electoral returning officer was not advertised. We only found out
about the appointment by accident. I talked to the previous
returning officer and learned he had been fired although he had
done an admirable job through two previous elections.
He was not a Reformer. He was not politically motivated but he
was not a Liberal either. He does not have the job, which he regrets.
He did the job very conscientiously. He took it very seriously. He
entered into the program of witnessing elections in other parts of
the world on behalf of the government. He did an outstanding job. I
do not speak about him as a Reformer because he is not one. He
was a credible returning officer who no longer has the job.
I am sorry that in asking the question the member is not aware of
what is happening within his own party. It is a serious situation in
terms of the results of appointing people who are not qualified. It is
also serious because it feeds the cynicism of people toward their
political leaders. Many of us are trying to change this reputation
but we cannot do so until the government with the power to change
begins to act in that way.
(1125 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, could the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin advise the
House if in his opinion there are circumstances upon which it is
appropriate for the government of the day to make appointments
based on the party or philosophical approach of a person in any
circumstance? Is there an occasion when patronage is an
appropriate consideration in government appointments?
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, the blatant patronage we see
today that has no reference to the qualifications of the person
involved but simply the loyalty of the person to the party is what I
am speaking about.
It would be unfortunate if the qualifications did not list the
needs, the intention of the governing party and the direction it is
going so that the person appointed can properly act out government
policy.
I am speaking against are people who are not qualified and are
being appointed primarily, if not only, on the basis of their party
relationship. That has to come second. The needs of the nation
must come first.
Just to emphasize what I have said to my hon. colleague, it
would be unfortunate if the government selected or appointed a
person who was not in tune with the direction the government had
in mind in changing programs. It would be unfortunate if a person
was appointed to maintain the status quo when change was needed.
5929
The government making the selections must do it very carefully.
It must be open. The qualifications must be listed so that the
general public knows what they are and can find out if they are
interested. The appointment should be made with the
government's needs in mind and ratified by the appropriate body.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, what does the hon. member feel should be added to the
bill? What kind of an amendment could be made to make political
patronage more or less vanish or disappear? That is something that
must happen.
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I am pleased my colleague
asked this question. Perhaps the single most effective means of
accomplishing that purpose would be to have appointments ratified
in a public forum such as a parliamentary committee. If that were
the case the public would know, scrutinize, understand and make
its objections if it was not properly done.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a quick
comment. In my previous role I spent 19 years in municipal
politics. There is no easy way of finding people.
At one time we had to hire a police chief. People said let the rest
of the police chiefs select the person. If the person is not screened,
in the culture of that organization they may hide all the facts. It is
the minister's decision. There is no magic way of hiring people.
Does the hon. member think that all people are perfect and his
selection process is a perfect one?
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that
there is no magic in the process, but the process must be open. The
Canadian people, the appropriate people, must be involved. It must
be more than a political adventure in appointments. When
openness is there, when people know what jobs are available, what
they can apply for and when the applicant who is successful has the
scrutiny of not only the government but of the public at large, the
process will become much fairer and will much better serve the
needs of the Canadian people.
* * *
(1130 )
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That any recorded division requested Thursday, October 31, 1996, on any
government orders, including the divisions already requested on Bill C-34, and on
Friday, November 1, 1996 on the address debate, be deemed deferred until Tuesday,
November 5, 1996 at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today against Bill C-49, an act to authorize
remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of
certain administrative tribunals. We must particularly note the
word ``disciplinary''. The minister wishes to have the power to
smack his administrators around a bit. Our colleague and fellow
member of the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment stating
that there ought to be a parliamentary mechanism governing the
appointment or revocation of the appointment of members of
administrative tribunals.
As my introduction, I would like to offer a brief explanation of
what administrative tribunals are, what their importance is. Bill
C-49 makes major changes to the operation of administrative
tribunals. Although these modifications have not attracted much
media interest, they are nonetheless important.
The administrative tribunals, while often less well known than
the superior courts, nevertheless have major impacts on the daily
lives of Canadians and Quebecers. Often they bring down far more
decisions than do the superior courts. What is more, the
consequences of their decisions are often very important to citizens
and to the state, whether Canada or Quebec. Indeed, the
significance the administrative tribunals have assumed in recent
years is now an accepted fact. They have become the preferred
decision-making venue, where citizens wishing to confront
government regularly stand up for their rights.
I will name a few of these tribunals to show how significant they
are and the role they play in our society. The Veterans Review and
Appeal Board, the agricultural products review board, the
Canadian Grain Commission, the Immigration and Refugee Board,
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition
Tribunal-this one is very important-the Copyright Board, the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
These are commissions and tribunals that play a very important
role in our society.
The Liberals have decided to change the way these tribunals are
administered. This will have serious consequences. I believe the
main reason, and they have said so, is to cut positions and
administrative spending. That seems legitimate. But if we take a
really good look, it is not the real reason.
The changes the government makes will infringe on the
independence of these tribunals and will also further centralize the
powers of the federal government in Ottawa. The real reason for
these changes in the constituent legislation of administrative
tribunals is
5930
mainly that the government wants to designate the presidents
instead of appointing them.
(1135)
To designate is a very serious matter. When one designates, one
can also revoke a decision very quickly, and as mentioned in the
legislation, if the minister responsible feels that he has a role to
play and the president of a tribunal does not exactly reflect the
ideas of the minister or the government, he can be removed-in
other words, fired-for reasons that are more or less substantiated.
This is supposed to enhance administrative flexibility, but it is a
very serious matter, and I will explain this in a few minutes.
In the past when the president of a tribunal was appointed, it was
for two, five or seven years. This created a certain stability and a
certain independence in the way the president made his decisions.
However, if the president is designated and can be removed at any
time, this means he will always be at the beck and call of the
government in power.
I think the main reason behind this bill is to make it easier to
appoint friends of the government. As you know, the Conservatives
were in power for nine years. During that time they changed
practically all the incumbents, all 2,000 of them, on these tribunals.
These are very attractive appointments to positions that are very
well paid.
The Liberals have been in power since 1993. Three years later,
they now realize they cannot hand out these positions fast enough
to their friends. They are changing the act to be able to do so
quickly, in other words, to have the power to fire most of the people
who are sitting on these tribunals and put their friends in instead.
To me this kind of bill is outrageous. That is why I am pleased to
have this opportunity to criticize publicly the current government's
conduct in this respect.
We know that many of the people who will be appointed are
friends of the government. In fact, during the last election
campaign, one of the Liberal Party's officials came out and said
publicly to the defeated candidates that they did not have to worry,
that a job would be found for them, that there were plenty of jobs,
and that those who so desired would be able to get a job from the
federal government.
I think that today, the government has realized it cannot appoint
its friends fast enough. So they are changing the legislation to make
it easier to remove incumbents and appoint their Liberal friends to
these administrative tribunals.
I believe that is the main reason for all these changes in the
legislation. This is why they must be denounced, and also why my
friend, the hon. member for La Prairie, has presented his
amendment calling for the House of Commons to have a say in the
appointment of members of administrative tribunals.
If we are to have responsible governments in future, we must not
use this as a pretext for forcing people to back the winning horse. In
recent years, we have noticed that often those involved in politics
or political organizations are like weather vanes. Often, if the
government is winning, if people or polls say that this or that party
is on top, many people change sides at the last minute. In the final
weeks, rapid changes can be seen taking place. Often one of the
reasons they do so is to have a chance at an appointment to some
commission or other.
In this sense, this does not seem good either. People involved in
politics must be prompted to do so by their ideals, their belief in a
party's philosophy, not because they are angling for a job, that is to
say serving their own interests. In my opinion, if we want to have
governments that are responsible and capable of selling their
ideals, the machinery must be cleaned up, and when it comes down
to it, this bill does the opposite. It has people working with a view
to a chance at job in future if their party wins the elections. These
amendments on the appointment of members of administrative
tribunals are, to my mind, quite shameful.
(1140)
What is unfortunate with this bill is that it will hamper the
independence of the tribunals. Our judicial systems have always
been world-renowned. Our judicial systems and our tribunals were
truly stable. There was no interference between the legislative
system and the justice system. What the minister and the
government are doing now is providing the government with the
power to interfere directly in tribunal decisions. A tribunal must be
independent of the legislators.
What the government is proposing is exactly the opposite. It
wants to interfere, by equipping itself with means of discipline.
That is what is written into the law, moreover. It will be able to take
disciplinary measures in order to direct the administrative
tribunals, which means direct government involvement in the
decisions of the administrative tribunals. This strikes me as very,
very serious.
As we know, judges in the judicial system are appointed until the
age of 75. These long appointments make it possible for the
judicial system to be stable and totally independent. What the
minister proposes is the exact opposite in that it would make
administrative tribunals less stable.
The president of the Quebec Bar Association was very clear
about this when she said that ``the lack of job security may have an
unexpected psychological impact on the decisions of a person who
may be more concerned about pleasing the government than
rendering a fair judgment''. As I pointed out earlier, these people
will be more concerned about pleasing the government and meet-
5931
ing its expectations from day to day than about making the
decisions they must be free to make.
This bill and these changes are a disgrace because they do the
exact opposite. This goes against common sense. We want our
society to move forward, but the government is taking us back to
the 1920s, the 1930s, the Duplessis era, or the turn of the century.
This kind of measure is totally unacceptable.
We often criticize the United States for the way they do things.
But I can tell you that in the U.S., for example, tribunal members
are appointed by committees, which, I think, is a much more
equitable approach. Committee chairs and members should not be
appointed by the party in power alone, but by House of Commons
committees.
(1145)
The government could propose names, but the appointments
would be debated in committee so that these decisions can be made
at arm's length from those in power and committee members
chosen for their abilities and not their political ties. These people
could then do their jobs with competence and great freedom of
action. This, I think, is very important in order to clean up the
system.
We should follow the U.S. government's example in appointing
our legal authorities.
The government is giving itself enormous power over
administrative tribunals. When the minister alone appoints all
these people on behalf of the government, he does so unilaterally,
without ever consulting the provinces, and yet these tribunals often
need to make rulings in very important areas like the oil, uranium
and electricity industries.
The large corporations in the energy sector wield a great deal of
influence. If the minister is not happy with the rulings made by a
tribunal, he might simply appoint someone else. The minister's
power to appoint someone else is considerable as it gives him
direct control over decisions. That is the issue. The minister's
power to appoint and dismiss tribunal members for all kinds of
more or less valid reasons gives him direct control over decisions.
It makes no sense for the minister to establish tribunals while
keeping this great power to decide.
We know full well that these people will have to meet
government expectations and that decisions affecting major areas
like those I mentioned earlier-the oil, uranium and electricity
industries-could displease or penalize Quebec, especially when
electricity is concerned. The government could take matters into its
own hands instead of letting the tribunal decide, for the reasons I
gave you earlier. It could make its own decision and hurt Quebec's
interests. It is very important to mention this.
As you know, it has been quite difficult in the past to get justice
as far as Quebec's major economic sectors are concerned. And the
government is about to give itself extraordinary powers. What this
means is that the government will never consult with the provinces
before making appointments, and that the person appointed to the
chair will not make a decision without first notifying the minister
because, if he displeases the minister, the minister can dismiss
him-as the bill points out-without compensation. He could be
dismissed just like that, because the government does not like the
way he handles cases.
This is a real case of judicial interference, which I condemn
today, like several of my colleagues as well as some Reform
members. We can never say it often enough. I hope the minister
will reverse his decision, because this is really unfair and
unacceptable. This is a step backward instead of forward.
Bill C-49 will have serious consequences for our tribunals'
independence. Instead of moving democracy forward, we are
regressing. The government is giving itself way too much power.
That is why I am in favour of the amendment put forward by my
colleague from La Prairie and opposed to Bill C-49.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, a lot of the
discussion we are having today has to do with change and people's
imaginations. They are imagining hypothetical situations which
may or may not occur.
When I listen to question period in the House, the minister is
accountable. When the minister does not do his or her job,
opposition members want his or her head on a silver platter. The
image I have in my mind is a cabinet minister in a ring with Mike
Tyson with his or her hands tied behind their back, but the minister
is supposed to win the fight.
If we want good government, we must have competent managers
responsible for a file. We can then hold them accountable with
regard to their competence in running that file. Competence in that
file does not mean that we put so many regulations in it that they
cannot do their job.
I ask the member: Who is responsible for the file? Who do they
hold responsible when something happens in a department?
[Translation]
Mr.Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt
that the government is responsible. But being responsible is one
thing and giving oneself excessive powers is quite another. Here, in
Canada and Quebec, it was decided that the legislative power and
the executive power, that is to say justice, should be separate.
5932
If the government is linked directly to its courts, why bother
creating any? The minister might as well make his own decisions
and appoint administrators, but there is no point establishing a
tribunal to settle disputes while giving himself the authority to
settle disputes.
Furthermore, the real reason for these tribunals, in my opinion,
is that the government wants to appoint its friends. When this bill is
passed, it will be able to make at least 1,000 appointments. I say at
least 1,000; the fact is there are 2,000 positions to fill in various
tribunals. With an election just around the corner, the government
cannot wait to be able to appoint its friends. It has not been able to
do so up to now, because the Conservatives had already done the
same thing, but at least in their case, they did not appoint a friend
just for a month. Now, the Liberal government will we able to
designate friends for one, two, three or four months, then throw
them out and designate another bunch, playing this little game over
and over. This whole thing is scary and downright outrageous.
At least, there were appointments for three, five or seven years in
the past, but now this is all changing. Appointments are being
replaced with designations and these will be for as long as the
Liberals have left on their mandate. They have one year left, so
designations will be for one year, and if they get re-elected, they
will get to start over, appointing new people whom they can expect
will work hard for them in the next election. This is what this
means. This is outrageous. It is really taking us back 100 years. We
are going backward instead of forward with this government, might
I say a totalitarian government. Are we headed for a totalitarian
regime or will democracy prevail?
We want those who have responsibilities to be free to exercise
them, without having to account directly to the government. There
lies the big problem. Such an approach must be strongly
condemned. This is serious, much more so than what the hon.
member of the Liberal Party suggested, when he said that the
government's role was to manage. The government is indeed
elected to pass legislation and make regulations. Then, people are
appointed to implement the legislation or regulations, but the
government must not get involved directly in the implementation
of the legislation and regulations it puts in place. The two must be
kept separate to ensure that, after it has been passed by the
government, the legislation is implemented by individuals
operating at arm's length, without having the government on their
backs.
(1155)
What the government is doing on an interim basis, by
designating the chairpersons of administrative tribunals, is giving
itself the power to dismiss them at any time. That is the problem
with the government's interfering with administrative tribunals. In
many cases, this will have serious implications for anyone who has
to face the big machine often.
In the judicial system, the little guy is often the winner. He has
the advantage. It used to be that this was also the case in tribunals,
but with the administrative changes the government is introducing,
the tables will now be turned and the big guy will win. The little
guy will always come out the looser. The government will interfere
directly and indirectly with the decision making process. That is
totally unacceptable. The Bloc Quebecois will vote no, a strong no.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-49, the
administrative tribunals act.
Before speaking on the bill, I want to quote from the Liberal red
book, the tome that was going to govern the actions,
responsibilities and promises the government made to the
Canadian people. The red book promise on Liberal patronage and
patronage in general appears on page 92:
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the
institutions of government-.and make competence and diversity the criteria for
federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal
program.
What have we found instead? We have found that patronage is
alive and well in the Liberal government. No fewer than 1,800
positions have been put forth. It is fairly wide ranging.
For example, the National Transportation Agency, which was
reorganized this summer, was appointed with well connected
Liberals, such as former MPs Richard Cashin from St. John's,
Newfoundland and Keith Penner from Kapuskasing, Ontario. Let
us look at some recent appointments to the bench. One appointment
with a salary of roughly $140,000 per year went to the minister's
sister, a former Liberal Party president. Another appointment went
to an ex-Ontario Liberal MPP. Defeated MP Gary McCauley, Pierre
Trudeau's former executive assistant, received an appointment to
the Immigration and Refugee Board with a salary of over $86,000
per year.
These are but some of the hundreds of appointments that have
gone to people whose only claim to fame, or whose primary claim
to fame, is that they are members of the Liberal Party. That flies in
the face of the Liberal red book promise of decreasing patronage.
Bill C-49 does not smack of the cavalier attitude that the former
Conservative prime minister had. Rather it smacks of political
hypocrisy.
A number of important issues affect this. The budget for
consulting contracts should have been cut by at least 15 per cent but
this has not been done. No chopping has occurred at all in
5933
consulting contracts by the government even though it promised to
do that.
Parliamentarians should have been given mechanisms to review
senior cabinet appointments but have we seen that? Not at all and
no excuse has been given as to why this important aspect of
accountability has not entered into the process of ensuring that the
best people are appointed to these important jobs. All appointments
should have been made based on competence and merit and not
because they hold a card to the Liberal Party in their back pocket.
So far more than 1,800 appointments have been made, the vast
majority of which have been longtime members in good standing
of the Liberal Party, the party of the government in power.
(1200)
The government said that individuals should be appointed to
positions on the basis of merit and on the basis of competence, that
those were the primary reasons. We have not seen that. We believe
the most important aspects upon which a person should be deemed
appropriate for a job should be merit and competence. It should not
be the sociodemographic groups they represent, nor their gender,
nor the colour of their skin, nor their racial group, nor their
language, nor the province they come from. It should be on the
basis of merit.
To judge anybody on a basis other than merit and competence is
to be discriminatory. That is why affirmative action, in our view, is
discriminatory. However, we must do all we can for
underprivileged groups within our country, for those groups that
have traditionally had a difficult time succeeding. We must do all
we can to give them the tools and the opportunities to become the
best that they can become.
We are opposed to determining outcomes. We cannot say in this
House that we want 25 per cent of a certain group and 15 per cent of
another group represented. The determination of outcomes by its
very nature is discriminatory and disturbing. The process insults
the people intended to be put forward in these positions. They are
being judged not on the basis of their competence and merit but on
the basis of the colour of their skin or their gender or any other
criteria which really has no bearing on their ability to do the job.
It is one of the most disturbing issues for me as someone who is
from a very mixed ethnic background. It is discriminatory for
individual human beings to be judged by anything other than their
merit and competence.
When the time comes in Canada that we can all be judged on our
merit and competence but primarily as human beings, then we will
have created a society based on equality, mutual respect and
understanding. To do anything else and to judge people on any
other criteria is to do a disservice to them. It is discriminatory.
I am sure the public would be very interested to find out that our
charter of human rights, the document that is lauded as a tome for
equality which preserves the rights of people, is actually a
discriminatory document. Much to my shock when I read this
document, it says specifically that it is acceptable to discriminate
against a group of people who have previously been advantaged in
our society.
That has to be struck because it is a discriminatory statement by
its very nature. It defeats the purpose of being Canadian. It defeats
one of the many things that we are very proud of as Canadians; that
we are for equality for all individuals regardless of their colour,
their race, their nationality, their gender, or whatever other criteria
we could define people by. At the end of the day those criteria do
not matter at all. It matters what kind of a person one is and the
merit and competency the person will bring to a job and all
situations. This is not what the government has done.
The bill does a number of other things, or I should say that it fails
to do a number of things. It does not affect cabinet's power to make
appointments. It removes the ability of this House or any
overseeing body to look at the appointments that cabinet makes.
The bill states that it will eliminate 271 jobs. Members should be
interested to know that those 271 jobs are currently vacant. The
government is being hypocritical in presenting legislation to the
House, saying that it will eliminate jobs although those jobs are
currently not in existence.
(1205 )
The bill also makes very few changes to existing travel and per
diem perks. It also does not add an element of accountability.
The vast majority of people I know who work in this House or in
the bureaucracy are honest individuals. They take their
responsibility to the Canadian people very seriously. They are very
concerned about the amount of money they spend because at the
end of the day, that money comes out of the pockets of the hard
working taxpayers.
There are individuals who choose not to recognize this and have
shown irresponsibility in the travel that they do. They have abused
their power as elected individuals within Parliament or appointed
individuals. These individuals must be brought to heel. There must
be an element of accountability and transparency in the way in
which spending takes place by these individuals. Bill C-49 does not
do that even though it provided the government with a great
opportunity to do so.
Remedial and disciplinary measures also should have been
standardized by the administrative tribunals. However, the power
of the minister to interfere with disciplinary measures is not
decreased but is increased. It is the minister who in all likelihood
made the appointment who is now responsible for disciplining the
very person the minister put in the position. This is not what the
5934
Reform Party thinks should be done. Those responsibilities should
be done in conjunction with other individuals. Increased
transparency, reportability and accountability must be added into
the system.
There are many other plum patronage jobs I could speak about.
The list as I said amounted to 1,800 in total. I remind the House
again of the red book promise and I would like to compare it with
the promise the Reform Party is putting forth.
The Liberals promised to Canadians in 1993 that they would take
a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of
government and make competence and diversity the criteria for
federal appointments. Open government would be the watchword.
Our promise to the Canadian people is as follows. The Reform
Party supports restrictions and limitations on the number and types
of orders in council permitted by government during its term of
office. We also want to add that element of accountability into the
system.
The government had an ideal opportunity when it came into
power to restore the confidence of Canadians in this institution. We
in this House and the Canadian public know very well that an
extraordinary amount of apathy exists in the Canadian public about
this House, about this institution and about the elected officials
who are here. It is not without a great deal of truth historically.
The government had an opportunity to democratize this House.
The government had an opportunity to bring back into this House
the power of the people through their elected officials. Instead, the
government chose not to. Even when the Liberals themselves were
in opposition, they brought forth good documents and good ideas
on how to democratize this House. We have not seen anything of
that in this House.
With the new appointment to the Chair this week, we found that
the government itself broke its promise. The government should
have put forth a member from the opposition into the Chair, but it
has put forth one of its own.
We can still do some things regarding the committee structure.
Committees were put in this House to keep members busy and to
keep them running around in circles. The vast majority of work that
a committee does is often done at great expense not only to the
members themselves in terms of their time, but also to the House
and the ancillary staff who work very hard and conscientiously to
put forth documents that they hope will make a difference.
What happens in committees? Committees sit and listen to the
hard, earnest and learned opinions of members of the public. A
committee document is put forth after many months of study and
review. The document gets about a day of play in the media and
then it is shelved with numerous other documents.
(1210)
A poignant example of this took place in the health committee
when the head of the Inuit Tapirisat society came before the
committee. The House of Commons health committee was going to
consider studying aboriginal health in Canada, which is a very
serious problem that should have been dealt with decades ago, a
profound tragedy in our midst.
The head of the Inuit Tapirisat society came to us with an armful
of dockets. She said: ``If you want to come up to Inuvik and study
us, you are not welcome because these documents in my arms are
just a small example of the dozens upon dozens of studies that I
have on aboriginal health. We do not want any more studying. We
need action''.
It is action that the Canadian public wants to see come out of this
House. But it is not action that we often see. The government could
have taken it upon itself to give committees the power to introduce
legislation, to give committees the power to put forth good
solutions, to decrease the reins of the whip structure.
The whip structure cowers members of Parliament and prevents
them from representing the public in a way that is effective in this
House. For government members to speak against the government
of the day is to bring forth the wrath of the whip. Members of
Parliament could have their rights and responsibilities to speak in
this House removed. They could be ostracized by their colleagues
and removed from committees.
Two poignant examples occurred, one of which was on Bill
C-68, the gun control bill. Members of Parliament, a half dozen or
so from the government, courageously represented their
constituents and spoke out against the bill, as they should have
done, and were summarily hammered by their own government.
They had their ability to speak in this House removed. They were
removed from committees. They were ostracized and for a
significant time were made defunct, superfluous and vestigial.
When a government does that it is not doing it only for the
member. Most important it is doing it to the members of the public
who elected that individual to represent them in the House. We do
not live in a democracy; we live in a fiefdom and that is part of the
problem.
On private members' bills, the government through Bill C-49
could have brought forward good solutions in making sure that
private members' bills could be put forth in the House and become
votable. We are the only nation in the world that calls itself a
democracy and has non-votable private members' bills. Why do we
bother to go through the hoops to bring forth private members' bills
5935
that are going to be made non-votable and therefore can never
become law? What a waste of the taxpayers' money.
We could empower the public through their members by
ensuring that all private members' bills could become votable and
therefore could become law. It would maximize the great talent that
we have in this House by members across party lines. It would
bring those talents to bear and would bring the good ideas that are
in the public domain to bear in this House for debate so that we
could have effective legislation being brought forth for Canadians.
If the public looked at the pea soup type of agenda that exists in
the House, they would be appalled. They would be shocked to find
that the legislation we have today does not affect by and large jobs,
or the economy, or safety in the streets, or poverty in any
meaningful way. It does not strengthen our social programs. It does
not touch the hearts, souls and the lives of Canadians in any
meaningful way.
(1215)
The vast majority of legislation brought forward in the House is
a pea soup agenda that will only affect a small number of people.
The government should be ashamed. It should have brought forth
good legislation to address the situation.
In closing, we will vote against the legislation because it
demonstrates the hypocrisy of the government. It had an
opportunity to strengthen the democratic institution of the House
and once again it has chosen not to do so. It is just another broken
promise.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in the comments of the member. I am sorry the bill was
not addressed fully because there are some important aspects to it.
The member has taken the opportunity, as is his right, to make
the debate a partisan one and to look for opportunities for partisan
gain.
The member began by making reference to the whole issue of
patronage. It is a word that conjures up a lot of negative
connotations. He did correctly quote from the red book with regard
to the undertaking of the government to ensure that competency
and diversity were the hallmarks of approving any appointment.
The member suggested the only people who get appointments
are well connected Liberals. I do not think the member would
suggest to the House that Liberals need not apply. That has nothing
to do with competency or diversity. He referred to some
appointments as that their only claim to fame. I do not think he
gave any examples or qualified whether competency or diversity
was part of the appointment. He referred often to political
hypocrisy. I do not see how appointing competent people who
represent diverse interests to public bodies or boards has anything
to do with political hypocrisy.
Unfortunately when we get into partisan types of debate it tends
to paint all members of Parliament with the same brush. It tends to
degrade the position of member of Parliament. All members are
working very hard to improve the credibility of the elected
representatives of the people in the House.
The member should know there is a risk in making an
appointment to any board or body. They are subject to the scrutiny
of the public at large.
I have a specific question for the member and will conclude with
this point. The credibility of an individual or body approving an
appointment that is publicly announced is subject to the scrutiny
and the criteria of the public at large.
Notwithstanding his remarks, could the member give the House
an example of any appointment that does not reflect competency or
diversity?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague for the question.
I will give some examples. As much as I respected the former
Minister of Foreign Affairs in that capacity I wonder what he
knows about Canada Post. This former MP received $160,000 in
addition to his MP pension which, I might add, all members of the
Reform Party but one gave up. He has received the top job of
chairman of Canada Post and I fail to see the connection between
foreign affairs and Canada Post.
We could talk about defeated MP Gary McCauley, a former
executive assistant of Pierre Trudeau, being appointed to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. I wonder what knowledge and
qualifications the individual had about the Immigration and
Refugee Board. There is a list I would be happy to provide to the
member. The list goes on and on and I will not bore the House with
it.
(1220)
The fact remains-and this is not partisan; this is calling a spade
a spade-that one of the prime criteria for receiving a plum
patronage job quite simply is to be a member of the Liberal Party.
That is wrong.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the point has been well made. I clearly
asked the member whether he could give any examples that would
show there was not competency or diversity in an appointment. His
example was a former minister who is now head of Canada Post.
He asked what possible linkage there could be between foreign
affairs and Canada Post. That is a good question, but he should also
know that minister happened to have been responsible for Canada
Post in a previous post and ran the post office. He is in error in that
example.
The second example he gave was the stipend a person received.
The amount of dollars involved is subject to guidelines for certain
jobs. Also in the second example the member did not give an
5936
example in which incompetency was demonstrated. It is not
speculating whether someone has competence. It is showing that it
was a bad appointment and they did not demonstrate competence in
discharging their new responsibilities.
Again I ask: Could the member give an example to the House of
an appointment that demonstrated there was incompetency in the
appointment?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I did
not really want to raise this because I did not want to disparage in
any way, shape or form our honourable defence forces. The rank
and file work hard in a courageous way to bring honour not only to
Canada but to our international peacekeeping forces.
However, one need not look any further than the former chief of
defence staff, General Jean Boyle, who was appointed over and
above other more highly competent and experienced individuals.
That appointment was a disaster. It demonstrates what can happen
when an individual who is in some way connected to this party is
appointed to a position at their greatest level of incompetence.
The hon. member could look at that as a prime example, if his
memory goes back that far.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what
gives a politician the authority to denigrate any person. The hon.
member should make that comment outside. I think that would be a
more appropriate place to do it.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, history
bears out the level of incompetence of the individual. Otherwise
the sorry state of affairs that took place at the highest levels of our
military would not have occurred. The facts speak for themselves.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-49. We have recently seen
an increase in attention paid to Liberal patronage practices so it is
appropriate to look at the bill at this time.
The Reform Party opposes the bill because it does not go far
enough to reduce patronage. It does not affect cabinet's power to
make appointments. It can still appoint whomever it wants.
There are still 2,225 appointments available to the cabinet.
Considering the way the Liberal government does business, that is
probably a guarantee that patronage will continue until the end of
the session.
(1225 )
The Liberals claim the bill will standardize remedial and
disciplinary measures for administrative tribunals. The power of
this minister to interfere with the measures is increased. The
minister will decide whether or not a member should be
disciplined. As a member of the agriculture and agri-food
committee I have seen the Liberals draft bills with provisions that
allow them to continue patronage.
Bill C-60, currently before the House, will create a new food
inspection agency. Provisions in that bill create an environment for
empire building and patronage. It states that the governor in
council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president to
the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to
day operations of the agency and will provide advice to the
minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is
no mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type
of situation opens itself up to more pork barrel politics.
Bill C-60 states that the president and the executive
vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the
governor in council. We do not even know the salaries of these two
positions. I wonder why there is not an advertising program for
positions like these. It requires expertise to take over these boards
and tribunals.
In the private sector usually advertisements go out and
qualifications have to be presented. Not only that, usually the
remuneration or wages are said to be negotiable. This seems to be
the direction in which the government should go to get more
accountability into these boards and tribunals.
First, we could become more efficient by negotiating better
wages or wages that represent the qualifications. Second, if we
could by advertising encourage the expertise to come forward and
run the boards, it would be more efficient and accountable in the
long run.
The bill also states that each member of the advisory board shall
be paid such fees for his or her services as are required by the
minister. Again we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much that
will be because we have not seen the amount. This shows the
Liberal way of doing business. There is no accountability and only
Liberals need apply.
The Liberals have had a busy summer filling patronage
appointments. We have seen the reorganization of the National
Transportation Agency with the appointments of several well
connected Liberals. Recent appointments to the bench include a
cabinet minister's sister, a former Liberal Party president and an
ex-Ontario MPP. They must have been carrying Liberal cards. If
they did not, they were very fortunate.
The government has named Liberals to appointments within
Petro-Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada
and the Senate. The brand new Canada information office will be
staffed with some Liberal cronies or political people and will be
cranking out Liberal propaganda at taxpayers' expense.
The main criterion these individuals must have is some sort of
Liberal tie. No other factor seems to be important. Probably the
most cited example of Liberal patronage is the National Parole
Board where incompetence and outright blunders have resulted in
5937
dangerous criminals going free to commit their horrible crimes all
over again.
I have spoken a number of times on the issue of crime. It is sad to
see that political interference can have an effect on how the parole
system or the justice system is working. The Liberals would rather
put rewarding political friends ahead of ensuring the safety of
Canadians.
(1230)
This is the party that promised to take steps to ensure that the
confidence of Canadians in their government institutions would be
restored. The last couple of days we have been involved in a debate
concerning the appointment of a deputy chair. This was a promise
that could have been kept so easily without any financial burden to
the taxpayers. It would have improved the independence of the
Chair and shown the country that we are determined to increase
democracy on the Hill.
The Liberal Party promised in the red book to take steps to
ensure that Canadians' confidence in government institutions
would be restored. The red book promise stated that open
government would be the watchword of the Liberal program. These
words ring very hollow now, contrary to the promise on the
campaign trail.
I vividly remember when the Conservatives defeated the
Liberals in the 1984 election and Mr. Mulroney pointed a finger at
the then prime minister, Mr. Turner, as he said: ``You did not have
to make those appointments. You had an option. We will be
different''.
What happened once the Conservatives took over in 1984?
Patronage appointments continued to escalate. It became even
more important at that time. The Senate was stacked with
Conservatives so the GST legislation could be passed. We know
how controversial the GST legislation has become. It could not
have passed if the Conservatives had not had the power to stack the
Senate with eight extra Senators.
It is important that this system be changed and that it be changed
very shortly. This country cannot afford these appointments,
programs or the decisions that have been made by this type of
politics.
When we look at the $600 billion debt it is easy to see some very
unwise decisions have been made and future generations will have
to absorb and correct them. I do not think it will be done by
politicians. It will take men and women in this House with superb
intelligence, character and honesty. The first place we can improve
is with the disbandment of political patronage appointments.
It scares me sometimes to think that we have come so close, not
just to bankruptcy, but to splitting the country and dividing us to
such an extent that we cannot co-exist.
When I look at the news of the last day or two and I see what is
happening in Zaire and Rwanda, it is scary to see brothers fighting
brothers. That is something I do not think we ever want to see in
this country. We would rather give up politics than become so
divisive that we have to take stronger action than just at the voting
box or the ballot.
If we do not try to change the system within this Parliament how
can we be sure that we can do it in the next one? Clearly the
Liberals are trying to cash in on the disgust that Canadians had for
the Mulroney Tories. I sure do not blame the government for
addressing that issue with some vehemence. There was tremendous
abuse heaped on this Parliament by that government.
(1235)
We know political appointments reached new heights during that
period of government. We do not have to believe that two wrongs
will make a right. We have to start addressing the issues that are
facing us and that are-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but his 10 minutes have expired. After five hours, we are in
10-minute speeches.
_____________________________________________
5937
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I believe if you ask, you will receive unanimous
consent so that the finance committee might table its fourth report.
This involves the examination of the legislation affecting Canada's
financial institutions.
In tabling this report, I would like to thank, first of all, the
employees of the House of Commons, particularly our clerks, who
have done such a fantastic job of getting this ready in such record
time. They had very little time.
[Translation]
I also want to thank all Mps, committee members and
particularly, from the official opposition, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. I did not give him much time to reply to
the majority report, but his co-operation was greatly appreciated.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to accept the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition tabled a dissenting opinion, as an
annex to the report of the Liberal majority. There are three basic
5938
arguments supporting this dissenting opinion. The first one is that
the official opposition refuses to let the federal government get
involved in securities, an area that comes under the exclusive
jurisdiction of provincial governments, including the Quebec
government.
The Liberal majority report proposes the establishment of a
national securities commission. We absolutely oppose such a
measure, because it contravenes the Canadian constitution, the
1982 Constitution. The second argument is that it would deal a
blow to Montreal's economy, since its most competent people in
the fields of securities, management consulting, etc., would be
transferred to Toronto, with all the financial consequences that
could follow, particularly from an economic point of view.
We also oppose the recommendation to the effect that foreign
banks interested in getting involved in the area of securities would
have to ask the federal Minister of Finance to do so, even though
this area comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Finally, we oppose the Liberal majority recommendation to the
effect that a federal consumer protection office should be
established. We are certainly not opposed to consumer protection,
but the government would create more overlap, duplication and
inefficient schemes, since consumer protection initiatives such as
the consumer protection bureau, privacy legislation, the Insurance
Act, trust companies in Quebec, etc., already fulfil the mandate that
would be given to a federal consumer protection office.
For all these reasons, the official opposition is asking the
government to give up its project to create a national securities
commission, to let the provinces look after consumer protection,
since this area comes under their jurisdiction, and to let them
decide whether to allow foreign broking subsidiaries to do business
on their territory, since this also comes under their exclusive
jurisdiction.
_____________________________________________
5938
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1240)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49,
an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation
to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and
dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, the
administrative tribunals act. Bill C-49 seeks to make
administrative changes to boards, agencies and tribunals. I join my
colleagues in opposing this bill. It should be scrapped and rewritten
with meaningful changes to patronage and improved
accountability.
Bill C-49 does not make substantive changes to public
accountability. It does not go far enough to eliminate or reduce
patronage. In fact Bill C-49 does practically nothing to change
what is already going on today.
Many Canadians will disagree with Bill C-49's proposal to
eliminate the Canadian citizenship requirement for appointments
to nine organizations which include CMHC, Canada Labour
Relations Board, CRTC and the CBC. Bill C-49 also proposes to
make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow for a
one-person panel. It is doubtful whether this will make the board
more accountable and in fact it may do the reverse.
Bill C-49 proposes to increase, not decrease, the role of the
governor in council and ministers in a number of appointments.
This Liberal government can continue to appoint all its friends to
high places with no regard to accountability, competence or quality
in the appointees.
When the Liberals were in opposition they were very vocal in
criticizing patronage appointments made during the Mulroney
government. At that time they completely forgot their own party's
overwhelming use of this political tool during the Trudeau
administration.
Page 92 of the Liberal red book says: ``The Conservatives made
a practice of choosing political friends when making thousands of
appointments to boards, commissions and agencies. A Liberal
government will,'' take note across the way, ``take a series of
initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government
and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal
appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the
Liberal program''. I suggest that will be just after pigs start to fly.
The list of patronage appointments is so large I could not read all
the names of appointments during the limited time I have today but
it is important that some of these appointments be read into the
record, the Liberal record of shame.
Patronage appointments go right to the very top with the
appointment of Romeo LeBlanc, a lifetime servant of the Liberal
Party to be Governor General of Canada. LeBlanc was a press
secretary, speech writer, organizer, member of Parliament and
senator for the federal Liberals.
This summer the National Transportation Agency was
reorganized to make room for several well-connected Liberals such
as the former member of Parliament for St. John's, Newfoundland,
Richard Cashin and the former member of Parliament for
Kapuskasing, Ontario, Keith Penner.
5939
Recently the Liberal cabinet appointed Roger Legare, the
former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada and
defeated 1993 candidate to the most senior management position
at the National Capital Commission.
The list of patronage appointments to the bench, paying about
$140,000 a year, is long. Some of the recent appointments include
the new minister of defence's sister, former Liberal Party president
Michael Robert; ex-Ontario MPP Albert Roy; Thomas Lofchik, a
Liberal organizer in Hamilton was appointed to the Court of
Appeal of Ontario; John Richard, the former partner of the Prime
Minister and son of the former Liberal MP Jean T. Richard was
appointed to the bench; Bryan Williams, a long time Liberal
supporter courted as a possible Liberal candidate appointed as
judge to the B.C. Supreme Court; and Gerald Albright, another
well know Liberal supporter was appointed judge to the
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.
A few of the patronage appointments to the Immigration and
Refugee Board include Gary McCauley, the defeated Liberal
member of Parliament and Pierre Trudeau's former executive
assistant; Dorothy Davey, the wife of former senator Keith Davey;
Elke Homsi, a campaign worker for the Minister of the
Environment and long time aid to Ontario MPP Tony Ruprecht and
assistant to various Ontario Liberal MPs.
The list of patronage appoints to crown corporations such as
Canada Post is also long. Patronage appointments to Canada Post
have been so political that the recent Canada Post mandate review
recommended that Canada Post board of directors be composed
solely of individuals with expertise and ability to effectively make
an optimal contribution to the governance of a corporation of that
size. What does this say about the quality of appointments? Surely,
competence should be a factor when making appointments, yet the
Liberals do not seem to see that.
(1245)
Ironically, George Radwanski who was appointed to chair the
Canada Post review himself was a former speech writer for the
Prime Minister and an active participant in the 1990 Liberal
leadership campaign. He obtained his position clearly through
patronage.
Former Minister Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of
Canada Post, to receive an additional $160,000 a year in addition to
his already lucrative MP pension.
More recently Gilles Champagne, a long term Liberal fundraiser
for the Prime Minister, was appointed to the Canada Post
Corporation board of directors.
These kinds of patronage appointments have very negative
implications regarding the ability of government to have the
highest quality people serving it. Unfortunately, this is only the
very tip of the patronage list.
Lawrence Freeman, a well-known Liberal and friend of the
Minister of Health, was appointed to the Canada Communication
Group advisory committee.
Roy MacLaren, the former Liberal Minister for International
Trade, stepped down from his seat in the House and took the cushy
position of high commissioner in Britain.
Some of the appointments to the Senate chosen by the Prime
Minister include: Lorna Milne, a Liberal organizer in Ontario;
Leonice Mercier, a longtime Quebec Liberal strategist and
organizer; Celine Hervieux-Payette, a former junior minister in the
Trudeau government; John Bryden, a former New Brunswick
Liberal leader and New Brunswick campaign manager for the
Prime Minister's 1990 leadership campaign; Sharon Carstairs,
former provincial leader and MLA of the Manitoba Liberals and
daughter of a former Liberal senator; and Landon Pearson, the
daughter-in-law of Lester B. Pearson. William Rompkey, a former
Liberal MP; Jean-Robert Gauthier, the former Liberal MP for
Ottawa-Vanier; and Shirley Maheu, a Liberal MP, all resigned
their seats in the House to take their turn at the trough. Nick Taylor,
a Liberal who was elected to the Alberta legislature and who ran for
the provincial Liberal leadership also found his reward in Senate
heaven.
The patronage list seems to be endless. This does not sound like
the government which pledged in the red book that it would do
things differently. The Liberals have favoured their friends when
making appointments to the courts, to the Immigration and
Refugee Board, to corporations, to the Bank of Canada's board of
directors, from one end to the other, large and small. And the media
has allowed most of these appointments to go by without so much
as raising an eyebrow. Perhaps they are a bit tainted as well.
The government defends its record saying that everyone
appointed is qualified. What does that mean, given the fact that
there are no qualifications for these positions other than of course
being a member of the Liberal Party?
Before the last election the Liberal member for
Scarborough-Rouge River told Canadians that there are two
bottom lines in the way appointments should be made. The first is
that we demand quality; the second is that we require
accountability in the appointment process. We need to ensure that
when appointments are made, they are reviewed by the House of
Commons or a House of Commons committee, or some other
mechanism.
What happened to that promise? Who reviews Liberal
appointments? Not a committee, as suggested by the Liberals
before the election, but the wife of the former minister of defence,
Penny Collenette, a patronage appointment herself. This speaks
volumes for the Liberal act of accountability.
5940
The patronage list speaks for itself. The Liberals have
demonstrated their flagrant lack of accountability to Canadians by
bringing all their friends to the trough once again. Canadians
deserve more than what they are getting. It is time for Canadians to
get what they deserve: competence and quality in these
appointments. The government for the first time must become a
leader, one that can set an example with its appointments to these
very important posts. The faith of Canadians in our government
and the integrity of our institutions clearly must be restored.
(1250)
The Reform Party supports restrictions and limitations on the
number and types of order in council appointments permitted by a
government during its term of office. Individuals should be
appointed on the basis of their qualifications. We must have strong,
independent and effective people in these positions of leadership
and influence, not political hacks tied to the purse strings of the
governing party.
Rather than giving ministers more discretion and more power, it
is time to make appointments accountable not to the governing
party but to the people of Canada. If the government is not willing
to make the necessary changes, a Reform government will.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in listening to the hon. member's remarks, I do not think I
heard once any attempt by him to address the number one issue of
competence for any of the individuals in his long list of
appointments. I will leave one on the floor for his consideration. If
he is prepared to say that His Excellency the Governor General is
not qualified or competent, I dare him to put that to us today. I do
not think he is prepared to say that.
I am going to suggest three reasons that the hon. member should
support this legislation.
First, the legislation in partnership with another bill before the
House will eliminate 88 organizations which were in existence
before the last election. That involves 868 positions; 868
appointments are gone. It entails a savings of approximately $10
million per year. That is a change and I hope the member will
acknowledge it.
Second, he said that there is not a credible mechanism to review
the appointments. I am sure he is aware that there has been put in
place an advisory committee for all federal judicial appointments
which is operating well. There has also been put in place an
advisory committee for Immigration and Refugee Board
appointments which is operating well.
Just by way of an anecdote, within the last month a Liberal said
to me: ``I just got a letter from the advisory committee that said I
was not qualified to serve on the IRB. How can this be?'' I said:
``Just because you are a Liberal does not mean you are competent
to serve on the board''. That person was disappointed. That is what
the advisory committee is doing. It is telling people of all
backgrounds if it believes they are not capable of doing the job and
those people are not recommended to the minister.
Those are two examples, the federal judiciary and the IRB,
where there are non-political people making recommendations for
appointments.
Third, with respect to reviewing appointments, having served on
the justice committee, I know that every judicial appointment
stands referred to that committee. If that is not an accountability
mechanism for judicial appointments I do not know what would be.
I also know that every appointment in every area of the federal
government's jurisdiction can be taken up under the standing
orders by any of the standing committees dealing with those
departments. All that is necessary is for the members of the
committee to decide at some point in time to review the
appointment.
I have sat on committees when that particular agenda item has
been considered. I have seen it happen with respect to the
Correctional Service of Canada. I have seen it happen with respect
to the National Parole Board and in numerous other areas,
including the referral of judicial appointments, which because of a
standing order are not agenda items for the committee, but the
resumes of every judicial appointment are referred to the standing
committee.
(1255 )
I hope the member will accept that there are mechanisms in
place. Maybe they are not comprehensive, but mechanisms have
been put in place. Changes have been made since the last election
and 88 separate organizations have been liquidated. The volume of
appointments has decreased by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per
cent under program review. There is a provision to ensure
competence, not comprehensively across the board but we are
making great headway in that regard. I hope he will acknowledge at
least some of what I have put to him now.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River may not have realized it, but we are
not into questions and comments. In any event, that will be taken as
an intervention on behalf of the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I feel it
is incumbent upon me to rise in this House to address Bill C-49, an
act dealing with appointments and designations or in short,
patronage.
I was happy to hear the member from the government side who
just spoke say that there are steps being taken, even though they are
small and hesitant, to change this abuse of power. Everyone knows
that there is an over-abundance of patronage promoted by this
government. Perhaps no greater example of patronage or abuse of
power exists than what can be found in the other chamber, the
Senate.
5941
Yesterday a motion to abolish the Senate was voted down by this
Liberal government. Reform does not want to abolish the red
chamber. We want to change it and reform it. What this country
really needs is a Senate that reflects the views of Canadians right
across the country and a chamber that provides a balance in
Parliament.
The model we are advocating is the triple E model: a Senate that
is elected, effective and equal. That is the model of the upper house
which is the cornerstone of Reform's parliamentary reforms.
I think most Canadians would agree with me that in its present
form the sleepy Senate is pretty much a rubber stamp for the ruling
government. However, after the next election a Reform
government will initiate change to the slumbering chamber of
sober second thought which would provide for a measure of much
needed accountability.
Having senators elected rather than appointed would be our first
step in reforming the Senate. That can be done and it can be done
without cracking the Constitution wide open. Recent history proves
that Senate reform can be done without full-blown constitutional
change, debate and negotiation.
My home province of Alberta, which leads the way in a number
of ways in this country, has already paved the way for Senate
reform. In 1989 the provincial government passed the senatorial
election act. In the fall of that year Albertans voted on the first
elected senator in this country. They overwhelmingly elected Stan
Waters, a Reformer. He was the first elected senator in the history
of Canada.
Do Albertans still want to elect their senator? I will read a letter
dated May 9, 1996 addressed to my colleague from Kootenay East:
This is to confirm I intend to write to the Prime Minister asking him for a
commitment to appoint a senator from Alberta to replace the late Senator Earl
Hastings. Such an appointment is to be given to the successful candidate in a
senatorial election in accordance with the Senatorial Elections Act of Alberta, 1989.
Yours truly,
Ralph Klein,
Premier of the Province of Alberta.
(1300 )
Of course, Albertans still want to elect their senators.
It is a sad commentary that during the dying days of the
Mulroney government and during this current administration, no
elected senator has been appointed to the upper House. This
government, in fact this Prime Minister, chooses to appoint
non-elected people to the Senate in spite of the fact that the Prime
Minister stated that the Senate is in need of reform, that it needs to
undergo a major transformation.
Here is what the Prime Minister said when in opposition on
September 24, 1991: ``A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a
Senate which is elected, effective and equitable''. A logical
subsequent observation would be: What action has the Prime
Minister taken? Has he acted on his own recommendation, on his
own advice? What has the Prime Minister done? Has he kept his
promise or is it another broken Liberal promise?
Here is a sample of the Prime Minister's attempt to reform the
Senate since his party assumed the mantle of power in 1993: Lise
Bacon, the former president of the Quebec Liberal Party and a
supporter of the Prime Minister was appointed by him to the
Senate.
Sharon Carstairs, the daughter of a former Liberal senator, was
chosen by the Prime Minister to sit in the upper Chamber. Not only
does the Prime Minister keep it within the party, he also keeps it
within the family. How about the appointment of Céline
Hervieux-Payette who was a junior minister in the Trudeau
government? They were all appointed by the Prime Minister. They
are all Liberals.
Time prohibits me from naming all the obvious patronage Senate
appointments. In short, a Senate seat has become available 17
times under the current Prime Minister, and you guessed it, 17
times Liberals have been appointed to the Senate.
What happened to the Prime Minister's commitment to support
the Reform initiative of a triple E Senate? He certainly did not live
up to it, that is for sure.
This is what the Prime Minister said on May 9, the same day that
the premier of Alberta wrote his letter regarding patronage
appointments: ``I will name a senator who I will choose and who
will represent my party in the House of Commons''. This leftist
Liberal arrogant attitude is a far cry from the Liberals' previous
promise of a reformed Senate.
We are not supporting this bill. It does nothing much to curb
patronage appointments and it is not worthy of consideration in this
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
5942
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 5 at
5.30 p.m.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 23, 1996 consideration of the
motion 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.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
subject of Bill C-47 is of very great importance for citizens.
(1305)
Human reproduction is a topic that affects everyone, without
exception, and as parliamentarians it is our duty to debate this bill
in a mature and thoughtful manner.
For the very reason that the topic is both private and universal in
scope, many of the issues are emotionally charged. As proof, we
need look no further than the debates on abortion, assisted
reproduction, protection of the foetus, contraceptive methods and
genetic engineering.
These topics speak to something in all of us, because they
concern our origins, our lives right now and the lives of our
descendants. Think, for example, of the recent strong reactions to
the case of the British woman who received fertility treatments.
Against the advice of her doctors, this woman conceived eight
foetuses and lost them all. The reason this story captured the
world's attention is that each and every one of us reacts
instinctively to the new reality of reproduction and the questions it
raises. When human life is involved, all human beings react, and
this is completely understandable.
In order to deal with this reality, the responsibility of elected
representatives in this House is to determine the best approach to
adopt in light of the scientific developments that now make it
possible to influence considerably the reproduction of Canadians
and of Quebecers.
In this bill, the government is proposing an approach based on
the recommendations contained in the Baird Commission report.
The commission thoroughly examined all related issues and even
went beyond its original mandate, because the range of problems
was so immense.
The bill on new reproductive technologies was placed on our
legislative agenda because the voluntary interim moratorium
imposed last year did not work. However, before attempting an
analysis of the bill, I would like to make a few general comments
which, as I see it, should precede any discussion of a bill that deals
specifically with new human reproductive technologies.
All the authors, all the experts who have examined the issue of
new reproductive technologies are unanimous in saying that this is
first and foremost a matter of ethics, of moral and social values.
Although on the whole I do not agree with the recommendations
of the Baird commission-I will get back to this during subsequent
debates-I agree it has a wealth of expertise, based on the amount
of testimony it heard and the number of experts that were
consulted.
These experts claim they are aware of the problems raised by
new reproductive techniques, problems that are not only legal,
ethical or health problems. Research and development and the use
of new reproductive techniques have raised national concerns that
may be social, ethical, legal, medical, economic or otherwise and
that are of interest to more than one level of authority.
Unfortunately, the commission concluded that the federal
government should take all aspects of the issue in hand and
regulate and manage them without taking into consideration the
jurisdictions of the parties concerned and the reality of Quebec
society. The Bloc Quebecois deplores this fact.
It is the same old story we all know. In fact, I will get back to this
a little later in my speech.
So these are moral concerns above all, which I feel raises the
initial question whether legislation is necessary.
The experience of France, which two years ago passed
legislation that is roughly comparable to the bill before the House
today, is very revealing.
France passed legislation on in vitro fertilization, prenatal
diagnosis, pre-implant diagnosis and other aspects of reproductive
technology.
However, it was decided to refrain for the time being from
passing legislation on such sensitive issues as surplus embryos and
embryo reduction.
In an article published in the magazine l'Express in February
1994, the author, Luc Ferry, discussed several problems. He noted
first of all that technically assisted productive techniques are so
controversial that one wonders whether it was really necessary to
pass legislation to deal with such a sensitive area.
5943
(1310)
The question arises because of the complexity of the biological
phenomena and the minute percentage of the population that is
actually concerned.
In fact, several observers felt that since the number of cases was
so small, it would have been preferable to let the courts decide on
the merits of each case.
The author mentioned several problems that were difficult to
regulate because of practical considerations and the issue of ethics
and individual freedom. For instance, how could one actually
prevent the use of prenatal diagnosis for sex selection when parents
do not tell their physician the real reasons for having this done.
Another difficult situation is the one where a woman uses donor
insemination to ensure that her offspring is entirely different from
herself, for instance, a woman of colour, because she has
experienced racism, will select a donor who is white, so that her
child will not have to face certain problems.
Similarly, a woman could give birth after menopause. This
possibility has caused a controversy, the reason being that nature
was prevented from taking its course. But what about freedom of
choice?
One might also consider the phenomena I mentioned earlier such
as embryo reduction, when in order to allow some embryos to
survive, the others are destroyed, and surplus embryos, when more
than the requisite number is produced and then preserved for use in
case the initial procedure fails.
Clearly, all these situations have a number of aspects that are not
medical at all and can hardly be regulated with rigid and specific
legislation. Nevertheless, they are all connected with human
reproductive technologies.
So initially, we must ensure that we properly identify the scope
of these problems and their complexity, before we can pass
appropriate legislation.
I would now like to consider the general scope of the bill
introduced by the Minister of Health. I will wait until third reading
to give a detailed analysis of the bill. Today, I will broach only one
subject which has even broader consequences, and I am referring to
the fact that this is one more intrusion by the federal government in
an area under provincial jurisdiction.
First of all, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc
Quebecois has asked time and time again that the government take
action in an area falling under its own jurisdiction: criminal law.
Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois believes that certain practices should
be prohibited under the Criminal Code, as they are not socially
acceptable to the vast majority of citizens. We had asked that
practices such as the trade in ova, embryos and foetal tissue be
criminalized.
In fact, the report states, on page 447, and I quote:
``Commissioners are strongly opposed to commercializing human
reproduction, as are Canadians generally. We heard clearly from
Canadians that they are uncomfortable with any situation involving
the development of reproductive technologies or services on the
basis of their profit potential, particularly where only those with
the means to pay can have access to them''.
This is a social consensus the Bloc Quebecois agrees with.
However, we totally disagree with the situation where, in the
name of federal government's power to ensure peace, order and
good government, the commissioners suggest that the government
have sole jurisdiction over anything having to do with human
reproduction. That spoils it for us, and we strongly disagree.
To understand this conclusion, we must analyze the
commissioners' reasoning. First, they state that because of the
concepts and practices involved new reproductive technologies are
unique. Also, the primary purpose of these techniques is to ensure
procreation, with all the distinct historical, social and ethical
implications that it may have.
Such logic is hard to accept. Based on the same logic, the federal
government should have jurisdiction over anything occuring during
the perinatal period, since birth is the final outcome of the
procreation process.
(1315)
The federal government would also have full jurisdiction over
education, the environment, health and what not, all on the basis of
uniqueness.
The fact that something is important to human beings is not a
valid reason to give a level of government control over an area that
does not fall under its jurisdiction. You are probably familiar with
Quebec's position on the matter, which is: anything coming under
provincial jurisdiction should be left to the provinces to deal with.
The reported stated further: ``New reproductive technologies
are, in many ways, unique in Canada's health care system, in that
they are administered under the jurisdiction of the provinces and
territories, but, because of their profound social, ethical and legal
implications, raise issues that require national attention. Few
individuals or families in this country are not touched in some way
by new reproductive technologies''.
The commissioners themselves agree that this is a societal issue
relating to health.
On the one hand, as far as we know, health comes under the
jurisdiction of the provinces because they are in a better position to
make appropriate decisions for their people.
On the other hand, precisely because we are dealing with social
values, it is obvious that this should be a provincial jurisdiction. To
5944
act any differently would deny, once again, the existence of Quebec
as a society, with all its elements and its differences.
We will not accept any such thing, it is out of the question.
There is also no question of the Bloc Quebecois supporting a bill
containing provisions to establish a Canadian reproductive
technologies control and monitoring agency. In our opinion, if the
provinces are capable of enforcing the Criminal Code, they are also
perfectly capable of making and enforcing regulations relating to
health.
In fact, they already do, and the thought has not crossed the mind
of anyone at the federal level to question their jurisdiction in that
area. So why do it in another area?
The Bloc Quebecois squarely rejects the government's approach,
whereby it will pass a statutory act instead of criminalizing
unacceptable practices.
We repeatedly asked the government to amend the Criminal
Code. Instead, it proposes a federal act, whose implementation will
be monitored by a federal body, while applicable penalties will be
imposed under the sole authority of the federal government. This is
what is unacceptable.
So, instead of letting the provinces implement the act through
their courts and legal staff, as is the case with the Criminal Code,
the federal government totally excludes them and takes over
everything that relates to new reproductive technologies.
Again, the Bloc Quebecois will say no to this new intrusion.
One year after the Quebec referendum, it is appropriate to
remind the Prime Minister and his cabinet of the commitment they
made to Quebecers in the heat of the federalist fervour that
prevailed at the time. Quebecers were solemnly promised, and
unfortunately too many of them believed it again, that federalism
would be renewed, that powers would be decentralized, and that
provinces would be given back the fields of jurisdiction, which are
already theirs on paper.
How can we reconcile these fine promises with the bill before us
today? It is impossible. Far from decentralizing, the federal
government wants to get more involved in the health sector and,
worse still, it wants to appropriate all future rights in this sector.
This is unacceptable.
Once again, the fine rhetoric was just that, and I hope Quebecers
will remember. This is yet another good example.
This bill is unacceptable because it infringes on the jurisdiction
of the provinces.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague for her speech and for all of the information she has
provided to us concerning the new reproductive technologies and
Bill C-47.
(1320)
I would now like to make some comments and ask her a
question.
First of all,I would like to give a quick review of what has led up
to Bill C-47. As you know, in 1977 a group of feminists put
pressure on the government for the creation of a royal commission.
Twelve years later, in a throne speech, the promise of this famous
commission was made, and the Baird Commission was born.
In 1993, the Baird Commission tabled its final report. There
were 40,000 witnesses heard, and 300 researchers provided us with
their research data. This cost $30 million dollars in total, and lasted
two years longer than planned. In other words, they took four years
to deliberate and to come up with 293 recommendations.
I would like to make one clarification. The entire inquiry went
on without consulting those in the best position to respond to the
needs of the public, that is the provinces, the provincial ministers
of health. Not one province was consulted by the Baird
Commission about these new technologies, they were left on the
sidelines, not asked if they had any recommendations to make to
us, totally ignored.
The result is a report rather similar to the main thrust of Great
Britain's Warnock report. As you know, Great Britain's federation
is not in the least like ours. Its provinces do not have the same
powers as ours do at this time. This report, therefore, bears no
relevance to the needs and demands of our provinces.
While this report urging the government to introduce a bill was
tabled in 1993, a decision was made to impose a voluntary
moratorium in July 1995 because some of the latest developments
in reproductive technologies were totally unethical.
Can you tell me what a voluntary moratorium means when
researchers and scientists are now involved in cloning and
producing human-animal hybrids? There is a voluntary
moratorium in effect. It should be pointed out that experts and
researchers reacted to this voluntary moratorium with complete
indifference. It was a failure, it did not make any sense.
In June 1996, the minister tabled a bill. Although measures in
this area have been demanded for 20 years, the bill that was tabled
is not only incomplete and impossible to understand, but it also
ignores provincial needs under the Constitution, because the
provinces are responsible for providing health care services.
This bill criminalizes certain activities without amending the
Criminal Code. This makes it a parallel law allowing the federal
government to impose national standards. And this is what the
5945
government does by implementing the bill in three stages. First, it
prohibits certain procedures, which we agree should be
criminalized although we feel the government should not interfere
in areas like health care. According to the Constitution, the
provinces have jurisdiction over health care.
(1325)
The government is quietly putting forward a minor parallel bill
in order to centralize even further. I will give a concrete example:
the proposed national agency, which will impose national standards
and be in charge of controlling and monitoring activities.
The bill also provides that the minister reserves the right to make
appointments to a supposedly distinct, independent agency, but all
the administrators in this agency will be appointed by the minister.
You may not see things the way I do, but if this is not the ultimate
in centralization, I do not know what it is.
Furthermore, some of the clauses in this bill are rather vague.
Even the title contains an inconsistency between the French and the
English text: the phrase ``manipulation génétique'' in the French
version is more restrictive than the words used in English.
In closing, I would ask my colleague from Québec to elaborate
on clause 5, just to show you how vague and confusing the clauses
can be.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
comments. She explained very well how, with this statutory act, the
federal government will interfere in a field of provincial
jurisdiction.
I wish to reply to my colleague regarding clause 5, which deals
with surrogate mothers and which prohibits anyone from giving or
offering consideration to obtain the services of a surrogate mother.
This prohibition seeks to prevent the payment of money and the use
of intermediaries.
Consequently, a woman could act as a surrogate mother, if she
did so as a free service. The clause is not very clear, particularly in
subclause 3, which reads as follows:
(3) No person, other than the surrogate mother, shall arrange or offer to
arrange-the services of a surrogate mother.
On the one hand, the bill makes it impossible for someone to
give or to offer consideration, while on the other hand it allows a
surrogate mother to make arrangements for her services. Let us be
clear. It should be either one or the other.
The purpose of this provision is to prevent the negotiating of
amounts of money for bearing children, through intermediaries
between a couple and a surrogate mother. However, the situation
becomes totally different if the service is provided free of charge,
or if it is negotiated by the surrogate mother herself.
This is where we have reservations. The stated objective will not
be met, because the bill does not reflect a clear and well defined
will. One can easily imagine that this provision will be
circumvented. Moreover, the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code
confirm that contracts entered into by surrogate mothers are
absolutely null and void.
I mentioned clause 5, but there is also clause 7, which prohibits
the use, without the consent of the donor, of sperm, ova or
embryos, for human reproductive technologies or for medical
research. Again, several terms used in the provisions of the bill
create problems because of their lack of clarity.
For example, clause 4 prohibits the use of any diagnostic
procedure for the purpose of ascertaining the sex, except for
reasons related to health. What are these health related reasons? Is
the mental health of the woman one of them? Are we talking about
the health of the foetus or of the parents? Again, the wording of the
bill is not clear.
Here is another example of lack of clarity that can lead us to
believe that these prohibitions are not for real. Clause 7 prohibits
the use of sperm, ova, embryos or zygotes for the purpose of
research, donation, maturation or fertilization without the consent
of the donors involved. Again, it can be presumed that such
activities will be allowed if donors give their consent.
(1330)
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-47,
the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act, which
seeks to preserve the dignity and the sanctity of human
reproduction, and the dignity and safety of all.
The bill seeks three objectives. Protecting the health and safety
of Canadians is one of them.
[English]
I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for
Quebec. The member spoke clearly to the fact that the whole idea
of the royal commission's report was not appropriate.
The point to remember is that the commission on reproductive
technologies was a federal royal commission. When it was finished
and the report was made public, over 50 stakeholder groups were
consulted over a long period of time to decide on some of these
issues, how the public saw them and what the public's interests
were in them.
I first have to address some of those issues because there is a
misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of them. I also want to
address some of the aspects of the issue raised earlier by the
member for Drummond and to correct some of the
misinterpretation of facts.
5946
The member for Drummond claimed that in 1977 a coalition
of feminist groups called for a royal commission on new
reproductive technologies. The coalition was formed in 1987 and
the first IVF baby was not born until 1978. The member for
Drummond seems to have overlooked her party's record on the
whole issue of the bill.
The member continually asked for the report to be tabled and for
decisions to be made concerning the royal commission report. On
May 4, 1994 she complained in the House that the government was
too slow to act on the report. She said that such an action would
have a major impact on ethics and research.
On October 7, 1994 her colleague from Laval Centre called for
the government to table a bill to regulate practices connected with
new reproductive technology.
On December 9, 1994 the member for Laval Centre said in the
House that it was increasingly clear that the commercialization of
human genetic material, embryos and fetal tissue was growing in
Canada. She called for regulation in this area as soon as possible.
When the government placed a voluntary moratorium on some
of these techniques in July 1995 there was criticism from the hon.
members that the government was not going far enough, that there
were no real sanctions against those who would continue with these
practices.
What is more, the member for Laval Centre held a press
conference on February 19, 1996 to complain that the government
was not acting quickly enough on the issue. She demanded
immediate action to have the more egregious of these practices
inscribed in the Criminal Code.
On June 5, 1996 the member for Drummond repeated that this
area was in urgent need of legislation. Now we have before us the
long awaited legislation. Based on the record of the members
opposite I fully anticipate their support.
The bill is about ethical considerations. All technology needs to
be regulated. The good that is done by a new technology must be
checked against the harm or the potential for harm that can be done
by that technology. The number one ethic of physicians is to
consider first the well-being of the patient and to do no harm.
The bill specifically set out to control unethical and unsafe uses
of new reproductive technologies and to regulate practices that are
unacceptable to ensure that they are offered to Canadians in an
effective and safe way.
Many Canadians will be affected by these technologies but more
especially women and children. Some prohibitions clearly address
serious ethical issues the technology is forcing us as a society to
consider: cloning and creating animal human hybrids, to name only
two. However we cannot forget that it is women who are most
deeply affected by these technologies, that they are practised
almost exclusively on women's bodies.
Commercial surrogacy, for instance, the practice of bearing a
child for another party in return for payment, brings forward shades
of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Commercial
surrogacy violates the dignity of women by reducing procreation to
a market phenomenon and parenthood to a transaction. Women's
reproductive functions become commodities to be bought or sold.
Women are not commodities.
(1335)
Women who are surrogates tend to be younger, less educated and
have lower incomes than the couples who commissioned them to
bear a child. The imbalance of resources and power means that the
surrogate mother is vulnerable to infringement of her autonomy.
No matter how willing she is to participate she cannot negotiate on
an equal footing with the other parties involved.
With regard to the commercial sale of eggs and sperm, a woman
who agrees to sell her eggs takes risks with her health and her
well-being. Generally this woman is perfectly healthy and she is
certainly not infertile. Yet this healthy fertile woman will be
prescribed fertility drugs to stimulate multiple egg production. She
will undergo painful medical interventions to retrieve those eggs
and in exchange she will earn $2,000 or less. The government will
not permit a payment based system of egg donations to develop in
Canada.
As a physician I have often seen the joy and the wonder of the
birth process. In fact I have delivered over 800 babies myself. I find
the idea of seeing reproduction transformed into a commercial act
to be completely unacceptable. Women are deeply affected by
these reproductive technologies. In many instances some are no
more than experimentation on women's bodies.
What of the children born of these technologies? The greatest
threat to children's emotional well-being arises out of the use of
donated eggs and sperm. The elements that have characterized the
sperm donation system as it developed in Canada are secrecy and
anonymity.
Closely related to secrecy is the principle of anonymity where
the identity of the sperm donor is kept from both the recipient and
the child. The pressure of maintaining the secret of donor
insemination can place tremendous strains on a family. Adult
children born through donor insemination have testified to the
harm that maintaining secrecy has caused them, particularly if the
truth emerges in the middle of a family crisis.
Anonymity too causes great strain for children finally aware of
their birth through the use of donated eggs and sperm who want
information about their genetic parents, only to find that it is not
available.
5947
We know that the health status of people is dependent on their
genetic and familial history. Research in adoption has revealed the
importance of information about birth parents to a child's physical
and emotional well-being.
As part of its commitment to comprehensive management for
new reproductive and genetic technologies, the government is
examining the implications of a more open system of information
both in gamete and embryo donation. It is appropriate to insist as a
government that children born of these technologies be given a full
disclosure of his or her history because the health and well-being of
children have to be of paramount importance in the decisions we
make about new reproductive and genetic technology.
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 only because of any great
gifts that 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.
The government values children. It believes that the hallmark by
which our society can be judged is the priority placed on the
interests and well-being of its children. The government has
established a transparent and explicit framework for its policy on
new reproductive and genetic policies.
Concern for children's interests is a vital aspect of that
framework. We have approached the issue of children and new
reproductive technologies from the perspective of the need to
protect those who are vulnerable to adverse consequences of the
technologies. Who indeed is more vulnerable than a child?
These technologies affect children in different ways apart from
their emotional and physical well-being. 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 technologies, adverse or otherwise, are less obvious
or are controllable through regulation as we are trying to do.
The government is saying some practices must be regulated and
some practices must be absolutely prohibited. These include the
implication for the child's health and for the child's long term
well-being. Serious issues about the legal status of children must be
raised.
By putting forward this legislation we have said that some
procedures are so abhorrent that there is no alternative but to
prohibit them and to set criminal penalties for their use because
they all are practices that have turned children into commodities to
bought or to be sold. This is why the legislation makes it criminal
to buy or 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 them, to
turn them into products. This in turn is dehumanizing. It will affect
in the long run the way we as a society value children and how we
value human life.
(1340)
Permitting payment for sperm and eggs also increases the
possibilities of health problems for the children who might be born
as a result. 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 family history.
The prohibition on cloning is obvious to everyone 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. We only have to read Boys from Brazil to know what we are
talking about.
The use of fetal eggs to create a human embryo could be harmful
if they are from a miscarried fetus since genetic disorders in the
fetus usually are one of the major causes of miscarriage.
Children's physical health can be seriously damaged from using
many of these technologies. It can be affected in the short term and
in the long term. We do not know enough about the long term
effects of some of these technologies on children. These children
have not lived long enough in their life span for us to see some of
the effects on their lives. We are taking risks in experimenting with
children in Canada.
Canadian and American studies have shown that 20 per cent to
25 per cent of low birth weight babies suffer some 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 are simply
not known right now. That is why the advent of technologies such
as intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or ICSI, has to be treated with
a great deal of caution.
ICSI helps to overcome male infertility by selecting just one
sperm, often an immature or inferior sperm, and injecting it into
the centre of the eggs. The use of ICSI is spreading rapidly
throughout the world, including in Canada.
We do not know until the children born through this technique
reach adulthood if that sperm was a healthy sperm. If it turns out
that the sperm would have been much better through natural
selection not to have been fertilized at all, it is not the physicians
who will suffer and not even the parents. It is the children who will
bear the greatest burden of the use of this technology in the long
run.
5948
We do not know what effects fertility drugs may have on
children. Yet we use these drugs now almost routinely. We do not
know if there is some damage involved in being fertilized in vitro
instead of in a woman's body. Gathering information about the
long term outcomes of assisted reproduction for children is one
of the functions the government would assign to a regulatory
structure as outlined in the position paper that was released when
Bill C-47 was first introduced into the House.
Physical harm is just one aspects of genetic technology. Let us
talk a bit about sex selection which is prohibited in the legislation
because it contravenes the government commitment to
safeguarding the emotional well-being of children. A child who
knows that he or she was born only because of being the right sex
may not feel valued. The sibling of such a child may feel forever
unworthy of their parent's love and care because of having been the
wrong sex.
It is only one small step when we undertake some of these
prohibitive technologies to genetic, ethnic and gender
manipulation of our society as a whole.
It is clear to me, as it should be clear to members of the House,
that Bill C-47 is a balanced response to the dangers posed by the
unhampered proliferation of reproductive technology. It does not
say that reproductive technology is inherently bad. It says that we
do not know enough about some of them, and it says that some of
them do not fit into our society's attitudes to human rights and to
people.
It makes clear that human life and human dignity are not for sale
at any price. It is the only possible way to reassure Canadians that
our societal values are being respected, that we place a value on the
rights of all of our people regardless of their gender or their age,
and that we will allow neither to be so crassly exploited.
(1345)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this topic today, a topic that gives me the
shivers. As you know, when we talk about reproductive
technologies, we are talking about research, genetic engineering,
all sorts of things. It is a debate that could not have taken place 30
years ago. As research advances, we must ask ourselves serious
questions, and I am glad that we are discussing them. This is a field
of medicine that was once in the realm of fiction, but has now
become reality. We can see what the consequences will be in the
longer term.
I was listening to the speech by my colleague across the way, on
the government side, and there are certainly a number of points on
which we do not agree. What bothers me the most, as I have just
said, in such an extremely delicate matter-
[English]
The Speaker: I have received notice of a point of privilege. I am
in receipt of a letter advising me that the hon. member will be
raising a point of privilege. I received it well over an hour ago and
so this point of privilege is in order. The hon. minister for youth.
* * *
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a
point of personal privilege to address the issue of my use of
government credit cards and to clarify outstanding questions and
concerns.
When I was appointed Secretary of State for Training and Youth
by the Prime Minister in November 1993 I was provided with both
En Route and American Express credit cards by the Department of
Human Resources Development.
At that time I was fully advised of the departmental guidelines
governing the use of these credit cards. It was clear to me then, as it
is today, that I would be responsible to the department for the full
reimbursement of all personal expenses incurred.
Since being issued these credit cards I have both incurred
business and personal expenses. I have never hidden or denied this.
As a matter of routine procedure I have fully reimbursed the
Receiver General for any personal purchases. This has been my
practice since day one.
I have always known that my record of credit card use was
subject to public review under access to information and I have
never acted to hide records or to mislead the public. For the record,
I would like to note the following three points.
I never asked for the use of a government credit card and I
certainly never asked for special treatment or exemption from
applicable guidelines.
The administrative procedure in place for repayment of monthly
credit card statements was of departmental design. I had no say or
input into this procedure.
Yesterday in the House the member for Elk Island referred to a
memo dated January 22, 1996. He did not mention that attached to
this memo was a personal cheque to cover all non-departmental
expenses. He did not mention that also attached to this memo was
an itemized breakdown of those expenses with complete notation
of personal expenses. He did not mention that five days prior to this
expense claim on January 17 my office sent a memo to the
5949
department outlining what my personal expenses were and pointing
out that I would be submitting a cheque for them.
I admit this administrative procedure is very convoluted. The
covering memo referred to by the member for Elk Island is a form
document prepared by departmental officials and as a stand alone
record is misleading. In fact, my staff raised this concern with HRD
officials and requested a revised covering memo that more
accurately reflected business and personal expenses. A copy of that
revised memo forms part of the subsequent record and certainly
predates any access to information request.
During the three years that I have used these cards I have not
once been advised that I was in breach of departmental guidelines.
To the Canadian public, my constituents, my family of course
and my loyal friends, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that at no
time did I use these credit cards in bad faith or for personal
financial benefit.
(1350 )
The suggestion in the media that I have used government credit
cards for the purchase of vacation airline tickets to Hawaii and
Mexico is simply false. I did vacation in Hawaii. I like to think that
I have worked hard for my money and deserved the vacation. I paid
for my airline tickets with cash. I have the receipts which I can
make available to the media.
I have also travelled to Mexico and I have a cancelled personal
cheque to confirm my payment of those airline tickets.
On the charge of purchasing a fur coat with a government credit
card, I can only say that a deposit of $554.53 was required and that
a credit card imprint was needed. That expense was promptly
reimbursed. Like many Canadians I now have an outstanding
balance and I am on a monthly repayment plan with the retailer.
Finally, I am in full agreement with the Prime Minister and his
observation that while conforming to departmental guidelines, my
use of government credit cards for personal purchases was a
mistake and in poor judgment. As a northerner with much of my
time spent in remote communities with no access to financial
services, I have not had any previous need for a personal credit
card.
With the benefit of hindsight I see that reliance on government
issued credit cards was a mistake. Following discussions with the
ethics commissioner, I have applied for and received a personal
credit card for all non-departmental purchases.
At this time, I am prepared to table documentation in the House
to support my statement on this issue. I ask for unanimous consent
to table this documentation.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I am not sure if this is a question of privilege.
Surely it is a statement by the minister. I am going to permit the
hon. member for Elk Island to make an intervention because his
name was directly mentioned in the statement.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
I also appreciate the member rising in the House today. My purpose
has been and will be to bring accountability for the taxpayers of
this country.
I have something to say about some of the allegations she has
made with respect to the fact that I did not mention the cheque that
was attached, that I did not mention the itemization. Try as we
might, we could not get that data. We received information that had
more white-outs, in fact, over half of the items were whited out. We
did not have that data. That is exactly what we were driving at.
We want that information to be available so there is open
accountability, as the Prime Minister promised in the red book and
in other places. That is the intent.
We are now going to examine what the minister tabled. I hope
we can put this to rest. If not, our pressure will continue.
The Speaker: We have a statement made by an hon. member of
Parliament. We have an intervention by the other hon. member who
was mentioned. I would rule that this is not a point of privilege.
However, I am prepared to accept the documentation, as you have
indicated that I should by unanimous consent.
(1355)
Therefore, I now consider this matter to be closed. It is not a
point of privilege. It is a point of information. And the information,
now being part of the proceedings of this day, are available to all
members of Parliament and any other interested groups.
[Translation]
My dear colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean was in the middle of his
question. I wonder if we could perhaps set aside the question and
you could put it again after question period, at which time the hon.
minister will be able to reply.
[English]
It being almost 2 o'clock and since we always need a little more
time to get in all of our statements, with your permission I am
going to go to Statements by Members if the hon. members are,
indeed, ready to make them.
5950
5950
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
S.S. No. 14 restoration committee and the many volunteers and
donors of building materials who were instrumental in the
renovation and relocation of the one room school, S.S. No. 14,
from Enniskillen township on to the Petrolia Discovery in the
riding of Lambton-Middlesex.
I was fortunate enough to attend the official opening of S.S. No.
14 on September 15 and I can attest to the historical significance of
this landmark.
This one room school, which has been in existence for over 100
years, has served generations of my constituents until it was finally
closed by the Ontario Board of Education in 1969. When members
of the Petrolia Discovery learned that it was scheduled for
demolition, they asked the township of Enniskillen to consider
donating the building to them to relocate on the Discovery site.
The rest, as they say, is history. I salute those in my riding who
have been instrumental in keeping the proud heritage of Lambton
county alive.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon I would like to pay a special tribute to Webbco West
Industries Inc., winner of entrepreneur of the year award at
Kelowna's Business Excellence Awards this past week.
Four and one half year ago in my constituency of Okanagan
Centre, Greg Webb told his family, ``it is our turn'' and formed a
steel manufacturing company. From a one-man operation, the firm
today employs 65 people manufacturing parts for Western Star
trucks and Newness Sawmill manufacturers. They also build
hydraulic pumps for the oil industry in Alberta and supply the
stainless steel skirting for an upscale motor home manufacturer in
the United States.
Mr. Webb has developed a widely diversified company that is
not dependent on a single market sector. He attributes his success
to good networking skills and treating people as they should be
treated.
Please join me in congratulating Kelowna's entrepreneur of the
year, Greg Webb of Webbco Industries Inc.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
concern is increasing for the welfare of six Kurdish trade union
officials arrested by Turkish security forces. These arrests highlight
a now longstanding criticism that my NDP colleagues and I have
expressed about the way the Turkish state treats the Kurdish people
living in Turkey.
The suggestion has been made by the Canadian Kurdish
Information Network that the Red Cross be allowed to visit the
Kurdish region. This is a good idea and Canadian support for it
should be accompanied by much stronger objections on the part of
Canada about the behaviour of the Turkish authorities.
The six trade unionists and others who have been similarly
treated should be returned safely to their families. Turkish
membership in NATO should not blind us to their faults or make
Canada more silent about Turkish treatment of Kurds than we are
when Kurdish minorities are being mistreated in other countries.
The Kurdish people are currently without a homeland of their
own. Perhaps some day that will change. But in the meantime it is
up to the international community and countries like Canada to
make sure their human rights are respected.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the last day of breast cancer awareness month. I would like
to remind everyone that in Canada over 17,000 women are
diagnosed every year with breast cancer. This means that every day
an average of 49 Canadian women come to know of their problem.
[Translation]
Of these women, 5,400 die every year, and 15 die every day.
Unfortunately, very little is known about this illness. Its cause is
still a mystery.
(1400)
[English]
The cure remains elusive. Too many women put off self
examination of their breasts day after day due to fear. This
diminishes their chances to beat the disease.
[Translation]
Only the families and friends of women with this form of cancer
know the tragedy that has befallen them. Only those who see a
woman die of breast cancer know what it really means.
Research is necessary, but for that we need money and the
government must continue to provide assistance.
5951
[English]
In Vancouver 1,600 women participated in two very successful
events organized by the Breast Cancer Society. Breast cancer still
remains a woman's greatest fear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, every year, Halloween brings us its procession of
ghosts, witches and monsters. Yesterday, the separatist cemetery
released a most troubling apparition: the former grand sorcerer
Parizeau came back from the grave to haunt his successor, whom
he accused of being too timid about promoting sovereignty.
As soon as he saw the ghost of his master appear on the horizon,
the little goblin from Roberval, like a frightened child, rushed to
point his finger at his ex-leader Lucien Bouchard, stating: ``I am
not the one who does not talk any more about sovereignty''.
The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois would be hard pressed to hide
his true colours now that we have seen through his disguise. At the
next election, the leader of the Bloc will go back to sit on Jacques
Parizeau's right, in the cemetery for defeated separatists.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to honour the nominees from Halifax West for the
Atlantic Entrepreneur of the Year award. The Entrepreneur of the
Year award recognizes Atlantic Canada's best business people and
puts them at the forefront of this national awards program.
Nominees from Halifax West include: Joe Dunford, president of
EnviroSeal Engineering Products in Waverley; Glenn Wadden and
Rob Spencer of Trihedral Engineering Limited in Bedford; Ron
Mayhew, owner of Sportwheels in Lower Sackville; and Canada's
best known green grocer, Pete Luckett, president of Pete's
Frootique in Bedford.
The award sponsors, including ACOA and Ernst and Young,
have realized what the people of Halifax have always known:
Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs are among the best and brightest
in Canada.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate McMaster University, Connaught
Laboratories and DORSET Industrial Chemicals Ltd. on receiving
university-industry synergy research and development awards.
These awards, sponsored by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council and the Conference Board of
Canada, are designed to foster closer ties between university
researchers and Canadian industries. The close ties between
McMaster and its industrial partners are examples of the
co-operation that has helped to generate jobs and growth in
Hamilton.
McMaster and Connaught Laboratories received the award for
their efforts to develop a new vaccine technology which would
allow vaccines to be given orally. This successful partnership has
helped to position Connaught and McMaster as world leaders in
this field.
McMaster University and DORSET Industrial Chemicals
received an award for their joint development of processes to
reduce pollution from the pulp and paper industry.
I am sure all members of the House will join me in
congratulating all the recipients of these awards.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
year, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
launched its national public awareness campaign called
``Menopause: Let's talk about it''. It is the first time in North
America that a medical association launched such a significant
campaign on the subject.
Between now and the year 2000, more than 40 million women in
North America will be going through menopause, including 4
million in Canada. In other words, every ten seconds during the
next 20 years, a woman in the baby-boomer generation will reach
the age of menopause.
Menopause is no longer a taboo subject, but much remains to be
done about prevention, since menopause increases, for instance,
the risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. Women today
can expect to live at least 30 years after menopause.
Life goes on after menopause, and prevention is the best
guarantee for a good quality of life.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.):
'Twas Halloween night and all through the land,
Liberals are wiggling and squirming like worms in the sand.
Millions to Bombardier are to be found,
In the laps of the Liberals grovelling around.
Liberal red book promises are strewn all about,
And gold plated pensions found on many a snout.
From deep in the shadows what did appear?
A broken promise minister with a hint of a sneer.
The dark silent night was shattered with a shrill,
Promising flags and a higher tax bill.
5952
Abolish the GST, that was a trick, not a treat.
Is the ghost of Pinocchio in the Prime Minister's seat?
Away from the Hill Reformers doing their part,
Talking to real people about a fresh start.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Mauricie and, more specifically, the City of Trois-Rivières recently
hosted the ninth international meet of log drivers and raftsmen.
This event drew more than 500 participants from France, Italy,
Spain, Norway, Sweden, the United States, Austria, Germany,
Finland, Canada and, of course, Quebec.
Log drivers and rafstmen-in Quebec, draveurs and
raftmen-are a courageous group which helped to develop entire
regions of Quebec like the Outaouais and the Mauricie.
It was an honour for our region to host this outstanding cultural,
historical and tourism event, especially since it was being held for
the first time in North America.
I would like to draw your attention to the exceptional job done
by François de Lagrave, of Pointe-du-Lac, the president and
executive secretary of this meet and his organizing committee, who
made this event an outstanding success.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today to pay tribute to the
life of a young man. Nineteen year old Mervin Goodeagle
committed suicide in a community in my riding. Mr. Goodeagle
touched the hearts of many Canadians as Joey on the popular CBC
series ``North of 60''.
Many will feel the pain of this tragedy; the death of a person so
young and with such potential is hard to accept. This type of
occurrence is not unusual in my riding. It occurs all too often.
This tragedy compels us all, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to
work together to heal the hurt within our society that results in such
tragic consequences for our young people. In all that we say and all
that we do, let us bring dignity and self-respect to all people. Our
words and actions can help or hurt. Let us always make the choice
for reconciliation and compassion.
I am sure hon. members will join with me in extending heartfelt
condolences to the family and friends of Mervin Goodeagle. Our
thoughts and our prayers will be with them during this difficult
time.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
marked the first Parliamentary Sibling Day here in the House of
Commons.
On Tuesday, October 29, 22 of my fellow parliamentarians and I
had the privilege of serving for a day as big brothers and big sisters
to boys and girls from the Ottawa-Carleton Big Sisters and Big
Brothers Associations.
Both organizations worked together with my office and the
office of the member of Parliament for Burlington to pair a little
sister or brother with an hon. member of this House.
Parliamentary Sibling Day provided these young Canadians a
window to the parliamentary process and gave them a close-up
view of the parliamentary precinct.
The boys and girls received a private tour of the House of
Commons, met with their respective MPs, watched question period
and were granted a special audience with you, Mr. Speaker, in your
official chambers. As one sibling so eloquently put it: ``That
Speaker guy, he's pretty cool''.
Parliamentary Sibling Day is an excellent example of how we in
this House can work together to support young Canadians. I hope
my colleagues will lend their support to the work of the Big
Brothers and Big Sisters Associations right across Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to salute Canada's top guns.
Recently at the high profile International Fighter Pilots
Competition in Florida, Canadian fighter pilots won the world
series of flying. For the first time the Canadian team was the
overall winner of the competition.
I applaud Captain Ross Granley of Red Deer, Alberta; Captain
Brian Murray of Markham, Ontario; Captain Dave Mercer of
Montreal; and their flight crew. I also wish to extend my
recognition to the maintenance crew and other ground support
personnel who contributed greatly to the Canadian team's
performance.
In particular, I would like to congratulate Captain Steve Nierlich
of Sunderland, Ontario who won the prestigious top gun award for
the best individual score in the aerial combat competition.
5953
(1410 )
Canadian fighter pilots and the flight crew of Canadian Forces
Base Cold Lake have positioned Canada as number one in the
world in air combat. On behalf of all members of this House, I
would like to pay tribute to Canadian fighter pilots and
congratulate them on a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to salute the UN's decision to send a
special envoy to the eastern part of Zaire. This mission will not be
an easy one: UN special envoy Raymond Chrétien is to ease Zaire
out of the current crisis by calling for a ceasefire and organizing an
international conference on the African great lakes region.
The situation is escalating dangerously with every passing day.
Yesterday, the conflict spread to the Rwandan army and victims
now number in the hundreds. The situation is also becoming
increasingly critical in refugee camps, with 500,000 refugees
anxiously awaiting a resolution of this conflict. The challenge
facing the UN special envoy to Zaire is therefore a difficult one,
and we wish him every success in his mission.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of Breast Cancer
Awareness Month.
October has been an especially poignant time for me as it also
marks the first anniversary when one of my assistants, Renée
Fairweather, began treatment in her battle with breast cancer.
In Canada a woman dies every two hours from this disease. In
other words about 400 women have died during Breast Cancer
Awareness month.
On October 1 the member for Lambton-Middlesex pointed out
that the federal government spends almost $5 million a year on
breast cancer research. What she did not mention is that this is
almost $20 million less than what the Minister for Canadian
Heritage is spending on free flags.
While some may believe a moment of silence is appropriate for
the victims of breast cancer, I believe that a moment of outrage is
called for. The spending priorities of this government are all
screwed up. Maybe the Minister of Canadian Heritage should
explain to the families of the victims who have died of breast
cancer this month why her flag program is more important than
breast cancer research.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is spreading misinformation on
family trusts. But the facts speak for themselves. Let me sum them
up for you.
The family trust controversy started in 1991, when the Tories
were in office. In May 1995, the Auditor General of Canada
expressed some concern about the legislation governing these
trusts. The federal government having acted diligently, since
October 2, we can assure the public that every effort has been made
to ensure that nothing similar will ever happen again.
If they really want to make themselves useful, Bloc members
should press the Government in Quebec to plug the loopholes in its
own tax system. Even if it does not involve bashing the federal
government, that too is in the interest of Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals brag about their spending cuts, how the
budget is under control, how they have tamed Leviathan.
Balderdash.
The $14 billion in spending cuts have hardly scratched the
monster. Of this amount, only $4.1 billion or 29 per cent came out
of monster government that writes regulations, pays MP pensions
and writes cheques for multiculturalism, a mere $1 billion cut per
year.
Three-quarters of all cuts came from reduced UI payments of
$3.4 billion due entirely to economic recovery and from cuts to
social transfers to the provinces worth $6.5 billion.
These figures show clearly the Liberal strategy: Keep big
government; let the provinces take the political heat.
Now the Prime Minister promises to fatten Leviathan again with
more spending. Remember Canadians: Liberals, like leopards,
never change their spots. They will always find ways to spend your
money.
* * *
(1415 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are going to do something a bit
different today.
5954
[Translation]
We have a special guest in our gallery today.
[English]
A native of Regina, Saskatchewan, he has become one of
Canada's most recognized faces in film and television. My
colleagues, please join me in welcoming this accomplished actor,
veteran comedian and we claim him as a Canadian, Mr. Leslie
Nielsen.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
5954
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago in this House, the secretary of state for
youth made a statement concerning the situation which was
brought to the Prime Minister's attention a few days ago. We are
not in any way questioning the accuracy of this statement, but we
have a few questions for the Prime Minister regarding the process
which led to the present situation.
Yesterday, CBC's The National informed viewers that the ethics
counsellor had not seen the minister's expense account, nor her
written statement, when he made his decision. We know the Prime
Minister's propensity for defending his ministers right to the limit,
and sometimes beyond.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, and he is the one under
scrutiny in this matter, how he justifies his statement of yesterday
that he had checked with the ethics counsellor, when the latter has
apparently said that he had seen neither the expense account nor the
secretary of state's statement. I would like him to give us some
explanations.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as in every matter of this nature, the ethics counsellor was
advised of the problem. He spoke with the secretary of state. He
then concluded that the explanation was satisfactory.
Allusion has been made in this House to a document that he had
not seen, but that had apparently been explained to him verbally.
When he saw the document, it confirmed the version given by the
secretary of state.
I accept the completely acceptable version given in the House by
the secretary of state.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the question is not about the secretary of state. I took the
trouble to point out that we accepted her explanations. That is not
what is at issue. What is at issue is the Prime Minister's propensity
for defending his government at all costs, with or without
justification.
When, without taking the facts into consideration, the Prime
Minister has relied on an opinion given by the ethics counsellor,
how can he claim this opinion is of any value, when it was arrived
at solely on the strength of a few discussion, without all the
documents having been seen? Of what use is the opinion of an
ethics counsellor who has not looked into a matter thoroughly?
That is the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the counsellor checked the document which was shown in
this House. He analyzed it. As I was saying earlier, it was entirely
consistent with the version given him by the hon. secretary of state.
I have nothing to add. If the hon. member is not questioning the
version given by the secretary of state, let him suit action to word
and stop asking questions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, I would like to
say to him that I will ask all the questions I want, however I want.
That is my affair, not his. And I would like him to be so kind as to
answer the question.
(1420)
How can the Prime Minister justify having sought the opinion of
the ethics counsellor without personally ensuring, in his capacity as
Prime Minister, since it is a question of defending his government's
integrity, that all the documents were brought to the counsellor's
attention?
Is that not the normal way to proceed, before holding up such an
opinion to defend the integrity of his government? Would that not
be wiser, more prudent, more reassuring to the Canadian public?
And is not the purpose of seeking opinions of an ethics counsellor
who does not have all the documents in his possession so that
accommodating opinions will be given?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I said, and I
repeat, that all the documents were checked by the ethics
counsellor and that the version given by the Secretary of State is
the version behind the decision about which I informed the House
yesterday, to the effect that there was no intention to harm in this
administrative error. And, as it happened, when the additional
document was shown to him, the ethics counsellor examined it and
concluded that it in no way changed the decision he had initially
made to inform me that there was reason to pursue the matter, that
the version given by the secretary of state was acceptable.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an article published in the Ottawa Citizen and
headlined:
[English]
``The Deputy Prime Minister dodged the blame for budget cuts
at CBC''.
5955
[Translation]
-it says, and I quote:
[English]
``Don't blame me for cutting the CBC budget'', the Minister of Canadian Heritage
told an audience of journalists in Ottawa, ``blame the finance minister''.
[
Translation]
The article goes on to say, and I quote:
[English]
``She repeated several times that the finance minister should be
held accountable for the cuts''.
[Translation]
Does the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian
Heritage admit she said that the Minister of Finance, her very dear
colleague, should take the blame for the cuts to the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not an actual quote,
for the very good reason that what I said at the conference is that,
when I became minister responsible for the CBC, I told them at the
outset that I could not bypass the budgetary process already in
place, but that I would fight for a $100 million programming fund.
The Minister of Finance went ahead with this programming
fund, 50 per cent of which will go to the CBC. That is what I said
when I was appointed at the end of January. That is what I delivered
with the finance minister's support.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it may not be an actual quote, but we saw it live on
television. It was even better. Another minister who needs video
evidence.
Yesterday, the minister said she was working with her colleague,
the Minister of Finance, on multi-year financing for the CBC. In
fact, Southam reported last weekend, and I quote:
[English]
``The finance minister told reporters the government intends to do
the right thing for the CBC after it has wrestled the deficit to the
ground''.
[Translation]
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage again blame her finance
colleague next March on television, whether or not it is an actual
quote, for her government's future cuts to the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before many
times in this House, like all government agencies, like
Radio-Québec, the CBC has been cut. Unfortunately, the cuts the
Quebec Minister of Culture had to make to Radio-Québec were
even deeper than those at the CBC.
We are all going through some difficult times, but I am confident
that with the finance minister's support in the upcoming budgets, in
the next budget, we will continue to strengthen the CBC for all
Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government puts ministers in a very awkward spot by not revealing
and making public the so-called ethical guidelines for cabinet
ministers. Integrity means more than just saying I am sorry after
the fact.
(1425)
The Prime Minister promised and promised again to restore
public trust in our political institutions. Canadians deserve to see
the ethical guidelines the government says it has come up with. It is
not good enough for the Prime Minister to hide behind imaginary
parliamentary tradition.
In the interest of restoring public trust and confidence in this
parliamentary institution, will the Prime Minister release his
guidelines on ethics for cabinet ministers? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a directive that the Prime Minister sends to his
ministers for their guidance. Ethics cases are discussed when they
come to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament and the
press can look at the decisions that are made.
On the case we discussed yesterday, I am satisfied with the
explanation given by the Secretary of State earlier today.
These are the facts. The member may not agree with the facts,
but I am satisfied the Secretary of State has acted in good faith all
along. All the bills have been repaid properly to the crown. There
was some problem in the administration but no money was spent
illegally or against any guidelines. It was done properly and all the
money has been reimbursed properly in good time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not particularly keen on the Prime Minister just saying the facts. I
want to see the facts and I think the Canadian public wants the
same.
This has been a very awkward spot. I wonder how many more
cabinet ministers on the front bench are in the same position today.
Maybe we should ask for a show of hands. Why would it be so
5956
strange or incongruous that one minister would get caught in this
kind of bind yet there would not be others? Maybe we should ask
for a show of hands. We have seen how well some of these systems
work with these imaginary guidelines.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he consulted the ethics
counsellor about the youth minister's expense claims. Lo and
behold, the ethics counsellor admitted that he had not seen the
expense claims, that he just took people at their word.
Let me ask the Prime Minister about their word, about his word
and everyone else's word. Will he come good on his word in the red
book that he would have an independent ethics counsellor who is
responsible and reportable to Parliament, not just to him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last analysis the person who is responsible for the
conduct of all ministers is the Prime Minister of Canada. I maintain
that and I have the responsibility.
She will be the first one to know if I say someday that it is not
my decision, that it is the decision of somebody else. As Prime
Minister I have to take responsibility for the activities of all my
ministers and I will not give that responsibility to someone else. I
will always face all my responsibilities.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what kind of comfort that is to his cabinet or the Canadian
public watching right now.
I sense a double standard. The former defence minister was
forced to resign for a technical breach of the government's ethical
guidelines. Whether the guidelines are public or private, we really
do not know what they say. Cabinet ministers are supposed to know
what they say but I am not sure they are entirely clear on it.
The Prime Minister stubbornly defends the youth minister who
in her estimation and I think in that of the Canadian public did
something worse. She admitted today in the House of Commons
that it was a mistake and we appreciate that.
However, this minister knowingly signed a document on which
she said these were government expenses. I will ask the Prime
Minister one more time: Why is the defence minister called out on
a technicality yet the youth minister is called safe for a blatant
breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines and we do not even know
what they say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, days before the form was signed, the Secretary of State
indicated that some elements of the expenditures were personal.
The expenses were accounted for the same day. When she signed
the document she attached a cheque to reimburse her personal
expenses.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. A
Statistics Canada bulletin released yesterday indicates that the
number of employment insurance claims is at its lowest level since
1981. However, we should not rejoice too soon, because the
number of unemployed is now 55 per cent higher than in 1981.
(1430)
Will the minister, who extols the virtues of his reform, tell us
why the number of unemployed is currently so high, while the
number of recipients is constantly decreasing?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to answer the short
digression of the member for Mercier. The fact is that 700,000 jobs
have been created since 1993.
As for the member's question, it is important to realize that the
employment insurance act is the result of an extensive consultation
process involving 100,000 Canadians. This legislation will prepare
Canadians to enter the 21st century and to adjust to the new market
reality.
Using the actual number of hours worked results in a system that
is more fair and better balanced. The new program currently allows
an additional 500,000 people to be covered, including 270,000
women.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for July
and August 1996 alone, the number of UI claimants dropped by 5.3
per cent. According to Statistics Canada, this drop in the number of
claimants and beneficiaries is due to the new legislation. Will the
minister agree that, contrary to his comments, his reform deprives
more than 50 per cent of those unemployed of the right to claim
benefits?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we put a very high value on
work. We value work and we do not want a passive system that
encourages people not to look for work. On the contrary, we are
investing in those who are prepared to get training and to take the
necessary steps to find work.
We are extremely pleased that our active return-to-work
measures meet the needs of Canadians. What Canadians need in
our new economy is to go back to work with the proper training.
We are pleased that this reform meets the needs of my
constituents in Papineau-Saint-Michel, including women who are
poor and who are often unable to work more than a few hours per
week. These women are now covered from the first hour of work
and they are grateful to us for that.
5957
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the main
promises the Liberals made in the red book was to preserve
medicare. What they actually delivered slyly was a dissection of
some $3 billion per year out of that program. The result is that this
year there is $395 million less in Quebec for hospital care.
Will the health minister admit that every woman suffering from
breast cancer who is on a waiting list today is on a longer waiting
list because of those cuts?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member raises an important subject in terms of breast
cancer. I do not think there is anyone in the House on either side of
the aisle who is not supportive of initiatives as they relate to breast
cancer.
The government, in co-operation with a variety of different
groups, is contributing a fair sum of money in terms of research
and how we can effect positive solutions.
Over the last number of years $25 million have been directed
toward research. More has to be done.
We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the
United States to focus not only our capital and our money but our
human resources to find the kinds of solutions women and society
in general would like to have as they relate to breast cancer.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, representatives
of 44,000 Canadian doctors appeared in front of the finance
committee this week. What did they ask for? I quote: ``Stop the
devastating health care cuts''. They gave the Liberals a failing
grade on medicare. They asked for a reinfusion of funds into
medicare. Strangely that sounds a bit like Reform's fresh start on
medicare.
(1435)
Will the minister steal another plank from the Reform Party, do
exactly what the Canadian doctors have asked and reinfuse more
money into medicare?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
flip-flops and inconsistency have been characterizations of the
members opposite.
In September 1993 the leader of the third party said that his party
``would support user fees or deductibles and would eliminate
universality''. Days before the federal election in 1993 the Reform
Party said it was opposed to private health care and user fees.
If that is not a flip-flop, if that is not an inconsistency, I say to the
hon. member to go back to med school and become a real spin
doctor.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. A study released today by
Heritage Canada concludes that 97 per cent of the money paid in
Canada by film distributors for Canadian productions comes from
businesses which are under Canadian control, and that,
proportionally, these Canadian-controlled distributors create six
times more jobs than do foreign-controlled distribution companies.
What is the minister waiting for to block Polygram's request,
since there are no grounds to justify this foreign company's
distributing films in Canada, particularly since this is categorically
against Canadian policies in this area?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I explained to the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata last week, it is impossible, under the
Investment Canada Act, to discuss specifics while the issue is still
before me.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to quote from the Heritage Canada study which says, among
other things: ``We conclude that the Canadian distribution policy is
well justified and continues to be pertinent, and that the
consequences of its not being applied would be highly prejudicial
to the Canadian industry- and contrary to the public interest''.
In reality, what the minister is being asked to do is to ensure that
Canadian cultural rules are respected and to not negotiate any
cut-rate deals. Will the Minister of Industry assume his
responsibilities, do his duty, and reject the Polygram application?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I shall certainly assume my responsibilities, and I will
explain my decision when it is time to do so.
I would also like to point out that I agree with the hon. member
on the importance of Canadian culture. I am pleased the Bloc is
also in favour of protecting Canadian culture. I trust that they will
work with us to create a country where we can all have a strong
culture and develop an appreciation of our two cultures, French and
English.
5958
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if either I or my colleague were to become spin doctors we
would have to spin across the other way to do that.
Yesterday 100 Canadians died and today, tomorrow and the next
day 100 Canadians will die from tobacco related diseases.
The Minister of Health has promised without delay tough strong
new measures to address this epidemic among us. He promised this
twice last June, once in March and once this month.
When will the minister bring forth tough new legislation to
address the epidemic in our midst?
(1440 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
they do not know when to stop.
I would like to know where the Reform Party really stands. The
hon. member for Macleod has said that he does not support tobacco
legislation. He said: ``I do not for one second believe that an
advertising ban is the way to go''. Then on February 7 he wrote to
me and said that he would give me unqualified support for the new
strategy for tobacco advertising.
Yesterday he said: ``Reformers see the answer to reducing
tobacco consumption in education, not legislation''. But on June
21, 1994 he said that education campaigns were not the way to go.
Canadians and the House would like to know where the Reform
Party stands on the tobacco legislation. Is it with the hon. member
for Macleod, the leader of the party or the hon. member who has
just spoken?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Minister of Health said: ``Judge me by what I
do, not by what I say''. That is exactly what we are going to do.
Since the government rolled back the taxes on tobacco there has
been a 30 per cent increase in consumption among youth; 10,000
young people will start to smoke every single month. That is at the
feet of this member and the government.
Once again, what is this minister going to do to decrease the
epidemic? For the children of Canada, what is he going to do to
decrease the epidemic in our midst?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we were told by the leader of the third party that he wished to
reduce taxes. Now the hon. member is in favour of a tax increase.
We accept full responsibility for a comprehensive package as it
relates to tobacco and we will introduce the legislation when I am
ready to introduce it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
On October 2, in response to repeated requests from the Bloc
Quebec relating to the family trust scandal, the Minister of Finance
announced new rules for transferring assets out of the country. Yet
the minister is still dragging his feet in tabling his bill.
Can the minister indicate to us when he intends to introduce his
bill, so as to plug for once and for all this loophole through which
billions of dollars have gone out of the country without a single
cent of tax being paid?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was a ways and means motion, une motion des voies et moyens-in
both languages-which took effect immediately, as soon as I rose
to speak in the House.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of the reply still missing. Let
us see whether he can provide it in response to a supplementary.
According to the Globe and Mail, a number of big tax firms
numbering rich taxpayers among their clientele are displeased with
the new guarantees required by the government.
Does the minister intend to bow to these firms of tax specialists,
who are calling upon him to lighten the financial guarantees their
clients will have to produce when they take assets out of the
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Technical problems (sound system).]
The Speaker: That was pretty fast!
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Canadians attach great importance to strengthening our
socioeconomic relations with Ukraine, a growing European
economy.
5959
(1445 )
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what was
accomplished last week when he led a delegation of 70 senior
Canadian business leaders to Ukraine?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the House knows, Canadians have established a very
special and important relationship with Ukraine. In the five years
since its independence, we have worked very closely with Ukraine
in helping to establish basic institutions of democracy.
It is now the government's view that we have to broaden that to a
new dimension of trade in economic and commercial relationships.
As a result of the meetings last week in Ukraine, where we had
the largest foreign delegation ever to visit Ukraine, we were able to
sign over $600 million worth of business arrangements which have
established Canada as probably one of the largest investors and
participants in the Ukrainian economy.
In addition to that, we signed a deal by which Air Canada will
become the designated carrier for Ukraine. We inaugurated the new
intergovernmental commission bringing Canadian and Ukrainian
business people together to solve many of the problems of red tape
and bureaucracy.
I think we have really moved that relationship to a new plateau
that will substantially enrich our opportunities.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry regarding the $87
million loan to Bombardier.
The real question here is the government's integrity and
accountability: $1.2 billion has gone to Bombardier in 15 years
with no openness and no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer.
Will the Minister of Industry stop the cover-up and divulge all
the repayments that Bombardier has made in the last 15 years?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member keeps wanting to talk about this as a
loan. I have explained to him a couple of times that we are not
talking about a loan but an investment which in fact will be repaid
out of royalties as aircraft are sold at Canadair.
I also want to point out to the member that this entire program is
not only about science and technology or research and technology.
It is also about creating jobs. Yes, these are jobs in Montreal but
they support jobs across Canada.
When I flew out to British Columbia last week to give the first
contribution under this program to Paprican it was to create jobs in
British Columbia as well as in Montreal. When I was in Alberta last
July to give money to TR Labs on a repayable basis to support
wireless technologies it was to create jobs in Alberta. Where are
the complaints from the hon. member about those job creation
efforts?
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the cover-up continues.
The government introduced legislation that was to get the
highest standards of ethical conduct by public officials and
lobbyists yet these guidelines are hidden in the secret vault in the
Prime Minister's office.
Today we find that the president of Bombardier's aerospace
group, Canadair, sits on the advisory board of Technology
Partnerships Canada, the same body that granted the $87 million
loan.
Can the minister please tell the House if this situation is a
conflict of interest or is it not? If it is not, why not?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for his
question because he gives me the opportunity to point out the
important role that we think the private sector needs to play in
helping this program to work well.
We put together a private sector advisory board which is helping
us to review the parameters of the program in the most effective
way. We are using the board to give us a foresight into the
technologies we should be supporting. We are asking it to review in
retrospect the allocation of funds so that it can give us advice on
whether it thinks the effectiveness of the program is as great as it
could be among sectors.
I will tell the member that we have been absolutely scrupulous in
ensuring that in reviewing any specific application that are made
through Technology Partnerships Canada that no member of that
advisory council is consulted in the review of the application. This
is done entirely by officials. It is based on the guidelines that were
set out and made public when the program was announced. We
know that the government is creating jobs not only in the
immediate term, but into the next century.
5960
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The federal government was a trustee of the pension fund of
former employees of the Singer company from 1947 to 1962. Its
mandate was to protect the interests of the employees of this
company. However, the federal government allowed Singer to draw
funds from the pension surplus, thus depriving retirees of an
amount that today is estimated at more than $8 million.
Will the minister acknowledge the demands of former Singer
employees by granting them their request for compensation, and do
so before the last pensioner dies?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have noted the question put by
the opposition member, and I will give him a reply as soon as I
have had time to look into the case.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I got in
touch with the new minister and his office about this almost three
weeks ago, and I may add that the average age of the Singer
employees is 80. So we cannot afford to wait.
Would the minister agree that if he lets this dispute go to court,
because that is what is bound to happen, it would generate
tremendous costs for the taxpayer and mean intolerable delay for
the retirees, whose average age is more than 80?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to
a decision that was made in 1962. I must admit that I was nowhere
near the government at the time, so, as I said in reply to his first
question, I will look into the case as soon as I have a chance. I can
assure you I will give the most comprehensive answer that I can,
because this issue is certainly very important to the people
concerned, and I think it is entirely legitimate to look into a case
instead of improvising an answer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Nova
Scotia finance officials are predicting that the changeover for the
GST harmonization deal is going to cost businesses in Nova Scotia
about $200 million in the first year alone, and $100 million
annually in ongoing costs due to tax and pricing.
How can the minister justify implementing this disastrous plan
when it will mean lost jobs and higher prices and hundreds of
millions of dollars in higher costs for the people of Atlantic
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is quite the opposite. In fact the most recent independent studies
that have come out of Nova Scotia have demonstrated that it is
going to lead to very large scale job creation among small and
medium sized business.
What was indicated in the study that came out yesterday was that
the harmonized tax was going to reverse the cash flow drain that
was coming out of Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces as
a result of the original introduction of the GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
simply not the case. The finance officials in Nova Scotia are saying
$100 million annually and $200 million in the first year.
While the finance minister is promising jobs, jobs, jobs, the
government robs, robs, robs.
Large chains will survive this because they can pass on higher
prices to consumers across Canada, but small business will either
be forced to lay people off, charge customers more or simply go out
of business. Those are not very good options. When Canadians are
crying out for jobs, why is the minister setting out to kill jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party in terms of its questions lobs, lobs, lobs.
It was made very clear by independent studies in Atlantic
Canada, specifically in the case of Nova Scotia, that the
harmonized sales tax will lead to substantial job creation because it
will lower the costs for small and medium sized business. For the
first time they are going to have the opportunity to incorporate and
put tax credits into their cost base which is going to lower their
costs. That is the reason they did it. It is a reason that
Newfoundland did it.
(1455)
I do not understand why Reform Party members consistently
stand up in front of this House and say that they oppose measures
that allow Atlantic Canada to compete. Why can they not speak for
the whole country?
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment and sustainable
development.
A previous endangered species proposal came under intense
criticism. How does the legislation tabled by the minister today
5961
respond to these criticisms and provide effective protection for
species by also protecting their life sustaining habitat?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a good question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marchi: Quite frankly, the Reform are specialists on this
file: endangered species.
The government listened to the task force that was put in place, a
task force that reflected industry, agriculture and environmental
concerns. If members look at the legislation that we tabled today,
the first ever federal legislation on endangered species, they will
find that 80 per cent of the task force recommendations are
covered.
If they check, they will find more territory covered by the
legislation than previously. Also, whether the quality is on habitat,
offences or including the public, the files have been moved
forward.
Last, the provinces and territories need to be complimented on
agreeing on a national accord so that we have a national plan and
not a patchwork plan to protect and safeguard endangered species.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on September 30 when I asked the minister of
immigration about the government's ineffectiveness in deporting
foreign criminals, she responded that her government's Bill C-44
had solved all the problems.
However, on October 18, a Federal Court judge found many
parts of the government's legislation to be lacking and quashed the
decision in the Williams case.
Since the government has used Bill C-44 as a cure-all for all the
immigration department's problems, what is the minister going to
do now to protect Canadians from immigrants and refugees who
pose a threat to Canadians.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the existing
legislation, we have all the powers we need to turn away criminals
who come to our country. We even have the power to prevent them
from going before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
That was the purpose of the new legislation we passed in this
House. Clearly, Canada will never be a haven for criminals.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. In June, the minister tabled
his policy on new reproductive technologies, announcing among
other things the establishment of a federal agency responsible for
monitoring the use of these new technologies. After the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, a new agency is threatening to interfere in
health matters.
Knowing full well that reproductive technologies are a health
matter, which makes them a provincial jurisdiction, and knowing
how much establishing such an agency will cost, how can the
minister justify establishing yet another federal agency in these
days of budget restrictions?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe hon. members opposite were the first political party to
call on me, as the minister responsible for health, to move with
dispatch as it relates to new reproductive technologies. We have
done that.
We have come forward with a bill that will go to committee. It
will be examined. Hearings will take place. If improvements are
necessary, they will be made.
It is certainly not the intention of the government or the
administration to have any overlap and duplication. Where it is
pointed out, we will act accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today to the media and in question period, the
Minister of the Environment talked in glowing terms about his plan
to protect endangered species and habitat in Canada. In doing so he
has conceded that the co-operation of the provinces is critical to
making this process truly effective.
(1500)
As far as federal lands are concerned, is the minister prepared to
do a full habitat inventory for species currently on the list? As far
as provincial co-operation is concerned, can the minister tell us
what enforcement powers he has at his disposal if any or all
provincial governments fail to include habitat protection within
their own legislative framework?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for too many years in this country when it has come to
endangered species the time clock on the species has ticked while
federal and provincial governments have bickered over the rock
that the bird lands on. We argue: Is it your rock, is it my rock and
what do we do about it?
Instead of continuing in that old, frustrating and losing manner
the government decided to start on the other end. We started with
the endangered species.
We will take responsibility on federal lands. We will take
responsibility for co-ordinating interprovincial species. We will
take responsibility for international cross-border species. The
5962
provinces and the territories have signed on to a national accord
that they will take their proper responsibilities.
If we do that, it is not a question of patting the federal or
provincial governments on the back, the endangered species will be
the winners. That is the object of the exercise.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of
Women.
The minister recently made an announcement regarding the
government's race relations and multiculturalism program. Could
she please tell the House why she made the announcement now and
whether the results of the program review reflect the
recommendations of a report which called for the elimination of
funding for ethnocultural groups?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
I would like to state that first and foremost, the Race Relations
Foundation is in keeping with a red book promise which we made.
Second, multiculturalism is not about ethnocultural organizations.
Multiculturalism is about how all the peoples of Canada-the
aboriginal people, the French, the English and people who have
come here from every corner of the globe-learn to live together in
mutual respect with social justice and with compassion.
We will continue to support that and we will continue to fund
whatever groups and institutions encourage that.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Sean Doherty, leader of the
delegation of the Public Accounts of the Dail of the Irish
Parliament. He is accompanied by members of Parliament and
officers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the government to tell us what is on the
legislative agenda for the coming week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, November 1, and next Thursday, November 7, the
House shall consider the address debate, the concluding portion of
the debate on the speech from the throne.
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will consider
legislation beginning with Bill C-41, the divorce and child support
bill. When this is complete, we will return to the list on which we
have been working, namely: Bill C-34, the agricultural penalties
legislation; Bill C-47, the reproductive technologies bill; Bill C-62,
the Fisheries Act amendments; Bill C-59, the water transportation
bill; Bills C-39 and C-40, the York Factory and Nelson House
agreements bills; and finally Bill C-46, the Criminal Code
amendments.
This completes my weekly business statement.
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will have statements now with
regard to the Remembrance Day ceremonies. I recognize the hon.
minister of veterans affairs.
* * *
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise in my place today as November 11
approaches to pay tribute to Canadians who gave their lives for
their country in two world wars, the Korean war and in
peacekeeping operations around the world. Their sacrifice
protected the democracy Canadians cherish today.
On Monday, November 11 we will pause for a minute of silence
to mourn the loss of these Canadians. At cenotaphs from one end of
the country to the other and in cemeteries around the world where
Canadians lie, we will remember them. But today as I remind this
House of the coming ceremonies to mark the sacrifice of those who
never returned from war, I would also like to remind our colleagues
that in the coming week we are also going to pay tribute to the
people who did come home.
The Prime Minister has declared the week of November 3 to 11
as veterans week. It is an occasion when people across the country
can reflect upon the achievements and sacrifice of Canadians
during wartime and in peacekeeping operations around the world.
Canadian veterans have served with distinction, winning respect
and gratitude. I would remind this House that these Canadians were
drawn from the entire country. They built the foundations of our
national spirit.
Hon. members will recall that last year Canadians celebrated
veterans week as part of the Canada Remembers program which
marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war.
Veterans Affairs Canada was very pleased to help co-ordinate many
of the events which paid tribute to our veterans. I know many
5963
individual Canadian men and women enjoyed the opportunity to
re-create emotions, both happy and sad, from their youth.
Perhaps most important of all, the Canada Remembers
celebrations last year gave many of today's young Canadians their
first history lesson about what our country accomplished during the
war. It gave an opportunity for one generation to speak to another.
Young Canadians have grown up without the spectre of war casting
its chill over their future. They could be excused for taking our
cherished freedom for granted.
I hope that during this year's veterans week we will once again
create the bond between the generations that will invite an older
generation to tell its stories to a younger generation. I hope too that
teachers across the country will use this week to talk to students
about Canada's proud history and the important role we played on
the international stage during these years.
Finally, I hope that Canadians of all ages will take time to honour
those who gave so much of themselves, both overseas and on the
home front, to bring Canada through those trying times.
I invite all members of this House to help us honour Canada's
veterans during veterans week and indeed all year long.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to rise in this House today, in my capacity as the Bloc
Quebecois critic for veterans affairs, to acknowledge, as is
tradition, Remembrance Day and Veterans' Week, which will run
from November 3 to November 11.
The least we can do is to set some time aside every year to
remember the men and women who served in the two world wars
and in the Korean conflict.
From the bottom of our hearts, we thank all those who served at
the front, the sailors and airmen from all regions of Canada, the
members of the merchant navy, the nurses, and all the men and
women who risked or gave their lives to overcome tyranny.
(1510)
Need we remind the House that over 100,000 young Canadians
and Quebecers died in the two world wars, while hundreds of
others were killed in Korea and the various peacekeeping
missions?
Unfortunately, many bloody conflicts are still raging around the
globe. I cannot help but think about the serious consequences of the
conflict between the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army. Over 1
million refugees are caught in the middle. Yet, the international
community seems totally incapable of mobilizing and intervening
between the warring factions. Worst of all, the humanitarian
agencies had to leave the area immediately. The consequences are
extremely serious. We may be powerless to prevent another
disaster for humanity.
If I mention the tragedy unfolding in Zaire, it is because I am
also thinking of all those who assume the responsibility for
maintaining peace in the world, particularly the Canadian
peacekeepers. As you know, more than 2,000 Canadian
peacekeepers are currently deployed overseas in places like Bosnia
and Haiti.
Today we remember the sacrifices made by those to whom we
owe this legacy of freedom and democracy, and by all those who
are now working for peace.
The extensive human losses and the horrible suffering endured
by all the people caught in these endless wars defy understanding.
What can we say to the widows and orphans, the brothers and
sisters who lost loved ones forever?
All these brave people fought, all these lives were sacrificed so
there would be no more wars. So that future generations would be
spared all this pain and suffering.
Again, I join with all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois in
expressing our sincere gratitude to all those who gave their lives
and, of course, to all the survivors of these tragedies. Let us not
forget there are still many survivors who deserve all our admiration
and support.
In this regard, I condemn this government's lack of
consideration for the members of the merchant marine. Their
concerns must be considered a priority. We must make every effort
to ensure that this government pays due attention to the views of
merchant marine veterans and holds proper consultations with the
coalition representing them.
Having said that, I will conclude my speech by saying how much
the Bloc Quebecois wants to honour the memory of our veterans
and pay them a fitting tribute.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, six Books of Remembrance lie in the Memorial Chamber
of the Peace Tower, each page bearing the names of those who died
carrying the torch of freedom.
Over 114,000 Canadians were killed during the course of World
War I and World War II and the Korean war. Many more returned
battered in body and spirit.
The peace, security and freedom you and I enjoy comes as a
result of the blood they shed and the courage and determination
they devoted to casting aside the tide of oppression. Their fate, our
future; what a very great price to pay, what a very great debt to
owe.
The Memorial Chapel bears the inscription: ``They are too near
to be great but our children shall understand when and how our fate
was changed and by whose hand''.
Last fall during the Far East pilgrimage, I stood with youth
delegates before a marker on a grave in the Commonwealth
Cemetery in Yokohama, bearing the name of a young man who at
age 19 died as a prisoner of war. He had been captured at Hong
5964
Kong three years prior at age 16. The impact this marker left on our
minds and hearts will never be forgotten.
(1515 )
It also took me to my stepfather, Stanley Edward Akrigg, who
died in January at age 96. He was a big boy and he joined the
Canadian army in 1914 at the age of 15. At the age of 17 he won the
military medal and fought in the battles of Vimy Ridge, the Somme
and Passchendaele. Two days before his 19th birthday, in October
1918, he lost his brother, who served in the same regiment, to a
German artillery shell.
It also brought to mind my cousin, Ronald Loughton Movold,
who was a tail gunner in a Lancaster bomber. He lost his life in
Europe in April 1944.
The torch of remembrance must pass to those too young to have
known the Canadian warriors who were too young to die. The
poppies we wear are a time honoured symbol of their sacrifice.
They were inspired by the poem written by Lieutenant Colonel
John McCrae after surviving 12 days of heavy bombardment in his
Belgian bunker on May 3, 1915. Through the shelling he saw a
cemetery across the road filled with red poppies. Tearing a page
from his diary, he wrote the poem ``In Flanders Fields''. We are
responsible to remember their gallant contributions so their
sacrifice will not have been in vain and to ensure that we preserve
the precious rights and freedoms for which they died.
We must also remember the tens of thousands of Canadians who
have served in more than 30 individual missions over 36 years of
Canadian peacekeeping. More than 100 Canadian forces personnel
have lost their lives and hundreds more have been wounded during
peacekeeping tours. They too must be remembered.
Our gulf war veterans were exposed to the intensity and
volatility of modern day warfare during their fight to preserve the
delicately balanced stability in the Middle East. During the war,
many Canadians witnessed on their television screens a blaze of oil
fires and exploding warheads. In service to our country and the
global community, Canadian lives were scarred. Here too we find
personal tragedies and sacrifice.
Veterans week, November 3 to 11, is a time to pause, remember
and accept our heroes' challenge: ``Take up our quarrel with the
foe: To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold
it high. If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep, though
poppies grow in Flanders Fields''.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party
caucus today in the House of Commons to pay tribute to Canadian
veterans. We pay tribute particularly to those who made the
supreme sacrifice: those men and women in the army, the navy, the
air force and the merchant navy who gave their lives in World War I
and World War II; those who died in the Korean war; those who
have died in the course of peacekeeping operations.
Fortunately no one died in the Gulf war but as the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands indicated, there is evidence that people who
served in the Gulf war have a variety of lasting effects which need
to be acknowledged by the government.
That is why when we gather on Remembrance Day we pay
tribute not just to those who died but also to those who came back,
as the legion says in one of its creeds, after having given the best
years of their lives.
A long time ago, just before my 20th birthday I was cycling with
a friend through Holland. We came to a big monument. We had
stopped at the Canadian war cemetery at Bergen op Zoom. We went
for a walk through the beautiful place which has been kept
wonderfully by the Dutch all these years. We realized what we had
stumbled upon. We spent a couple of hours there because we were
struck with the row upon row upon row of Canadians who were
buried there. It struck me that at the time of their deaths they were
about the same age as I was then, 19.
(1520 )
It was not until 10 years later that I had an occasion to visit the
cemetery at Adagem in Belgium and another 10 years later I visited
Vimy. The older I get, the more it is impressed upon me how young
these people were, giving more meaning to the passage which is
used at every Remembrance Day service: ``They shall not grow old
as we who are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the
years condemn''. If anyone has ever lost a relative not necessarily
in war but to an accident at a young age, we all know what that
means. Those people are forever youthful in our imaginations.
They grow not old.
I was struck, as I always am, by images of those cemeteries, by
the images of the Menin gate outside the village of Ypres where the
names of 35,000 Commonwealth soldiers are inscribed who have
no known grave. Every week the people of that town gather to do a
last post ceremony at the Menin gate. They have been doing that
since 1918 with the exception of the years when the town was
captured during the second world war.
I say this because in Europe, whether it is in Holland, or at the
Menin gate or elsewhere, people appreciate what Canadians and
other Commonwealth and allied soldiers gave at that time. I think
we in Canada could do no less. I often feel that we do not
appreciate to the extent that we should what our veterans gave.
I hope this Remembrance Day and in Remembrance Days to
come that future generations will be lucky as my generation was.
My grandfather served in the first world war, my father in the
second world war, but my generation was not called to war. I hope
5965
that will continue to be said about my son's generation and my
grandson's generation. We all should devote ourselves to that goal.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, on behalf
of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I wish to pay
tribute to the many Canadians who sacrificed so much for the peace
and freedom we enjoy today.
The first world war ended at 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918 and
the devastation was felt deeply. In just a few short years the lives of
70,000 Canadians were lost and twice as many were wounded in
the name of peace. I know because my uncle served overseas and
was wounded very badly at that time.
The second world war, a horrifying episode in history, claimed
the lives of 45,000 Canadians and many thousands more were hurt.
Many did come back home and we thank God for that.
Canadians also gave their lives during the Korean war and our
armed forces answered when the United Nations called for action
to put an end to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait.
Two of my brothers served in the second world war. They were
in Belgium, Holland and France. It was not easy. It was not easy for
my mother who made all of those fruitcakes to send over to them,
who made all of their little pillows. She sent over their socks that
she knitted. She cried as she waited for the mail to come, hoping
and praying that they would come home safely. Luckily, both of
them did.
Canadians have never backed down or run away in the face of
aggression. Canadians know that to ensure world peace, the laws
that govern relationships among nations must be respected and
enforced. That is why we have almost 2,000 members of the
Canadian military serving throughout the world on peace and
humanitarian operations.
This year marks the 51st anniversary of the end of the second
world war. On Remembrance Day, November 11, I would ask
everyone to make a commitment to honour the sacrifices made by
so many Canadians and to honour all of those who returned.
Last year in Holland during the VE Day celebrations, Canadian
veterans were treated like the heroes they are for their role in the
liberation of that country. Here at home we must never forget the
risks these heroes took and the sacrifices they made so we can
enjoy the country, the peace and the freedom we have today. A
freedom we often take for granted for which a very high price was
paid.
(1525 )
Out of thankfulness, respect and gratefulness, we must work
harder than ever to preserve and protect the programs vital to the
well-being of so many veterans. I say that because many of our
veterans come to see me because they are worried about the cuts in
the last post fund. We must look after our merchant navy vets as
well.
Today I say thank you to those who fought for the freedoms that
we enjoy. I say thank you to those who continue to wear the
uniform of Canada for their extraordinary service to us.
Let us never forget the high price that was paid so that we can
live in peace, individually and collectively. We must be vigilant
about maintaining that peace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Madam
Speaker, there was a misunderstanding yesterday, at the end of the
debate on Motion M-221. I believe I now have the unanimous
consent of the House to consider that the recorded division on the
motion has been called for and that, consequently, the vote will
take place on November 5, as was agreed during the discussions.
However, there was a misunderstanding yesterday on the part of the
opposition, regarding the motion tabled by the government.
Therefore, I believe I have the unanimous consent to hold a vote
on Tuesday, and I thank the chief government whip for behaving
like a gentleman regarding this issue and for showing great
openness and understanding.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5965
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive
technologies and commercial transactions relating to human
reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
directing my remarks today to Bill C-47, an act respecting human
reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to
human reproduction.
5966
This is an important subject touching on moral, ethical and
scientific issues and economic issues as well, plus the role of the
state in private lives. It is also a subject I have a personal interest
in. I have dealt with infertile couples, helped by test tube
procedures in my own medical practice, helping them to fulfil their
fondest dreams to have a family. I cannot forget the joy, the
excitement and the satisfaction of those individuals as they were
successful in having their children.
This is not an academic or dispassionate subject but one that has
a personal interest for me. Since it also touches upon life itself and
my personal and strongest beliefs as a Christian individual, I put
these practices into my personal belief structure that life is not just
an accident, that there is a higher authority.
Let me start by saying that Reform's approach on a bill like this
one is very specific. There is a moral component to this bill. I state
my position as a Reform MP, provide the facts to my constituents,
determine the position of my constituents, and vote their wishes if a
clear consensus is evident. I want the Canadian public to know that
I am in the process of doing that right now. My householder is
going out with a questionnaire on human reproductive technology.
The objects of the bill are threefold: (a) to protect the health and
safety of Canadians in the use of human reproductive materials or
assisted reproduction, other medical procedures and medical
research; (b) to ensure the appropriate treatment of human
reproductive materials outside the body in recognition of their
potential to form human life; and (c) to protect the dignity of all
persons, in particular, children and women, in relation to uses of
human reproductive materials. Those are noble goals, but how shall
we reach those goals?
The bill has prohibited a number of things. The prohibitions are
strenuous. The first prohibitions are almost science fiction
procedures that are possible but not plausible for most Canadians,
such as the fusion of human and animal egg and sperm, the
implanting of a human embryo into an animal. These activities are
abhorrent to most Canadians. Strong controls are reasonable in
these areas.
(1530)
The second area of prohibitions are the attempts to control
assisted reproduction by making commercialization of these
practices illegal. These activities today are controlled by
self-regulating professional bodies with standards for licensing,
training, technology and ethics. The actual things being controlled
in this area are much more available to Canadians. For instance,
sperm donation is currently available. Donors are paid for their
donation. That would not be allowed under the bill. Under the bill a
sister could not bear a family member an infant, be a surrogate
mother, and receive compensation for time lost at work. In the bill
as well an altruistic woman could not donate extra eggs to receive
services she could not otherwise afford.
Controls are probably necessary in this area. How stringent
should they be? Some of these decisions are personal and private.
Many consider such decisions to be too private for governmentto intervene.
Since the science fiction procedures and the assisted
reproduction procedures are not of the same magnitude, the bill
should reflect that significant difference. A division of the bill
would be useful.
On enforcement in the bill, criminalization, penalties for
breaking the prohibitions are very severe: $500,000 fine and 10
years of imprisonment for breaking some of the prohibitions. On
the regulatory apparatus that will likely follow the bill, we have
had a discussion paper laying that out. The bill is quite vague.
Clause 12 says the minister can designate anyone he wants to be an
inspector or an analyst. Clause 13 says the governor general can
make regulations unspecified. These are big powers and big issues.
It sounds like: ``Just trust me and all will be well''.
First, I accept the principle that these technologies require
regulation by law. In principle I accept the bill at this stage of the
debate.
Second, I urge the government to divide the bill along the lines
of science fiction procedures on one hand and the commercial
aspects of childless couples on the other.
Third, I do not accept the premise without more discussion that
harsh penalties and criminalization are necessary or advisable in
this area.
Fourth, I remain sceptical that government monopolistic
regulation is the only or the ideal way to control such activities.
Fifth, I have gone over the reproductive consultation process
which was very thorough. In Bill C-47 and the proposals that will
follow I find many definitions and phrases that are vague, such as
human dignity and protecting the dignity of all persons. To leave
that undefined for me is very difficult. By whose definition do we
look at dignity?
I present these thoughts for other members' consideration and
review. My colleagues and I will carefully review the bill at
committee hearings.
(1535 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to debate Bill C-47, the new reproductive and genetic
technologies act.
Many people in Canada today live with the knowledge that they
are at risk of passing on a serious sex related disorder to their
children. They have witnessed at close range the devastation that
these disorders, for example hemophilia and Duchenne muscular
dystrophy, can wreak on those who suffer from them and on their
families and friends. For many the only alternative to the risk of
5967
passing on the disorder that is acceptable to them is not to have
children at all. That is a very high price to pay.
The development and availability of prenatal diagnosis and other
technologies which permit couples to find out the sex of an embryo
or fetus have meant that they can for the first time make informed
decisions about whether and under what circumstances to have
children.
There are some people, however, who have strong preferences
for children of one sex, not for health reasons but solely for
personal or cultural reasons. The same technology that provides
such profound assistance to couples who risk passing on genetic
diseases, the families who are facing potential tragedies, can also
be used to satisfy the desires of people who for varying reasons
strongly want a boy or a girl.
Using technology to try to predetermine the sex of an embryo or,
even worse, using prenatal diagnosis simply to choose the sex of a
child is a practice which I believe is abhorrent to the majority of
Canadians.
The government examined the issue carefully and concluded that
there are serious grounds upon which to prohibit sex selection for
non-medical reasons. The practice puts vulnerable people at risk,
particularly children and women. It contravenes our country's
commitment to equality between the sexes. It is an inappropriate
use of medical resources.
For these reasons Bill C-47 makes it illegal to use technology to
try to influence the sex of an embryo or to determine the sex of a
fetus.
When we talk about sex selection we are talking about three
different uses of technology, each with the same goal. The first
method of sex selection takes place before conception. An egg,
fertilized with X bearing sperm, leads to the birth of a girl. One
fertilized with Y bearing sperm leads to the birth of a boy. It
follows that if the X can be separated from the Y the likelihood of
having a child of the desired sex can be increased. Once separation
has occurred the gender of a child can be predetermined.
This method of sex selection is not always effective, but there is
enough of a market for it that two private clinics have been opened
in Canada, as well as clinics in the United States, the United
Kingdom and elsewhere.
The second method of sex selection has arisen from the practice
of in vitro fertilization. IVF results in the creation of embryos
outside the body, usually more embryos than can safely be
transferred back to the woman's body. Some criteria are necessary
to decide which embryos should be transferred to the womb. A
technique called pre-implantation diagnosis involves removing
several cells from an embryo while it is outside the body and
examining them for the presence of chromosomal or genetic
disorders. Embryos with any disorders obviously would not be
implanted.
The pre-implantation diagnosis can also be used to determine the
sex of the embryo. Those who have strong preferences for the sex
of their child can arrange for the embryos of the desired sex to be
transferred back to the woman's body. The first two methods are
used before pregnancy has been established.
The third method is used much later in the development of the
fetus. Prenatal diagnosis, usually amniocentesis or ultrasound, can
be used to determine the sex of a fetus.
Protecting vulnerable members of society including children,
respecting the Canadian commitment to sexual equality and
ensuring that medical resources are used appropriately are the
principles underpinning the prohibition on sex selection for
non-medical reasons. Sex selection renders children vulnerable to a
range of harm. The impact of sex selection on children's emotional
well-being can be profound. It is not he alone who bears the burden
imposed by sex selection. Siblings can also be harmed by the belief
that they are not the right sex and that they are not as deserving of
their parents' care and love. Children's self-esteem and sense of
self-worth are fragile. The knowledge that their parents prefer a
child of the opposite sex can do untold damage and the effects can
last a lifetime.
(1540)
Women can also be made vulnerable by the use of sex selection
technology. Some women, particularly those from cultures where
male children are more highly valued, have been subjected to
pressure to use sex selection techniques to ensure they give birth to
sons. This pressure can take the form of threats of marital breakup
and violence. We are not as far removed as we perhaps thought
from the days of Henry VIII.
Women representing minority communities have made great
efforts to resist pressures for sex selection within their
communities and to promote the wider adoption of fundamental
values such as sexual equality.
The government does not want to undermine or compromise its
efforts. Respect for cultural differences cannot be used to justify
coercion. Countries where preference for male children is strong
have seen a skewed birth ratio since the advent of prenatal
diagnosis with many more males born than the normal birth ratio of
about 51.5 males for every 48.5 females.
There is little evidence that the availability of sex selection for
non-medical reasons could have as significant an impact in
Canada. However, the consequences of even a relatively small
change in the ratio of males to females are not known. In the
absence of this information it would be foolhardy to risk tampering
with ratios that have developed over thousands of years of human
existence to allow for the continuation of our species.
5968
For those reasons sex selection is sex discrimination. Society
should not allow technology to be used to promote some arbitrary
standard of the ideal family as consisting of both sons and
daughters.
Sex selection techniques involve the use of limited health care
resources. Except for sex related genetic disorders they are not
medically necessary services. They do not treat or avoid disease.
Nor do they promote human health.
People in this country view their health care system as one of the
defining elements of being Canadian. To squander such a precious
resource in ways that are ethically questionable would be wrong.
The government is acting to ensure this does not happen.
After much consideration and consultation with stakeholder
groups, the government has come to the conclusion that sex
selection is so unacceptable to Canadian values and to the health
and well-being of Canadian children that it cannot be provided.
Sex selection offends notions of sexual equality and of
protection for the vulnerable. It has the potential to harm
vulnerable women and children. It could have unknown impact on
population health in the future should a skewed sex ratio be the
result. It is an inappropriate use of our finite health care resources.
For all these reasons the government is prohibiting sex selection
for non-medical reasons through the new reproductive and genetic
technologies act. I am pleased to speak in support of the bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
must congratulate my government colleague on her speech. She has
clearly listed all of the dangers of the new technologies if time is
not taken to criminalize them, if we do not come up with a detailed
and responsible bill.
I would like to return to Bill C-47 on a somewhat more technical
level. I would like to ask her whether she agrees with what I am
going to set out. These clauses, in my opinion, might lead to legal
debates, and I therefore feel that this bill is incomplete.
(1545)
In clause 1, there is an inaccuracy in the French text compared to
the English. The French says ``manipulation génétique'', while the
English says ``genetic technologies''. I would like to begin by
asking whether she grasps the difference between the two.
In the explanation given on the short title, reference is made to
assisted procreation, and this is confused with basic research. I
believe that, when assisted procreation is referred to, what is meant
is the provision of care and treatment, while on the other side there
is medical research in genetics. I would like to know whether she
does not think that combining these two is dangerous. I feel these
are two completely different things.
I would like to know whether these definitions have really been
studied seriously by the members of the government in connection
with Bill C-47. I am only at clause 1, and could refer to them all up
to 49. I believe this bill is totally vague, that it is not clear and will
lead to legal wrangling. Could she answer me on this?
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, indeed I could respond. With
regard to the first part of the hon. member's question on
manipulation génétique and the phrase in English, I am not an
expert in the French language. If it has a different meaning I can
only suggest to the hon. member that this is something that should
be brought forward at the committee stage of the bill.
I am sure that the people at the committee, the clerk of the
committee, the researchers, the people responsible in the
Translation office, will correct those words. That is a housekeeping
kind of correction and I do not think it is incumbent on me in my
knowledge of the bill to make any kind of response. I suggest the
hon. member bring it to the committee.
On some of the other questions-goodness knows I am a lawyer
and I am used to splitting hairs-but on May 4, 1994 the member
for Drummond complained in the House about the government's
slowness to act on this issue. I can only suggest with regard to some
of the questions that she is putting in a hair splitting manner-I do
not know if she shares my profession or not, if she does not she
should because she is good at it. She said such an action would
have major impact on ethics and research and that we were too
slow.
These kinds of questions do not help to speed the delivery of the
bill. I would be delighted to address any questions the member
might have on the substance of the bill. With questions that really
relate to terminology, the short title and definition I think she
knows there is a legislative branch and people in committees that
can solve these problems. I would hope that the hon. member might
have questions with more substance to bring to the debate.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the
new reproductive and genetic technologies act.
It is not often that legislative measures come with an explicit
ethical framework attached. Bill C-47 addresses issues that touch
our most basic beliefs about the nature of human life, the value
which we attach to it and the role of reproduction and parenthood in
our society.
Following the lead of the royal commission on new reproductive
technologies, the federal government developed an ethical
framework to guide its policy development in the area of new
reproductive and genetic technologies. These principles are
outlined in the
5969
petition paper that the government released at the same time it
tabled Bill C-47. The government did this in the belief that ethical
principles must be open to public scrutiny and debate if they are to
have any meaning. I would like to touch on some of these now.
(1550)
One of the ethical principles guiding the government's policy
making is the need to balance individual and collective interests.
Individual autonomy is a value that Canadians espouse but
decisions are not made in a vacuum. Every individual is part of the
larger society and decisions made by individuals can have
repercussions for that society.
Individual autonomy does not include the freedom to harm
others, to coerce them or to undermine social stability. Those
seeking assisted reproduction or prenatal diagnosis, gamete donors
and the children born as a result of assisted reproduction, are all
individuals whose interests are affected by policy making about
new reproductive genetic technologies. Their interests must be
balanced with the interest of society as a whole, as well as those of
identifiable groups in society.
For instance, the provision of prenatal diagnosis has
implications for how we as a society view people with disabilities.
Women as a group are of particular importance since it is women
who experience the technologies most directly. Women from ethnic
or racial minorities have special interests that must also be
considered. Individual interests do not automatically take
precedence over collective interests nor can the collective
tyrannize individuals.
We must protect those who are most vulnerable to the harmful
effects of the technologies while respecting the rights of infertile
individuals or those who are at risk of passing a genetic disease to
their children to seek the intervention they see as being of most
help to them.
Canada is committed by the charter of rights and freedoms to the
principle of equality between men and women. This is the second
principle in the government's ethical framework. This does not
mean, however, that men and women must be treated equally.
Rather we must recognize that the physical and social burdens and
risks of reproduction are borne primarily by women.
The prohibitions contained in this legislation reflect the careful
consideration given to the special needs and interests of women.
Practices and procedures that leave women vulnerable to
exploitation and coercion such as commercial surrogacy
arrangements or egg donation for payment have been expressly
prohibited in no small part because of the negative impact on
women's equal status in Canadian society.
Protecting those who are vulnerable is a priority for the
government. It is the third element of our ethical framework.
Society has a responsibility to ensure that those who are vulnerable
are not manipulated or controlled by those in positions of power
and authority. Any individual or group who does have the power or
the resources to adequately represent themselves is in need of
special protection. Women are vulnerable to such exploitation in
part because of social and economic factors that limit their power.
Individuals or couples seeking to use these technologies are also
vulnerable. They need technology to help them have a child,
technology to which access is limited and determined by others.
That is why the government is prohibiting the use of their
embryos for research purposes without their express informed
consent. Children born through the use of these technologies are
particularly vulnerable. Technology such as sex selection and
commercial surrogacy demean the value of children in our society
and have been prohibited because they make children into
commodities.
With Bill C-47 the government is also seeking to protect the
health and safety of Canadians. This requires a commitment to the
appropriate use of medical treatment. Currently we would like to
help all people who are infertile but in a world of diverse needs and
finite resources it is our responsibility to ensure that decisions
about the provision of medical treatment be made in accordance
with clearly defined health care priorities.
The first step in ensuring an appropriate use of health care
resources is to minimize the number of people requiring medical
treatment by emphasizing prevention. In its position paper on a
comprehensive management regime for new reproductive and
genetic technologies, the government has outlined non-legislative
initiatives it is taking, including the establishment of a framework
for sexual and reproductive health. This framework will, among
other others, provide the basis for a comprehensive strategy for the
prevention of infertility. Even with the best preventive efforts in the
world, there will still be people who suffer from infertility. The
principle of the appropriate use of medical treatment requires the
simplest and least invasive intervention should be used first to
assist those people in conceiving a child.
(1555)
Non-commercialization of reproduction and reproductive
materials is the fifth tenet of the government's ethical framework.
By commercialization I mean the introduction of a profit element
into reproduction, the buying or selling of reproductive materials
or reproductive services. Commercialization is contrary to the
basic values we hold about the inalienable rights of people not to be
bought or sold. It disregards the importance of reproduction and its
significance in our lives as human beings.
5970
Finally, the government is committed to the principle of
accountability at all levels. Individuals have a responsibility to
safeguard their own reproductive and sexual health to help prevent
infertility in the first place. Canadian society has a right to regulate
and monitor how the technologies are used to ensure that our
values and priorities are being respected.
Governments and practitioners have a joint responsibility to
protect the reproductive and sexual health of their communities and
the individuals they serve. These ethical principles provide one
pillar of the government's approach to our new reproductive and
genetic technologies.
Other important aspects are concern for the health and safety of
Canadians, a perspective on infertility and a consideration of the
well-being and the interests of children. These are also essential
components of the government's approach. Together these pillars
make up the framework that has guided the government in
prohibiting certain practices and procedures. They will continue to
guide us as we develop our regulatory components.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to point out something that is very clear. I understand
very well all these debates we are having on Bill C-47. This is a
social debate concerning our values, but I wish we could work on
the bill before us.
Before going any further, I would like to say to all the
government members that the official Opposition is in favour of
criminalizing many reproduction techniques. Indeed, it must not be
said that the opposition is against regulating and criminalizing
certain techniques.
The problem is that the bill before us is, in our opinion,
incomplete. I was part of feminist groups which, in 1977, called for
a royal commission of enquiry because, considering what was to
come, we thought something had to be done before the scandals
arrived.
Twelve years later, in the throne speech, the government
promised to do an enquiry. This enquiry took four years and cost a
lot of money. Many people were met, but they forgot to consult the
provinces, which are the only ones who can, according to the
Constitution, administer health care. I believe reproduction
techniques are a health care matter.
What the official opposition asked for was to criminalize certain
techniques and modify the Criminal Code. What we see in Bill
C-47 is a parallel law, which gives all the powers to the federal
government, not to the provinces.
I would like to ask the member who just spoke why the
government is trying again to centralize powers. Once again, when
we are talking about health care, under the Constitution, and they
are frequently referring us to the Constitution, it is the provinces
that have the power to administer health care.
Can the member explain to me why the government is so intent
on centralizing while the member pretends that it is, in fact,
decentralizing? In reality, it is the other around, and it is harmful.
(1600)
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam Speaker,
in response to the question, I can only say that the exercise of the
federal government in areas of health and safety is
well-established.
I need only recall how many times the hon. member has called
on the federal government to take action. There seems to be some
inconsistency in calling on the federal government to take action
and, at the same time, to suggest that by taking action it is trying to
somehow centralize a power. It is not at all unusual for the federal
government to be engaged in areas of this nature. I can think of
many that we discuss as members of the health committee.
On that point, the member has also mentioned, in questioning
my colleague earlier, the fact that the legislation is somewhat
inconclusive. That will lead probably to a more meaningful debate
in committee as we look at the legislation. I am sure if it was more
definitive then the accusation would be, what is the point of
looking at this bill since the decisions have all been taken.
Consequently, I do not think it is at all unusual for the federal
government to take a leading role in acting in the health and safety
interests of Canadians. There is a lot of precedent for that. I
welcome the government's attention to this matter.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-47, an act respecting human
reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to
human reproduction.
This bill, which follows the voluntary moratorium on certain
reproductive technologies proposed by the Liberal government in
July 1995, is the result of the deliberations of the Baird
Commission, which worked from 1989 to 1993, and whose
mandate was to inquire into and report upon current and potential
medical and scientific developments related to new reproductive
technologies and their health repercussions.
The commission was also requested to study the ethical, social,
economic and legal consequences of these new technologies in
order to recommend what policies and safeguards should be
applied.
5971
The main conclusions and recommendations of the Baird
Commission were in line with other studies done elsewhere in the
world on the same subject. However, several recommendations are
problematic because they do not respect Canada's unique
situation, specially with regard to the constitutional distribution
of powers.
Several recommendations the federal government would like to
implement affect areas under provincial jurisdiction such as health,
family law and civil liability, which could be a problem.
This bill was meant to be-and I said was-the government's
response to society's concerns about scientific advances in the area
of human reproduction and the possible use of these technological
innovations for questionable commercial or scientific purposes.
But it proves to be a belated and incomplete response to public
concerns. Since the report of the Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies was made public in November 1993,
the Liberal government has dragged its feet on the matter.
It was not until July 1995, more than two and a half years after
the Baird report was tabled, that the government took a first step to
put the brakes on the unbridled growth of the reproductive
technology industry by proposing a temporary voluntary
moratorium.
The Bloc Quebecois along with several newspaper editors,
former members of the Baird Commission, including Patricia
Baird, interest groups, including groups representing women and
the clergy, criticized the fact that the moratorium was voluntary,
since some physicians and clinics continue to provide services
banned by this moratorium, which the government cannot or does
not want to enforce.
(1605)
Last January, the federal government announced the creation of a
temporary advisory committee, whose mandate was to enforce the
moratorium.
That did not prevent a newspaper from advertising for young
women to sell their ova to infertile couples; institutions from
continuing to pay sperm donors; doctors from retrieving sperm
from deceased husbands on the request of their widows. To help
you understand what is meant by the expression ``new reproductive
technologies'', I will give you a list of a few activities which were
carried out and are still being developed because the government's
moratorium is only ``voluntary'': contracts in which surrogate a
mother is paid to carry a child she will give up to her customers
after delivery; trade in human ova, sperm and embryos; child
gender selection for non medical reasons; free in vitro fertilization
for women who cannot afford it in exchange for ova; alteration of
the genetic material of an ovum, sperm or embryo and its
transmission to a subsequent generation; experiments on bringing
babies to term in artificial wombs; duplication or cloning of
human embryos; production of human and animal hybrids; use of
ova retrieved from cadavers or foetuses to give birth to babies or
for research purposes.
There seems to be a consensus in our society on the fact that
these technologies give rise to ethical, moral, social, economical
and legal problems and that they must be controlled.
Canadians and Quebecers concerned by the situation think that it
is about time the government began to do something. However,
they are still worried to see that it does not seem to know exactly in
which direction it is going.
Indeed, the government itself admitted that Bill C-47 was
incomplete and temporary. It does not reflect a comprehensive
vision of the issue and only confirms some prohibitions included in
the moratorium while waiting for another bill that would complete
the legislation.
In addition, even though this bill meets the demands of the
official opposition with respect to criminalizing certain practices,
the federal government is not amending the Criminal Code,
enforcement of which would fall to the provinces. On the contrary,
it is proposing parallel legislation that paves the way for the
creation of a federal agency to monitor new reproductive
technologies. Another federal agency.
Thus, the primary object of the bill is not to criminalize practices
deemed unacceptable by society, but rather to set up a federal
agency to monitor new reproductive technologies.
A good example of this barely concealed goal of concentrating
all the power at the federal level is clause 11 of the bill, which says
that the Attorney General of Canada must give his consent before a
prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted. This
just shows that the federal government does not wish to co-operate
with the provinces. This will complicate enforcement of the
legislation, since hospitals, for one, come under provincial
responsibility.
This new federal agency to monitor new reproductive
technologies would be responsible for granting licences, inspecting
clinics and enforcing regulations, and would also be called upon to
oversee the development of reproductive technologies and to
advise the federal health minister in this regard.
It would be responsible for granting licences for practices
considered acceptable. These technologies could include, for
example: in vitro fertilization; donor insemination; use of foetal
tissue; preservation, manipulation and donation of human ova,
sperm and embryos; research on embryos; diagnostic testing on a
foetus before it is implanted in the uterus; late life or
postmenopausal pregnancy.
5972
(1610)
As well, this agency would set up a data bank on donors and
children of donors in order to allow future meetings in certain
special cases. But a serious oversight in this bill is that it does not
define how, by what mechanism, approval would be refused.
Somehow, we do not know when, this will be done in a later phase
of the supposed federal strategy.
There is also a problem in clause 2 of the bill. Its definitions of
certain technical terms do not correspond to their medical
definitions and a number of terms are missing from the list. This
will sustain endless legal debates when this legislation deals with
the first offences. It seems to me that as parliamentarians we have a
responsibility not to pass laws without knowing whether or not they
can be enforced.
In the case before us, we have every reason to believe that the
federal government, because it does not wish to co-operate with the
provinces, will have to acquire additional policing and legal
structures in order to be able to enforce its law. The federal
government will have to deploy considerable resources in order to
oversee hospitals, research centres and private companies in all
provinces.
Apart from the fact that once again the federal government is
interfering in the field of health, which, according to the
Constitution, comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces, the creation of this agency promises to be costly and a
source of duplication, resulting in delays and inefficiency.
As well, seeing the federal government's inability to apply or
obtain compliance for its moratorium on certain reproductive
technologies, there are doubts about its ability to enforce its
legislation without the support of the provinces, which in their
capacity as the administrators of health systems, are in the best
position to act.
The confusion we see in this government is reflected in its bill,
and it is astonishing that it deals with reproductive techniques,
commercial operations, and genetic manipulations on the same
footing. It would have been appropriate to make a clear
differentiation between assisted procreation, basic research and
commercial ventures.
On the one hand, there is the issue of the provision of legitimate
care and treatment to people who are merely trying to create life in
order to establish a family, but who are unable to do so without the
assistance of medical science to overcome the obstacles nature has
placed in their way.
On the other hand, there is the issue of medical or scientific
research in genetics, perhaps with praiseworthy intent, but raising
serious ethical issues, the first of these being whether the end
justifies the means, and whether, consequently, all manner of
manipulations of living matter may be permitted provided they are
for the good of humanity.
Finally, there is the commercial aspect, relating to the sale of
products created using the latest scientific techniques, if the word
``product'' can be used when transmitting life is involved. In our
health system, which is public and accessible to all, the underlying
concept is still the provision of medical care and services to the
public.
Private enterprise can benefit from participation in the provision
of this care, but it is difficult to stomach the idea of strictly
commercial operations, the principal purpose of which would be
profit, without throwing our entire system open to re-examination.
The idea of selling human beings, which became obsolete when
slavery was abolished, must not be allowed to be revived.
You will have readily understood that the new reproductive
techniques can be applied to completely different areas, and that it
would be dangerous to liken them without distinction. Yet this is
what the government has done. After its initial slowness, now it is
acting precipitously and in an atmosphere of confusion.
It is ironic to note that the federal government is creating a new
structure to control reproductive technologies, while the successive
cuts being applied on the federal level to health transfers, which are
disguised under the lengthy title of Canada Health and Social
Transfer, have had the effect of placing the provinces in a difficult
situation as far as health care funding is concerned.
(1615)
How can the Liberal government, which is cutting health
financing, force new national standards on the provinces for
reproductive technologies, which they will have to apply, subject to
financial penalties, without even consulting them on the content of
those standards, while at the same time imposing a major cut in
financing? The explanation is that this government wants to
centralize at all cost, and the federal minister want to control
everything in order to have greater powers.
This rigid approach, which brings more federal standards and
less financing, shows clearly enough that expressions like ``flexible
federalism'' or ``profitable federalism'' have become futile and
outdated.
The whole approach of this bill shows that the health of
Canadians and Quebecers is not a priority for this government. Its
priority is to control everything from Ottawa and to centralize in an
atmosphere of confrontation. Co-operative federalism is gone,
welcome to the Liberal kingdom of Plan B.
There are numerous reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot
support this bill. It is incomplete and does not contain an
appropriate definition of the goals of the act and responsibilities for
its implementation.
5973
Second, this bill does not amend the Criminal Code as the
Opposition had asked, which complicates its implementation.
Third, it creates a federal agency in the area of health, which is
a provincial jurisdiction, and tries to impose national standards,
which will cause more jurisdictional disputes. Finally, this bill
imposes national health standards.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like so many
people I am concerned about the health technologies, and having
followed the proceedings of the Baird commission, which went on
for a number of years, I looked forward to the tabling of the federal
government's bill on reproductive and genetic technologies.
There are many new approaches to health care and research, and
one of them involves altering the genetic code. This is useful
because some diseases can be cured in this way, and now we can
see whether babies who are still in their mother's womb are likely
to have certain health problems and then try to correct them. There
are many reasons why we were looking forward to this bill. And
especially since there is both a moral and a medical dimension.
When we started altering the genetic code and talking about sex
selection and the various technologies that are possible, when we
talk about the sale of embryos and surrogate mothers, this is what
society has been debating in Canada and Quebec for years.
I expected the federal government's bill to be complete at least
in one respect. I listened to the speech by the member for
Laurentides, and I realize that eventually another bill will
compensate for the shortcomings in the one before the House
today.
I just want to put a question to the hon. member for Laurentides,
considering the fact that Canada, in its present state, is a vast
country whose diversity is such that people differ in the way they
see things.
(1620)
I realize, as I read polls like Angus Reid, that people in Quebec
and the Atlantic provinces do not react in the same way to certain
questions as people in British Columbia and Western Canada.
I think this might be one of those areas where we should have
decentralized. This is probably one of those areas where we should
not have national standards. I am not saying that ethics should vary
from one area to the next, because I think certain practices should
be condemned in Quebec as well as in British Columbia or the
Atlantic provinces, but I think that depending on the location, there
may be a way to put some different interpretations on certain
practices.
If we had decentralized towards the provinces, since health care
is their jurisdiction, I think we would have had a better and more
flexible interpretation of the legislation. What I am afraid of in this
area is uniformity, the federal approach, the national approach. I do
not think this area is one that lends itself to uniformization.
My question to my colleague is this: even if we did not consider
the constitutional implications, according to her, would it have
been better to proceed with a form of decentralization, to amend
the Criminal Code and let the provinces be responsible for
enforcement, so that enforcement could be flexible across what is
now Canada?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what my
colleague for Drummond-our health critic-asked was that
instead of this bill, it would be legally more desirable for the justice
department to draft legislation banning certain technologies.
But instead, the government is interfering in an area of
provincial jurisdiction. This must be pointed out. For the benefit of
all our viewers, I would like to read the position the Bloc
Quebecois has always maintained and will continue to maintain
with regard to health care.
I quote:
Under subsections 92(7) and 92(16) of the 1867 act, and according to their
interpretations by many courts, health and welfare are areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. This being said, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the five national
standards enshrined in the Canada Health Act, in other words it supports the
underlying principles of the health care system. However, it believes that the
provinces must have full authority in the matter.
This position stems from a number of factors, especially the government's
financial withdrawal. As a matter of fact, the repeated unilateral cuts in health care
funding to the provinces have resulted, in Quebec alone, in a $7.9 billion shortfall in
health care budgets. While the provinces are subject to national standards coupled
with financial penalties for non-compliance, they have no control over the level of
funding they get from Ottawa.
The Bloc Quebecois finds this situation unacceptable since all the federal
government is doing is passing on to the provinces the cuts aimed at controlling the
federal deficit, without any regard for their impact on the health care system, which
it claims it is protecting. The Bloc Quebecois is extremely concerned and worried by
the consequences these drastic and repeated cuts might have for the health care
system as we know it today.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois intends to do all it can, through the stands it
takes, to preserve the principles of universality, accessibility, public management,
comprehensiveness, and portability.
However, it believes that, in the current context, the federal government is
jeopardizing its own standards by making the provinces bear the burden of these cuts
in order to bring its deficit under control.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government respect
provincial jurisdiction in the area of health care; consequently, it must withdraw
from this area and transfer all federal health care moneys to Quebec.
5974
(1625)
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. She brought forth a
number of very interesting concerns.
Most poignant was that the concernsof the Bloc Quebecois
member and the people of Quebec are the same as those of the
people of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland or
any other province. The legislation demonstrates the
heavy-handedness of the central federal government. It is a concern
for all of us.
If Quebec separates, does the member feel the people of Quebec
would be covered under the principles of the Canada Health Act?
Would that coverage be effective if they travelled to other Canadian
provinces, and vice versa?
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give a short answer. That
was a very long question, which would require a debate that could
last a very long time. I would like to say to my colleague that
Quebec has always been innovative in its legislation, in particular
in the area of health. Quebec would continue to be innovative, and
might do so even more rapidly as a sovereign country.
This being said, today's debate does not deal with the Quebec
constitution or the Canadian Constitution but with health, an area
which also involves morality and ethics. I would like us to go back
to this bill rather than talking about the Constitution.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted you are in the chair because your great love
of literature is well known to us all and I will take the House on a
literary voyage this afternoon.
First, I will make a few remarks on Bill C-47 which address how
the government and this country will manage the reproductive and
genetic technologies that face us in the next century.
It is to a great extent a bill I support but it is a bill based on fear.
We now realize we have attained the technological ability to
actually manipulate the human entity, the physical human being.
There are some prohibited practices which are particularly
horrifying. I think I speak for most Canadians when I say we are
very nervous when we read of this type of thing being possible, the
actual genetic alteration of genes and changing the very character
of the human being which may be born in next generation. The
cloning of human embryos is something that is straight out of
science fiction novels. It is something that we may see in ``Star
Trek''. Now as a government we see this as a possibility and it is
something we want to prohibit.
One prohibited practice is the creation of animal human hybrids.
It gives us shivers to think of the possibility we now have the
technology that may make it possible. The transfer of embryos
between humans and other species is something which is
horrifying. The creation of embryos for research purposes seems to
lower human dignity to the point where only scientific endeavour is
important and not human dignity.
(1630 )
We are all concerned about and abhor these things to a greater or
lesser extent. Fear sparks the bill, a very legitimate fear that has its
origins in our culture and in our literature.
I will take the House back to Frankenstein, a novel by Mary
Shelley in 1818. Frankenstein is probably one of the most well read
or distributed novels in the English language. It has probably been
translated into every imaginable language.
The story deals with a scientist in the early 19th Century who
harnessed electricity. As as result he found he was able to animate a
human being that he created out of body parts obtained from
cemeteries. He was engaged in body snatching. At the time that
Mary Shelley wrote the novel-and she did it in about three
days-body snatching for medical research was a common and
accepted practice in Britain although the public was horrified by it.
In any event the monster was created. He was not a monster
initially. He was seen by Dr. Frankenstein, the scientist, as
something he could create as a result of science. He could put these
body parts together and give this being life. For a moment Dr.
Frankenstein became like God. He animated life.
We know what happened. The human being that was created by
the scientist became a monster in the eyes of humankind. He was
an individual with a sense of emotion, a sense of wanting to belong,
who eventually committed murder. He was so horrible and
monstrous to look at that he was pursued and destroyed.
The picture of Frankenstein is something that has echoed down
through the years. It is a part of our culture. It is a part of the
francophone culture as well because the Hunchback of Notre Dame,
for example, is about another monster in our society that could be
created by humankind.
Another novel comes even closer to the type of prohibited
practices we talk about in Bill C-47, The Island of Dr. Moreau,
which was written in 1896 by H. G. Wells. H. G. Wells is famous
for having written the novels The Time Machine which involved
going back in time and War of the Worlds which involved an
invasion of earth by Martians.
5975
The Island of Dr. Moreau is less well known. In this novel a
young man is marooned on an island where experiments are being
undertaken by a surgeon-scientist by the name of Dr. Moreau. Dr.
Moreau takes creating human beings a step further. He has
travelled to a remote island and he is in the process of taking
animals and reshaping them by surgery into human beings. The
island becomes filled with various types of beasts who resemble
humans.
The theory at the time was that if body parts were changed
around to make an animal look human it would acquire human
characteristics including speech. On The Island of Dr. Moreau
these various animal humans had the power of speech. Our hero on
the island is very frightened by them.
Let me read a bit from the novel. This part describes the hero
encountering the creations of Dr. Moreau. It reads:
The two most formidable Animal Men were my Leopard-man and a creature
made of hyena and swine. Larger than these were three bull-creatures who pulled in
the boat. Then came the silvery-hairy-man, who was also the Sayer of the Law,
M'ling, and a satyr-like creature of ape and goat. There were three Swine-men and a
Swine-woman, a mare-rhinoceros-creature, and several other female whose sources I
did not ascertain.
One of the most chilling moments in the novel is when the hero
on the island tries to escape from the compound of Dr. Moreau and
enters the jungle. He encounters these animal humans and is chased
by all nightmarish creatures that are half animal and half human.
There was a chillingness. I would like to read the passage but it
would take too long. It was a chilling to imagine this man going
through the dark and moonlit forest and being chased by various
creatures that were half leopard and half man.
(1635)
This image of horror achieved by H. G. Wells just about 100
years ago entered the psyche of English speaking society of the day
just as the novel Frankenstein and similar novels dealing with
cloning and the creation of human animal creatures have done. We
have this sense of horror when we even contemplate the concept of
marrying the human being with the animal, with a creature.
Obviously both these novels spring out of Christian traditions
from the Middle Ages, medieval paintings of the devil's creatures
as being half man and half beast. Literature and the arts have an
effect on culture like a pebble thrown into the pond. The ripple goes
down through the ages and touches all people. We do not need to
have actually read the novels. We do not need to have read The
Island of Dr. Moreau to have felt the effect of the story told by H.
G. Wells at that time.
The reason we react so negatively and we feel Bill C-47 is
necessary is that we see the possibility of creating animal human
hybrids. We experience the same fear innate in the novel
Frankenstein or the novel The Island of Dr. Moreau. In many
respects we are reacting to something in our culture as a result of
our literature and our religion.
There is one problem. What will happen in the future when we
pass these laws, when we forbid as we will do genetic tinkering?
What will happen a decade from now when a married couple want
to have children but carry the cystic fibrosis gene or the muscular
dystrophy gene? Will there not be a huge pressure to do something
to prevent these couples from having children who will die by age
30? I had a friend who had a daughter with cystic fibrosis. It is a
terrible wasting disease of children. Their lungs fill up with fluids,
a thick mucous. Muscular dystrophy is similar in a sense that it is a
wasting disease. It is a tragedy to see young people suffer from it.
In both instances they are genetic illnesses. It may be possible
through genetic tinkering to prevent the embryos from carrying
that genetic defect. There will be a huge pressure to go around the
essence of this law when it comes to tinkering with human genes.
There will be people who will be wanting that change to have
healthy and whole children.
There is another aspect. Science marches on. Science is
something that humans at various points in history have tried to
stop. They have tried to stand in its way because they feared the
results coming down the road. We are not the first ones who have
tried to pass legislation that prevents the development of new
technology. In this case it is human technology but there are many
times in the past when there has been an effort to prevent changes
we are afraid of.
I will quote again from the book The Island of Dr. Moreau''. This
is the doctor himself speaking. He is explaining why he has
undertaken this fearsome experiment of creating human beings out
of animals. We should all take note of what he said:
You see, I went on with this research just the way it led me. That is the only way I
ever heard of research going. I asked a question, devised some method of obtaining
an answer, and got a fresh question. Was this possible or that possible? You cannot
imagine what this means to an investigator, what an intellectual passion grows upon
him!
(1640)
While I support Bill C-47 absolutely, we will never be able to
stop the progress of science that heads in directions of which we are
fearful. The very technological possibilities we fear will
nevertheless become subjects of curiosity and research. Ultimately
I am sure research will continue on those subjects.
I have a few more words of Dr. Moreau. He was talking about
these beast humans he created. He said:
To this day I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter. The study of
Nature makes man at last as remorseless as Nature.
5976
I will use the opportunity of speaking to Bill C-47 to make a
prediction. There are a number of prohibited practices here
including those I have mentioned. I predict that in 50 years
two-thirds of these prohibited practices will be legal in this
country and one-third will have been tried somewhere in the
world.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise a
second time to say how much I appreciated the speech of the
member who just spoke. I think he put the question well and his
selection of literary quotes was relevant.
There is a French novelist-I am not sure of his name-who
wrote a book entitled Les animaux dénaturés, a story about a
crossbreeding between monkeys and man that turned out badly.
The member mentioned a number of practices that are
objectionable, and I agree with him. He also mentioned all the
possibilities that science has to offer to cure a number of illnesses. I
agree with him on the fact that in maybe 50 years from now,
considering what is happening now in the field of genetics
research, something around two thirds of what will have been done
will be for the best and the other third will have been made illegal,
if the laws of ethics and, more simply, of humanity, remain the
same.
There is a French scientist who, at some point, ended genetic
research performed on animals because the same procedure could
have been applied to man. He thought that, considering the present
state of science, ethics and even religion, this research had to be
stopped.
But research must go on. However, such things as paying donors,
sex selection, artificial uteruses, cloning, choosing the sex-as we
all know, in some cultures, it is far better to be a man than a
woman-those techniques could create a situation where there will
be more men than women. This is the cultural issue, but there is
also a moral and even a religious issue.
I ask my colleague why the government did not include these
measures, which it often describes as horrifying and terrifying, in
the Criminal Code. I think Canadians would have readily
understood that some of these procedures are in fact in the criminal
realm.
What about cloning. If I remember well, that means you create
two genetically identical human beings. These are not twins, they
are clones, just like computers.
(1645)
I think that would be criminal. Why did the government not seize
the opportunity to ban these procedures and include them in the
Criminal Code? Then, Canadians would have understood that it is a
crime to do such things, that those procedures are criminal
activities. Now it seems we equate something forbidden by the
Criminal Code with something immoral. We all know that very
often there is a difference between the two. Some activities might
be very immoral but acceptable according to the Criminal Code.
Why were those procedures the previous member called horrible
and reprehensible, and for good reason, not incorporated in the
Criminal Code?
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Jonquière for his question. I do not think there are any easy answers
for that.
It is very difficult to make a branch of scientific research into a
criminal offence. I hate to bring up such a subject but it is like
abortion which is a medical practice.
When you apply the Criminal Code to that type of activity, Mr.
Speaker, it is a tremendous moral quagmire because scientific
research, scientific and medical understanding is always a
two-edged sword. On the one hand, in the case of chemical
weaponry or germ warfare research we should condemn these
activities and practices as criminal.
On the other hand, chemotherapy for cancer is a direct result of
the development of mustard gas bombs during the first and second
world wars. The aerosol spray can is a product of research on germ
warfare. Penicillin, the antibiotic, was developed as a result of
research into germ warfare.
When we enter into the field of reproductive technology we are
fearful. It is, after all, just another step in a scientific endeavour and
the expansion of the understanding of ourselves and the world we
live in. We want to apply moral standards and rightly so.
The principle of applying Criminal Code sanctions against
scientific research is dangerous. I prefer that the moral, ethical and
irresponsibility problem is dealt with-with penalties-in a
separate body of law, separate from the Criminal Code.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth for his intervention on this bill. I have some
concern about the type of reading material he enjoys but we all
have our likes and dislikes.
I was interested too in the question from the hon. member for
Jonquière who is calling for this type of activity to take place over
amendments to the Criminal Code. It confused me when I heard
that because on October 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre
called for the government to table a bill to regulate practices
connected with new reproductive technologies.
On December 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre said: ``It is
increasing clear that the commercialization of human genetic
material, embryos and the fetal tissue is growing in Canada''. She
called for regulation in this area.
5977
The position of the Bloc is further confused by the fact that on
July 5, 1995 the government brought forward a voluntary
moratorium on some of these practices and there was criticism
that it was not going far enough and that there were no real
sanctions against those who would continue with these types of
practices.
(1650 )
On June 5, 1996 the member for Drummond said that this area
was in urgent need of legislation. The government is doing exactly
what Bloc members asked us to do.
Then they come forward with this notion that somehow an
amendment to the Criminal Code is the way to go. They have to
talk with one voice. They have to talk on one steady theme. They
cannot be jumping all over the place when it comes to deciding
whether this should take the form of legislation in a bill or
amendments to the Criminal Code.
That argument aside, I was very interested in the argument put
forward by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth because he did
touch on-we are all exposed in one way or another-an individual
who he knows with cystic fibrosis.
I went back to check it out because I was interested in the line
that the member brought forward. Something like germ line genetic
alteration apparently has the potential to permanently alter the
human gene pool by changing the genetic structure of individuals
in ways that are passed on to their offspring.
Several other geneticists in the field are against this idea. Several
other countries have already investigated it. They are against it.
The geneticists are not sure how these genes interact after they
have been altered. They quite frankly admit that they do not have
the knowledge of what happens to these genes when they are
altered. It is because of that lack of knowledge that the countries
and the geneticists have come together to say that currently there is
still great potential for harm in this area. We are still in the research
stage.
Again, when this bill comes forward-it may be void of what the
hon. member is including in the bill-it does not preclude the
government at this date or in a date of review two, three or four
years, depending on whenever the committee decides when this bill
should be reviewed, to look again at this germ line genetic
alteration and say: ``Okay, it is safe now. Let's bring it in as an
amendment to the bill and incorporate it''.
Until we know it is a safe practice, until the geneticists and other
countries come together in their research to know that it will not
significantly harm or further complicate the gene pool, then we
have to be very cautious in the implementation of this legislation
and what it contains.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton
West, my neighbour, for his remarks. Let me say that the lack of
knowledge about the consequences of genetic research is precisely
what I was talking about.
The reason we are worried about it is that we do not know the
impact it will have on future generations of human beings. We do
not know what those human beings will look like and what
problems they will have.
The point I was making in my speech is that, nevertheless,
despite this fear, despite the fact it will never be safe to alter genes,
to tinker with the genes, the desire to help the people who have
genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy will
overwhelm those fears.
It will be precisely as the speaker says, this law will be amended
in the future. It will be changed and we will experiment in that area.
We cannot stop the progress of science. We can delay it no matter
what the fears but science will go on.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-47. Before I get
into my primary intervention, I would like to make a few
comments about what my hon. friend from the Liberal Party said.
He mentioned that this bill is based on fear. Yes, it is based on
fear. It is a triumph of fear over fact and a triumph of ignorance
over knowledge. That is a shame.
The hon. member quite correctly and eloquently mentioned the
tremendous benefits that could be derived. He eloquently
demonstrated that in the examples of cystic fibrosis and muscular
dystrophy, two genetic diseases that exact a terrible toll on the
youth of the world. These are diseases which snuff out life in its
prime, before it can ever achieve its true potential.
(1655)
Having personally seen these diseases up close and having
watched many of these people die, I can only say it is beyond belief
that this House would even comprehend a bill that would deprive
people from the opportunity and hope of having a cure.
The member quite correctly mentioned that genetic surgery can
take place all through the genes. That would help people in the
future not have these terrible diseases. We can eliminate these
scourges within our midst if we have the tools. However, Bill C-47
states that the bureaucrats will now have the power to stop the
research and medical communities from developing and accessing
the tools that can be of such enormous benefit to people.
The member quite correctly mentioned the fact that many
previous discoveries have come from research that people tried to
ban in times past. Thankfully for all of us here, that research was
5978
not banned. If it had been I can guarantee that some of the people in
this room would not be here today. It is because of research that we
have been able to eliminate these scourges and save millions and
millions of lives.
There are 13 proposals in this bill for banning certain things.
Some ought to be banned because they pose a threat to our species
and to other species. However, we need to determine what those
are. We ought not take a sledgehammer and deprive the research
community from developing those tools that are going to benefit
humanity.
Canadian researchers have made significant and enormous
contributions to the international medical community, to research
in many areas. Unfortunately, the government is gutting research
and depriving the research community so it cannot provide these
important discoveries that are going to benefit everybody.
This bill stems from a study that cost the Canadian taxpayers
over $30 million. This is money that could have been well spent in
some other areas, particularly in view of the fact that Canadians are
not receiving essential services that they need and in fact are
getting sicker and sometimes dying on waiting lists. Essential
health care services are being rationed because there is not enough
money to meet the demands on the health care system.
In that backdrop, the government chose to spend $30 million
putting this study together, a study, I might add, which did not
consult some of the primary players in reproductive technologies
and infertility. They were grouped into a few areas and I would like
to illustrate a few of those.
I cannot believe that the government would ask that bureaucrats
deprive the 15 per cent of Canadian couples who cannot have
children and who desperately want to have children. How arrogant
can it be to deprive people from having the choice? The
government has lumped into this bill things that need to be treated
in a very serious fashion, but some of things need to be regulated or
in fact banned. However, we need to determine what should be
banned, what should be regulated and what should be allowed.
The government has taken a cudgel and has said to the Canadian
people: ``Bang. This is not going to be allowed. The benefits of the
research in these areas are simply not going to be allowed''.
There are other areas that are extremely important. The
government talks about germ cell line alteration. The Liberal
member who previously spoke brought up some fanciful
descriptions from The Island of Dr. Moreau and from
Frankenstein.
However, I think we need to look at this in a very factual way. As
we speak some genetic alterations are taking place in animals, for
example pigs, to provide people with organs which will be able to
survive in people who need organ transplants.
(1700)
I ask that members look very deeply into their souls. I would like
members to ask themselves if they would deprive a 20-year old
person who was previously healthy but through no fault of their
own has a viral infection of the heart and needs a new one. Without
a new heart that person would die.
Sadly, there simply are not enough organs to provide all the
people who need them. Bless the hearts of those souls who die
tragically but who have arranged that their organs be donated to
other people. That gift of life brings honour to them and their
families.
This bill would deprive science of providing people with organs
that would work a lot better in their bodies. Researchers are
working on the organs of pigs which will have a much greater
chance of surviving in humans with fewer side effects.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party mentioned cystic
fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and a host of other genetic
problems. These research capabilities that the government chooses
to ban will deprive Canadians and the rest of the world of being
able to share the benefits of any discoveries.
There are many other genetic possibilities. Science is on the
threshold of discovering areas where we can make very significant
improvements in the health and welfare of Canadians. However the
government wants to deprive Canadians of this benefit.
The government wants to create a new registry. The purpose of
the registry indicates that the bureaucracy thinks it knows more
than research. The registry is going to cost money that we do not
have because it has to come out of the existing health care budget.
This budget is strained beyond the demands that are placed on it
right now.
We need not look any further than the Ottawa heart institute
where people sadly have died while waiting for important and
urgent cardiovascular surgery.
The bill also proposes to spend money. The bill also proposes as
its hidden agenda to have things such as in vitro fertilization
covered under the medical services plan. In committee I asked Dr.
Patricia Baird how this would be done, given the fact that the
demands of society on our medical services far exceed what can be
provided. How can we afford to cover procedures such as IVF
which costs $5,000 under the medical plan? This would make it a
right for every single person in Canada. We do not have the money
to do this. It is high time we prioritized our spending. The
government has chosen to prevent infertile couples from having
access to this.
In its wisdom the government's rationale is, why should things
such as in vitro fertilization be brought down to the lowest common
5979
denominator of commerce? Nobody is going to get rich donating
their sperm or ova. It is not a business people want to get into. The
moneys given to the people who choose to donate their sperm or
ova is compensation for the time, effort and the extensive studies
and trial tests necessary in making a donation. It is not much
money and compensation is necessary to get willing donors.
In other countries where the compensation factor has been
withdrawn the number of donors has dropped precipitously. When
that drops precipitously, the access couples have to in vitro
fertilization drops too. What will they do? They will go to the
United States and get it done there at a greater cost and with greater
suffering to them. They do not need that when they are already
suffering under the yoke of not being able to have children.
(1705)
Philosophically I do not see how the government can take it upon
itself to put research under the realm of a group of bureaucrats who
may not know anything at all about the complex issues at hand.
Would it not make more sense first to determine what needs to be
regulated because research is being pursued in an area where there
is a danger to society, to our species and others?
First determine whether these research initiatives pose a threat.
If that is so, then let us work with the research community to
produce regulations or if necessary to ban them. The government
has chosen not to do that. Instead it has chosen to take its
sledgehammer and squash these initiatives lock, stock and barrel.
Some constructive solutions could be employed. Some of these
solutions involve the identification of the procedures to be covered,
the procedures that should not be banned and the procedures that
should be allowed to take place.
I do not know where the government has come from on this issue
except that it wants to create a new registry and regulate an area in
which it has no place. I ask rhetorically whether the government is
going to regulate other areas of medical research, or physics
research, or chemistry research, or research in other basic sciences.
The government has not done that. It is singling out this area
because a very small number of people who have ingratiated
themselves into Health Canada have brought it upon themselves in
their moral way and decided they are the ones best suited to decide
which way research should go. That is heavy handed and
completely arrogant.
The government should not have bothered itself with an area in
which it has no place. It should have concerned itself with the far
more pressing problems which exist concerning the health and
welfare of Canadians.
Today I attended an international conference on smoking which
the Minister of Health was at. He said this morning in a heartfelt
way to the hundreds of people who were there: ``I am going to
bring good, constructive health legislation to the House forthwith''.
He also said: ``Judge me by what I do, not by what I say''. The
minister was talking out of both sides of his mouth because in the
House today the minister said that he would bring forth legislation
when he was good and ready.
In March the minister promised that he would bring in tough
legislation to regulate tobacco forthwith. He promised it twice in
June. He promised it earlier this month. He promised it today. To
date no one in this country has seen any regulation or any tough
constructive ideas and legislation to prevent that which is the single
most preventable cause of death within Canada.
I need not remind the House and most of the members who have
children that smoking is the single most important, detrimental
problem that exists for Canada's youth today. And it is preventable.
It is most tragic that with the tobacco tax rollback brought forth by
the government in 1994, there has been a 30 to 40 per cent increase
in the consumption of tobacco by children and teenagers. Every
month 20,000 teenagers pick up tobacco. Every year 40,000
Canadians die of tobacco related diseases. It is an issue which the
government should be deeply concerned with.
(1710)
Instead of concerning itself with the single most preventable
cause of death in this country, one that exceeds the deaths from
suicides, car accidents, gun shot wounds and AIDS by a factor of
three, the government concerns itself with legislation on human
reproductive technologies. It is depriving the Canadian public of
research which would benefit many people around the world and
technologies and medical benefits that would enable the 15 per cent
of Canadians who are infertile to have an opportunity to have
children.
I cannot fathom how the government in all conscience can do
this. I do not understand why the Minister of Health does not bring
forth proper legislation to enable Canadians to have access to
essential services. Government members continually claim that
they are the ones who are going to uphold the Canada Health Act.
They are the ones who say they will ensure access to essential
health care services to every Canadian in a timely fashion.
Accessibility is one of the most important aspects of the Canada
Health Act. Access to health care is worse today than it was when
the government came into power. Waiting lists are getting longer.
The waiting lists for special services are much longer than they
should be. That is not access. That is not upholding the Canada
Health Act. That is not enabling Canadians to access health care in
a timely fashion. It is deplorable that the government is playing
politics with this issue, an issue which is so important to Canadians
from coast to coast.
5980
With respect to the smoking issue, I remind the House it is
particularly important in the province of Quebec where
consumption is the highest in the country. It is a profound and
tragic addiction which affects Quebecers. It puts an enormous
strain on Quebec's health care budget. But it is an epidemic which
is occurring from coast to coast.
I hope the government will try to work with members across all
party lines. Believe it or not, we all have the same goal. We all want
to improve the health of Canadians. We all want to ensure that
Canadians have access to health care in a timely fashion. That is the
goal of the Reform Party. I am sure it is also the goal of the Liberal
Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party. We have
to work together on this issue and put aside the rhetoric. We have to
build a stronger, made in Canada health act with made in Canada
solutions to provide better health care to all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask a question to my colleague from the Reform Party. But
before doing so, I would like to remind government members that,
indeed, it is true that the official opposition has urged the
government to make some reproductive technologies a criminal
offence. However, we have always said that health is under
provincial jurisdiction. As for the Criminal Code, it is in the
purview of the federal government. So it is the federal government
that must take action in this area.
I would like to ask the Reform member, who is a doctor, if he has
noted in the bill before us that several clauses, definitions and
terms are used and that these terms, clauses and definitions are
vague, and if he noticed that, because they are very vague, they
might be open to interpretation. Has he noted that the definition of
these terms does not correspond to the medical definition?
(1715)
We know our Reform colleague is a doctor, so I think that,
through his professional activities, he has surely identified in the
clauses some terms that are not really defined by medicine.
Has he noted, like I did, that the vagueness of some of these
terms might give rise to legal debates when this legislation deals
with these first offences?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my friend from the Bloc Quebecois for her question.
[English]
The hon. member raised a very good question. She is absolutely
correct. The government has used a ham-fisted approach to try to
craft a bill based on fear and not one based on any knowledge of the
issue.
The terms and definitions used are vague and broad. In a court of
law they would be very difficult to support unless the government
were to be more explicit on the issue. The fact of the matter is that
the government has a lot of work if it is to do this.
That will be one of the stumbling blocks. It is one of the major
reservations I personally have about the bill. The government has
used a scythe to cut through huge areas of research. It has taken the
good out with the bad. I am sure that is part of what my friend from
the Bloc Quebecois was referring to and is one of the major
problems with this ill crafted bill rooted in ignorance.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will start with my comment first
and then go to the question.
An hon. member: Why?
Mr. Keyes: The hon. member across the way wonders why. He
said a little earlier that he deplored playing politics with this issue.
I could point to a couple of the inconsistencies coming across the
floor from the member of the third party.
In September 1993 the Reform Party supported user fees,
deductibles, and would eliminate universality. I remind the House
of what magazine that was in: Canadian Living, September 1993.
Just before the election of October 1993 the Reform party said that
it was opposed to private health care and user fees. Where is the
consistency there?
The member for Macleod said in the House on October 17, 1995
that medicare was bad for everyone. Can we imagine a Reform
member saying medicare was bad for everyone. I am quoting from
Hansard. Then on November 23, 1995 the member for Macleod
said that medicare was important to all Canadians.
Where is the consistency there? If they want to start playing
politics there is plenty of it, but we are not interested in playing
politics on this issue. Quite frankly I have a great deal of respect for
the hon. member. He is an emergency medical surgeon. He knows
what he is talking about when it comes to medical stuff. He has
lived it. He has breathed it. He has partaken in it. At the same time
he must understand that the objectives of the bill are to protect the
health and safety of Canadians, to ensure the appropriate use of
human reproductive materials outside the body, and to protect the
dignity and security of all persons, especially women and children.
Appropriate is the operative word we are using. We have to team
up not just as researchers in the great country we call Canada but as
geneticists outside Canada in other countries around the world who
have done some research in this area. What may appear to the hon.
member to be some kind of a broad stroke in the area of specifics in
the bill are there intentionally to ensure that we are paying attention
to the world when it comes to actions of speciality medicines, the
actions of new research, the actions or the findings that come with
research in the field of medicine. As I said earlier, we have to
protect women and children. We have to protect reproductive
5981
materials outside the body and protect the dignity and security of
all people.
(1720)
The hon. member spoke of in vitro fertilization. He attempted to
build his case on a falsehood. He made the contention that the bill
would ban in vitro fertilization. On what basis does the hon.
member say this? Can he point to anywhere in the bill that says it
would ban in vitro fertilization?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. friend from the Liberal Party. His concerns are the
same as our concerns. Our interest is in protecting the health and
welfare of all Canadians, all people in this country. Our goal is
exactly the same as that of the hon. member. The word appropriate
is extremely important and I will get back to it.
In answer to his question, Bill C-47 indicates that the buying and
selling of eggs, sperm and embryos including their exchange for
goods, services or other benefits but excluding the recovery of
expenses incurred in the collection, storage and distribution of
sperm, ova and embryos for persons other than a donor will be
prohibited. The government will ban in vitro fertilization.
I will address some of the hon. member's other concerns. He
spoke about partisanship in the House. If the hon. member would
look at my blues he would know that at the end of my speech I said
I am sure members from all parties would be happy to work with
the government to ensure we have effective legislation in this area
and, more important, to ensure that Canadians get their essential
health care services. The hon. member alluded to that.
Canadians are not getting their essential health care services
when they need them. Accessibility is being denied to Canadians.
Provincial governments ration essential services because there is
not enough money to do all we ask for right now. The government
ripped out $3 billion in transfer payments to the provinces.
If the government thinks that providing Canadians access to
essential services is ripping out $3 billion in transfer payments to
the provinces for health, it has another thing coming. That is not
what we want to do.
The Reform Party, for the 100th time, is committed to ensuring
that every Canadian regardless of how much money they have in
their pockets will have access to essential health care services when
they medically need them, not when their pocketbook allows it and
not when the bottom line in provincial coffers allow it. We are
vehemently opposed to an American style health care system. We
are the party that wants to ensure that Canadians have access to the
essential services they need.
If we are to move to an era where Canadians have access to
essential health care services we must change our mindset. We
must move toward an era where we will amend the Canada Health
Act to give people choice. It is not a magic bullet. It is not a
panacea for all that ills the health and welfare of Canadians, but it
is a start.
In conjunction with other initiatives including better
management, identifying effective preventive measures and
effective legislation on smoking and tobacco regulation, these
measures can be used to build a stronger health act and to build a
system that is distinct and superior to the those of the Americans,
the British, the Germans and the French. Canada will build it. We
can do it by making these amendments to the Canada Health Act.
We cannot be entrenched in an act put forth decades ago that
hamstrings the ability of our country and Canadians to move
forward. If we adhere to the act in its entirety as it stands now, it
prevents that from happening. The government is living a sham.
The government is hamstringing the provinces from being able to
provide health care to Canadians.
(1725)
Members of my party and I would be happy to present to the
government any place, any time, anywhere, effective solutions to
ensure that Canadians obtain their health care in a timely fashion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate at
second reading of Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive
technologies and commercial transactions relating to human
reproduction.
We have been waiting for several years for a bill regulating the
new rapidly changing reproductive technologies.
What could be considered science-fiction only a few years ago is
now an ever present reality that raises basic ethical issues. This is a
complex problem that requires government intervention, of course,
to ensure that science continues to serve mankind and not the other
way around.
This bill, which was tabled last June, results from a long process
that started with the hearings of the Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies, the famous Baird Commission named
after its chair.
First demanded by several feminist organizations in 1977, this
commission was finally established 12 years later in 1989. After
four years of work marked by internal management problems, the
resignation of four of its commissioners and, above all, an
astronomical $28 million cost, the commission had heard, believe
it or not, more than 40,000 witnesses. It is important to mention
that no provincial government official was among these 40,000
witnesses.
5982
The commission also looked at the work of more than 300
researchers before finally tabling in the fall of 1993 a 1,435-page
report containing over 300 recommendations. So there was
something to act on. But what did this government do after this
report was tabled? It did not do anything except stall for a long
time and act with a carelessness that is reflected in the bill before
us today.
So between 1993 and July 1995, this government did absolutely
nothing except say that something needed to be done. Despite the
official opposition's repeated demands for more than two years, the
government persisted in doing nothing. For instance, when
questioned, the Minister of Health of the day used to respond with
vague examples and empty promises.
Essentially, the debates went something like this. In January
1994, in response to question by a government member, the then
Minister of Health stated that Health Canada was actively
addressing the recommendations contained in the Baird report
which could be acted on quickly. That was in January 1994.
Then, in February 1994, one month later, the Minister of Justice
stated that studies were under way and that he would report back to
the House in due course with the speed the urgency of the situation
dictated.
In October 1994, the Minister of Health indicated that she was
developing rules in this respect and that there were some
jurisdictional problems. ``But we are doing our job'', she
concluded. We know how the federal government deals with
problems that arise concerning jurisdiction: it ignores provincial
jurisdictions. I will come back on this later.
Still in 1994, it was a long year, in November this time, the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health makes a
statement to the effect that the issue was a serious, difficult and
complex one, that raised controversy. In December 1994, the
Minister of Health, in turn, stated that what was a complex problem
back in November had become extremely complex. If nothing else,
they were certainly single-minded.
In March 1995, the minister announced her intention to put
forward a policy on a new reproductive technology and that clearly
the government was going to act.
(1730)
Act it did, in July 1995. While the House was not sitting and we
were all trying to take some off, the minister imposed a voluntary
moratorium on certain procedures involving new reproductive
technologies, a moratorium that did not even cut it with those
concerned and was mocked left and right.
In January 1996, the second last stage, the Minister of Health
announced that a committee had been established to do a follow up
on the infamous moratorium, which was no longer described as
voluntary but interim.
This brings us to the tabling, in June, of Bill C-47, a bill that is as
thin as it is vague, as my opposition colleagues have pointed out.
But this bill clearly bears the stamp of the federal Liberals in terms
of interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction, and the area of
health in particular.
Since the Baird report was tabled, the opposition has been
relentlessly asking that governments provide a framework for
reproduction technologies. The Government of Quebec has already
included in Quebec's basic legislation, the Code civil, a provision
that will make any surrogacy arrangement absolutely null and void.
This is one way of using existing tools to make new laws.
The area of health being a provincial area of responsibility, it is
up to the provinces to set the standards and restrictions with respect
to certain human reproduction procedures. It would have been easy
for the federal government to act within its field of jurisdiction: it
simply had to amend the Criminal Code so as to prohibit certain
practices. This is what we wanted it to do. In this way, it would
have added to the efforts of the provinces, while staying within its
own field of jurisdiction.
Once again, the government had a golden opportunity to act
efficiently, while respecting the autonomy of the provinces
regarding this issue.
However, as we have often seen in this House, the government
would rather interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction. While it
could simply have amended the Criminal Code to prohibit certain
practices, such as the trade of embryos and ova, the government
creates another useless national agency, which will impose
standards from coast to coast, instead of letting the provinces
define these standards themselves.
I also want to draw your attention to clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7, which
list prohibited activities. This is very enlightening: the cloning of
human embryos, it took three years to introduce a bill on this; the
creation of animal-human hybrids and the fusing of human and
animal zygotes or embryos, again three years to arrive at this; the
implant of a human embryo in an animal or an animal embryo in a
woman; the alteration of the genetic structure of germ cells; the
retrieving of sperm or ova from a foetus or cadaver for fertilization
or research purposes requiring it to mature outside the human body;
the choosing of the sex based on non-medical criteria; ectogenesis,
that is the maintaining of an embryo in an artificial uterus.
There is more. I will continue. This is very instructive. The
research on human embryos after the 14th day following
conception; the creation of embryos solely for research purposes;
and, finally, giving or offering consideration for prohibited
services.
5983
It is also prohibited to buy or sell ova, sperm or embryos, or
to barter or exchange them for goods, services or other benefits,
except the recovery of costs incurred in the collection, storage and
distribution of sperm, ova and embryos for other persons; and,
finally, the use, without the consent of the donor, of human sperm,
ova or embryos for assisted human reproductive technologies, or
for medical research.
Thus, the prohibitions included in the voluntary moratorium are
maintained, along with new ones.
(1735)
Yet, after all these years since the report Baird was tabled, we
could have expected much more rigour in this piece of legislation.
For example, when we prohibit the use of diagnostic procedures
solely to ascertain the sex of the foetus, except for medical reasons,
for health reasons, what health reasons are we talking about? Does
that include the mental health of the mother, or are we referring to
the health of the foetus or of the parents? The bill says very little on
that.
Clause 7 prohibiting the use of sperm, ova or embryos for the
purpose of research, donation, maturation or fertilization, specifies
that the donor's consent must be obtained. One then can logically
deduce that these uses would be allowed with the donor's consent.
It is a prohibition without really being one. Moreover, this situation
is inconsistent with some of the provisions of clause 4, which
prohibits certain uses. This illustrates the lack of clarity of this bill.
However, one question arises: is it possible that lack of clarity is
provided to give full scope to the national agency that will be set up
shortly to control and monitor new reproductive technologies? I am
afraid so. The bill is of a very general nature, and the new agency,
whose members will be appointed by the federal Minister of
Health, will be given free rein to develop and implement policies
concerning, probably, other areas besides the new reproductive
technologies and to set new national medical and health standards.
When the time comes to legislate on such an important issue,
that raised basic concerns concerning the role of science in the
human reproduction process, I think it is disgraceful for the federal
government to see this as just another opportunity to infringe upon
the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and all the other provinces.
Instead of setting up national agencies in each and every area and
therefore creating useless and costly duplication, the government
should consult with Quebec and all its other provincial
counterparts, let them make decisions within their own areas of
jurisdiction and act in its own areas of jurisdiction.
All that would be needed are a few amendments to the Criminal
Code to prohibit the use of some technologies throughout Canada.
Instead, the government introduces a bill for which both the justice
minister and the health minister are responsible, and we know what
this will entail, and creates a national monitoring agency.
One could hope that the government's only motive is to protect
the health of all Canadians and Quebecers. However, it has another
major motive, and I might go as far as saying a permanent motive,
which is to ignore provincial areas of jurisdiction.
As a former member of Parliament once said, the government is
good for us, it wants what is best for us and will do anything to get
it.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that there are
two minutes left in this debate.
I recognize the hon. member for Lévis for a question or a
comment.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even though I
studied that topic in detail, every time I listen to the hon. member
for Laval Centre, I learn something new. She gave us an
extraordinary historical background to this issue, not only by
telling us what she witnessed in this House, the vague and virtuous
answers provided by the former Minister of Health, but also by
highlighting the report of the Baird commission. She reminded us
that the commission heard some 40,000 witnesses.
(1740)
I know that the hon. member for Laval Centre has read the
report, so I do not want to bore her with that, but what she is saying
is that this very bulky report has resulted in a very slim bill of only
a few pages. The report dealt with a significant issue, but only led
to a bill so slim as to look trivial for such an important and a serious
issue. I would like the hon. member to comment on this.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has run out of time. It
being 5.41 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
5983
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive
waste into Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to inform the
House of the negative consequences of passing the legislation
proposed in Bill C-236.
5984
There are many negative consequences of the proposed act. My
intervention will concentrate on the negative consequences to the
health of Canadians and other residents of developing as well as
developed countries. It will also concentrate on the negative
consequences on sustainable development activities that may
require international co-operation.
Canada has no plans to import nuclear fuel waste. Nevertheless
Canadian officials are participating in the development of
international recommendations on the practice of importing and
exporting radioactive waste, particularly low level radioactive
waste.
The International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA indicates that
a state exporting radioactive material should take the appropriate
steps necessary to permit readmission into its territory of any
resulting radioactive waste which the importing state cannot
dispose of properly unless another arrangement can be made.
Thus the bill would affect the availability of medical, industrial
and research equipment containing radioactive sources for
developed and developing countries.
With regard to developing countries, very few of these have
disposal facilities and therefore may not be able to avail themselves
of this type of equipment. In many cases, Canada is the leading
exporter of such equipment and in some cases the only supplier to
the world. Since many developing countries are in no position to
adequately dispose of any radioactive waste resulting from the use
of such equipment and materials, these countries may have but two
alternatives.
The first alternative is to turn to a non-Canadian supplier, if
available, that would accept the return of radioactive waste but that
may or may not properly dispose of this waste. The other
alternative is simply to give up the health and environmental
activities. This would necessarily increase risks to both health and
the environment and make it more difficult to move toward
sustainable development activities.
If we believe that giving up good medical practice is not
desirable, then to which states will the resulting radioactive waste
be exported? Canada has the technological capability to properly
manage this waste. Would passing the bill put forward by the
member for Fraser Valley East indicate to the world that we are
shirking our responsibilities to the developing world?
We were very pleased to hear the member opposite state in the
previous debate that ``Canada has a responsibility as an advanced
industrial society to look for ways of helping other societies that
are perhaps having a little trouble right now to find ways of treating
the nuclear waste produced''.
How do we help these countries? By pressuring them to spend
considerable sums of money to deal with their own radioactive
waste resulting from various uses, including medical procedures?
Many developing countries cannot afford to do so and must export
their waste if they are to benefit from the peaceful and beneficial
uses of nuclear energy. Should developed countries close their
borders to them? If so, then not only would they not be helping in
the development of these countries, but they would also be wilfully
inhibiting the progress of developing countries toward sustainable
development activities. This would be contrary to Canada's
international relations, particularly in view of our past and present
activities in assisting countries that are endeavouring to develop in
a sustainable manner.
(1745)
The legislation proposed in Bill C-236 could also impact on
international co-operative activities on overall waste management
services not only with developing countries but also with
developed countries, particularly with the United States. Good
co-operation with our neighbours on waste management issues is
essential in view of future special circumstances which may arise
requiring mutual assistance for the safe and effective management
of waste.
For instance, there have already been cases in other countries
where hospitals have had to stop using certain medical procedures
on patients because they were unable to ship the resulting
radioactive waste to national disposal facilities due to temporary
unavailability. In such instances it would be more than justifiable
on a health basis to permit shipping the waste to a neighbouring
country either for storage or disposal purposes until the temporary
problem was resolved.
A ban on the importation of radioactive waste might seem
questionable to our neighbours. Therefore this bill would hamper
Canada's assistance and co-operation with nations around the
world, resulting in a decrease in the quality of health protection
systems for Canadians and for residents in developing as well as
developed countries.
I urge the members of the House not to vote for this bill.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of Bill C-236, an act to prevent the
importation of radioactive waste. This bill was introduced by my
colleague from Fraser Valley East who I know has carefully studied
the issue of nuclear waste and its potential for seriously harming
the environment and endangering public health and safety. I know
he is very concerned and has put a great deal of effort into this bill.
One of the questions I want to address is one with which I think
Canadians are concerned: Will Canada become the garbage bin of
the world for nuclear waste? We certainly hope not. I am concerned
to learn that there are over 400 commercial nuclear reactors in the
world and many more small nuclear reactors in universities, on
ships and in submarines. All of these reactors need a place to
5985
dispose of their radioactive waste, waste which remains highly
toxic for thousands of years.
What better country than Canada to ship all this waste to?
Canada has lots of land. It has a relatively small population. There
are groups who might be willing to take a time bomb off the hands
of other countries, especially those countries which have the ability
to pay and pay handsomely. This thought is deeply disturbing to
me. It has been a challenge for us to find suitable locations for our
own nuclear waste. We certainly do not need to take on the
radioactive waste of other countries, and there is certainly lots of it
out there.
The United States will be looking to dispose of 50 tonnes of
plutonium over the next 25 years. Russia has another 50 tonnes. My
colleague from Fraser Valley East tells me that at the Hanford site
in the United States there is enough high level waste to fill 86
football fields one metre deep. It will cost $57 billion just to
dispose of the waste from that site.
Some might suggest that allowing nuclear waste to be disposed
of in Canada would have an economic benefit. However, our
economic problems are not going to be solved by allowing Canada
to become the nuclear garbage bin of the world. We have to solve
those problems here. The provinces have shown us that we are on
the way to a solution. If the federal government would get on board
to a greater degree, we would be able to resolve our economic
problems. This is not a method which we should use to solve those
problems.
We hear that there are certain aboriginal groups in Canada that
are considering offering their lands for disposal purposes. Their
lands lie over the Canadian Shield. They figure that they can make
a fair amount of cash by allowing nuclear waste to be buried there.
They call it economic development.
(1750)
With the pollution coming into Canada from some of the
European countries and the United States, the Canadian Shield
does not even have the ability to filter out the pollution problem we
have. Some of the Canadian soil on the prairies has the buffering
actions that are necessary but it certainly does not exist in the
Canadian Shield which is basically rock.
It seems to me that in the Nisga'a agreement, which will be used
as a pattern by many other aboriginal self-governments, allows an
aboriginal government to run its own environmental assessments.
In effect, that local government can decide how harmful burying
nuclear waste is on its land and whether it is worth the risk.
I have no problem with aboriginal communities taking on
Canadian nuclear waste if they feel it is profitable enough for them
to do so, but I do not like the idea of taking on international waste.
We need to solve our own problems but we do not have to solve the
international problems. That has to be done in their own countries.
It is bad enough to have to worry about our own highly toxic
garbage. Let us not take on the dangerous toxic nuclear waste of
other countries.
I want to examine the question of whether this agreement
contravenes NAFTA. There is some question about whether
passing this act would contravene our trade agreement with the
United States and Mexico. There is a NAFTA dispute settlement
panel. If the panel was asked to look into this matter, several
factors would have to be considered.
Chapter nine in the NAFTA would certainly be scrutinized. This
chapter sets out the permissible barriers to trade that are related to
standards that a country might want to set for itself. Article 904
allows a country to adopt any standards related measures that are
important to its safety. The protection of human, animal and plant
life is included here, as well as the environment. The article allows
a country to prohibit the importation of a good or the provision of a
service by another country that does not comply with this standards
related measure.
There would probably be some debate as to whether nuclear
waste burial is the trade of a good or the provision of a service.
There would also need to be some evidence of the danger to the
environment for humans, plants and animals. There might also be
some debate on whether prohibiting the importation might not pose
an even greater danger to Canada. Burying the waste near our
border might be more dangerous for our safety than burying it far
away from populated areas.
It is always difficult to predict the outcome of the legal
wrangling that would take place. Much depends on the skill of the
lawyers and the make-up of the panel. I would certainly be willing
to place a bet that Canada could defend its standards related
measure and maintain its right to prohibit the importation of
nuclear waste. This is a very serious matter.
I would like to add my weight to those who are calling for the
ban on the importation of nuclear waste into Canada. Because it is a
commodity that has a very dangerous level to our safety and has a
life that goes on thousands of years, this has to be considered very
carefully. We need some kind of provisions that limit the ability of
certain groups to bring this into Canada.
In conclusion, I call on all members of the House to support this
bill and to vote in favour of it. Canada is a beautiful, wide open
country with lots of forests, lakes and streams. Let us keep it as
clean as we can and as waste free as possible. Let us not allow
Canada to become the nuclear garbage bin of the world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I take part today in this debate at second reading
of Bill C-236 introduced by my colleague from Fraser Valley East,
an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.
5986
I want to remind you at the outset that, in May 1995, the report
of the Auditor General of Canada contained a chapter on this issue,
entitled: Federal Radioactive Waste Management. Page 3-5 of this
report provides, and I quote: ``Canada has no disposal facilities
for any of its high-level or low-level radioactive waste.'' And
further on: ``Decisions still have to be taken in Canada on whether
and how to proceed to a disposal solution. Despite the significant
investment, in Canada, of about $538 million in research and
development, there has been no consideration of alternative
approaches for moving Canada's high-level radioactive waste
program forward after March 1997, when current federal funding
ends.''
(1755)
Clearly, Canada is not yet equipped to receive foreign countries'
radioactive waste. Since Canada does not know yet what to do with
its own waste, how could it deal with, dispose of or store other
countries'?
In this sense, the bill by my Reform colleague may seem
premature and untimely, since Canada is not soon going to become
the nuclear waste dumpsite of the world. But as untimely as it may
be, Bill C-236 is to me a good message to send to the authorities so
that they seriously question the appropriateness of bringing foreign
countries' nuclear waste to our shores.
Currently, Canadian nuclear authorities are considering two
projects for our nuclear waste. The first one deals with the
permanent storage of spent fuel, or highly radioactive waste, and
the other one deals with the development of a low radioactive waste
disposal site in Ontario, in Deep River to be more precise.
As far as the permanent storage of spent fuel is concerned, the
authorities are considering the possibility of storing this highly
radioactive waste in a huge cave dug into the Canadian shield.
According to present plans, this cave should be ready by the year
2025 and more than 4 million spent fuel clusters could be stored
there. For your information, a cluster is about the size of a fireplace
log and the anticipated 4 million clusters represent a volume
equivalent to that of seven Olympic swimming pools. This spent
fuel, 85 per cent of which is produced by Hydro Ontario reactors,
remains highly radioactive for at least 500 years, and its handling
requires appropriate steps to ensure the protection of human beings
and the environment during this period.
In fact, certain elements of this fuel remain harmful for tens of
thousands of years if they escape containment and are ingested or
inhaled.
In view of this portrait of the Canadian situation, not to say
Ontarian, we must ask if we really want more of such hazardous
waste, especially coming from abroad. An article published in the
Globe and Mail on October 27, 1994 entitled:
[English]
``Canada eyed as world site for nuclear waste, proposal to use
Canadian Shield called dangerous''.
[Translation]
-shows the fears and apprehensions of environmentalists with
regard to this issue of permanent disposal. The article says at the
beginning, and I quote:
[English]
``It may take 20 to 50 years to happen, but Canada has moved
one step closer to becoming the world's nuclear waste dump site,
environmental critics charged yesterday''.
[Translation]
Environmental groups argue that Canada cannot legally ban the
import of radioactive waste from the United States and that
Canadian nuclear authorities might find it beneficial to open their
future site to foreign waste. One can also read, and I quote:
[English]
``You build a dump here and you can bet the U.S. will be beating
the bushes to get rid of their stuff''.
[Translation]
These are very real concerns of environmentalists that we must
consider very seriously.
More recently, the Prime Minister of Canada gave his support to
a feasibility study to import into Canada plutonium from Russian
and American nuclear warheads to burning it as fuel in our
CANDU reactors. This plutonium considered waste by these
countries is considered fuel by Canada.
That is about one hundred tonnes of plutonium that we would
burn in the interest of a peace effort, according to the Prime
Minister. But once this plutonium is burned, it produces highly
radioactive waste. How many bundles will be added to ours, to the
4 million bundles expected by the end of 2033? This roundabout
way for foreigners to dispose of their plutonium waste raises some
serious questions.
(1800)
Would it not be better to sell them Candu reactors so as to make
them autonomous and responsible for their own waste? And why
should those countries not find their own solutions to this problem?
This overview of the status of highly radioactive waste clearly
shows we must be careful and the apparent danger of linking the
issue of financial profits to that of the environment in this matter.
Spent fuel is and must be considered extremely toxic, with all
the adverse effects that may occur in case of management
problems.
5987
As for low level radioactive waste, Canadian authorities are also
considering a type of permanent storage. Deep River was chosen
as the site, as I said earlier. One of the technologies being
developed involves the use of an underground structure protected
against intrusion, consisting of a series of concrete vaults where
waste would be stored for 500 years, after which it would be
harmless. This project is not going down smoothly in this Ontarian
locality and serious concerns are being expressed throughout the
region. Can you imagine the reaction the communities concerned
would have if, in addition, they were to receive waste made in
the USA?
I look favourably on the bill put forward by the hon. member for
Fraser Valley East. While Canada may be renowned around the
world for being accommodating, it should not have to become the
nuclear waste-basket of the world just to live up to its reputation.
Finally, I would suggest that the Prime Minister and his
ministers and members of Parliament take a good hard look at what
impact importing plutonium will have in Canada.
Members from Ontario, and particularly those in whose riding
CANDU reactors have already been designated to burn plutonium,
thereby adding to the radioactive waste problem, should consult
their voters on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-236, proposed by the
hon. member for Fraser Valley East. The bill would prevent the
importation of radioactive waste into Canada.
Although at first this bill appears somewhat harmless, in reality
it is fraught with a number of negative consequences. Those
consequences are international and domestic in scope. They pertain
to health and have serious environmental impacts. Presently
Canada does not import any nuclear fuel waste whatsoever. The
Government of Canada has no plan to do so.
The hon. member from the Reform Party mentioned plutonium.
There are international agreements and conventions in operation at
the present time to prevent the transportation of plutonium across
borders.
Plutonium is one of the deadliest materials available at the
present time. As a result, every nation in the world must be on
guard and vigilant in the prevention of the transportation of any
plutonium through the black market which comes from the
dismantling of nuclear bombs and nuclear warheads in countries
such as Russia.
However, we import radioactive waste produced by medical
equipment that is used in other countries. To discontinue this
practice would have serious negative consequences. For example,
the potential exists for significant impacts on the health of people
from developing countries that often cannot effectively manage
radioactive waste disposal like we can.
Specifically, developing countries with inadequate waste
disposal systems may not be able to utilize radiological treatment
of cancer and early detection analysis of various diseases. This
would be a very real possibility if we refused these countries access
to our disposal systems. At present clients from all over the world
obtain products from Canadian firms that manufacture radio
isotopes and equipment containing radioactive materials which are
used to make medical diagnosis and treat disease, particularly for
cancer and heart patients, sterilize surgical instruments and blood
for transfusions, prevent diseases such as malaria and increase the
efficiency of agricultural methods.
(1805)
When discussing the benefits of nuclear energy, we often
concentrate on the production of an economic, environmentally
sound way of producing electricity. We often forget to highlight the
other benefits such as those just mentioned in the health area which
lead to the avoidance of diseases, the elimination of infections and
the provision of good nutrition and food.
There are many examples where the uses of nuclear energy
considerably improve the health and economic development of
people worldwide. Let me highlight one. Chile has developed a
multibillion dollar food export industry. It is also the only country
in South America that is internationally recognized as being free of
the Mediterranean fruit fly. Until recently, however, Chilean fresh
foods were still excluded from certain markets because of the fear
of outbreaks originating from Med flies in northern Chile.
After many unsuccessful attempts with insecticides, finally in
1990 Chile turned to a biological method using flies sterilized with
radiation. As a result of this, no wild Med flies have been detected
since mid-1995. And in December 1995, Chile was formally
declared a fly free zone by international experts.
According to the Chilean minister of agriculture, this will mean
an annual increase of $500 million in fruit exports over the next
five years. This is a very good example of the use of the type of
material and equipment produced and exported by Canadian firms.
The countries that utilize medical equipment and material
exported by Canada expect us to assist them with their waste
disposal. If they are refused assistance in waste disposal, in turn
they could readily refuse to buy equipment containing radioactive
sources and radio isotopes from Canada. Canadian exporters of
medical and industrial equipment and materials would lose a
sizeable portion of their clients. A reduction of this nature would
lead to job losses here at home. Certainly the Reform Party does
not want job losses.
5988
With know-how and good marketing practices, Canadian firms
have managed to be leaders in the industry that provides radio
isotopes and irradiation equipment around the world. They have
proven themselves to be a reliable supplier of these products. They
contribute significantly to Canada's exports and in the process
provide quality jobs for Canadians in this rapidly growing high
technology field. Bill C-236 would put the brakes on the growth
of this industry.
I would like to highlight one of the Canadian firms in this field.
Nordion International Incorporated is a leader worldwide in the
production of radio isotopes. Nordion contributes worldwide to the
prevention of diseases and healing patients. Nordion's total
revenues in fiscal 1995 were $191 million. The company exports to
over 70 countries and 98 per cent of its sales are from export
markets. It has over 700 employees and more than 50 per cent hold
post-secondary degrees or diplomas. Nordion's Canadian facilities
are located in Montreal, Vancouver and in Kanata, Ontario.
This company expects that future growth will see a considerable
expansion of their products, including the development of new
radio pharmaceuticals, new sterilization processes, food
irradiation, sewage sludge treatment and commercialization of
therapeutic based opportunities. All relevant export sales by
Nordion involve the return to Canada of the spent radioactive
sources from the irradiation equipment.
(1810)
Bill C-236 would prevent Canadian companies such as Nordion
from providing essential products to companies that unfortunately
cannot properly dispose of radioactive waste resulting from the use
of these products.
The reality is that this bill is of no value. Canada has the
expertise and regulatory system to ensure that radioactive waste is
treated in a manner such that it would not pose a risk to human
health or the environment. We are the leaders in the processes. We
are the leaders in knowledge. We are the leaders in this field.
Passing this bill would negatively affect the health of people in
some developing nations. It would harm the environment of these
countries and lead to job losses in Canada. It is for these reasons I
cannot support Bill C-236.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand today in full support of Bill C-236 put forward by
my colleague from Fraser Valley East. I have listened to the
assertions made by members from the government. I honestly
cannot believe in good conscience that they have actually
mentioned their claims. Obviously they have not read the bill.
The purpose of the bill is to protect Canadians now and in the
future. Currently we do not have any legislation to protect
Canadians from waste from other countries being brought to our
shores for disposal. There are no regulatory measures. That means
radioactive waste can be imported. That is the purpose of Bill
C-236. The member has proven to be proactive on this issue. This
should not be taken lightly and has been put forward with
justification.
The justification has been seen here in the House today and I will
give some examples. Members from the government strongly
suggested that we as a caring, considerate society in the face of
sustainable development ought to be bringing nuclear waste from
other countries to be deposited on our shores because these
countries do not have the capabilities of waste disposal. This will
be done under the guise of sustainable development.
Sustainable development is not bringing somebody else's waste
to Canada's shores. It means dealing with your own waste in your
own country in your own fashion. It is true that these countries
probably do not have the technology to deal with waste disposal.
That is where Canada can make an effective contribution because
we are leaders in the nuclear industry. This is an opportunity for
Canada to provide technical assistance to these countries to deal
with their nuclear waste.
We should not be bringing their nuclear waste to Canada. It is not
our responsibility to do that. We would be abrogating our
responsibility to the health and welfare of Canadians if we brought
these highly toxic, carcinogenic and teratogenic, mutagenic
substances to our soil. Later I will give examples of how serious
this problem is in the Arctic.
Contrary to what government members have been saying, we
export plutonium from Saskatchewan, which is our second largest
producer of plutonium, to Japanese power plants. That is a serious
problem because this plutonium, which can live for tens of
thousands of years, has to travel across Canada and then across the
oceans. We rely on other regulatory bodies in order to ensure the
safety of Canadians but that should not be the case.
(1815 )
My colleague from Fraser Valley East brought forth this very
strong and important bill to protect Canadians by ensuring that
waste is not brought to this country, transported across Canadian
soil through Canadian towns and cities, creating a potential for the
public to be exposed to lethal material.
We are clearly in favour of sustainable development. We fully
support Canadians using our technology to help those who are less
fortunate in other parts of the world, but let us not bring their
problems to our shores.
It is also important to dispel the myths put forth by some Liberal
members saying that we are against the importation of nuclear
materials for technology and medicine. I ask the hon. member to
read the bill. The bill deals with waste, waste, waste. It deals with
nuclear waste, not nuclear material effectively used in industry and
in the world of medicine.
5989
It is important for us to put the bill in perspective and to look
at the international complexity of it and why the member brought
it forward. There are over 413 nuclear reactors in the world. Each
of them produces nuclear waste, much of which is a real problem
to get rid of. We have our own problems in our own country in
disposing of our own waste. We do not need to bring in literally
thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear rods and nuclear materials
out there looking for a home. That home is not in Canada.
We should also look at another issue. I was at a meeting with a
number of scientists from Russia who said they had to
decommission over 100 nuclear submarines within the next few
years. They were referring to the nuclear material within the
submarines. The response of the Russians has been widespread
dumping on the Kola Peninsula, widespread dumping in northern
Russia.
This is not a problem happening half a world away that will not
affect us. This problem very much affects us. One need not look
any further than at the aboriginal people in the Northwest
Territories, the Arctic and Yukon. They have much higher rates of
genetic abnormalities and birth defects as a direct result of the
outpouring of nuclear material that is being negligently,
irresponsibly and criminally disposed of over areas of the Kola
Peninsula in Russia.
That is the problem. It is affecting Canadians today. We have to
be very clear about that. The government ought to pay very close
attention to the problem. Nobody is speaking for those aboriginal
people in the north who are suffering from the effects of this
nuclear material.
It is not something that Canada should take on its shoulders
alone. Clearly it is something in which we can take a leadership
position in the international community to bring forth all the good
ideas out there to provide help to the Russian people on how to deal
with the problem.
It is not the only problem. We have seen much about Chernobyl.
We have heard much of the problems associated with this disaster.
However the Chernobyl reactor is just one of many other reactors
that exist in Russia today. There are literally dozens and dozens of
leaky nuclear reactors in Russia that will produce other Chernobyls
in the near future.
The international community will not have the ability and the
funds to deal with the problem when it actually becomes a
horrendous situation along the lines of Chernobyl. It is extremely
important for us as a country to work with other countries to
address the problem in a proactive fashion now, before the reactors
leak in a widespread fashion, the outcome of which will affect
Canadians. It is that simple.
The leakage of nuclear materials half a world away indeed
affects us. Members from the government said that we do not need
to worry about nuclear material being brought into Canada because
nothing has happened of the sort. The fact remains that
international organizations have found that Canada is an ideal place
to dump nuclear waste. In Ontario alone 1,300 spots have been
identified in the Canadian Shield.
(1820 )
The theory is that we dig a hole half a kilometre into the
Canadian Shield and dump the nuclear waste into it. Earthquakes
and seepage into the groundwater have not been taken into
consideration. There is also the consequences of the nuclear
material, some of which has a life in the tens of thousands of years.
It kills. It is carcinogenic. It is mutagenic and teratogenic. It causes
terrible defects in children. This is not pie in the sky; this is
happening now.
People are closely looking at Canada, particularly the Canadian
Shield, as an ideal place for the disposal of waste from other
countries.
In closing, I fully support Bill C-236 in the name of the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East. I encourage all members of the
House to support it for the sake of the health and welfare of all
Canadians.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-236 which has a significant
international component. Canada has an important role to play in
strengthening international co-operation in radioactive waste
safety. This assistance would diminish if the bill passes.
Radioactive waste from peaceful uses of nuclear energy has
many uses from medical treatments to the production of electric
power. It must be properly managed at national and international
levels by all countries.
It seems the whole issue is an example of how we have become a
global village. Environmental issues like pollution and radioactive
fallout as we saw in the case of Chernobyl have no boundaries. The
issues of air pollution do not know boundaries. We cannot put up
walls and prevent that kind of pollution from crossing over into our
country.
Therefore we have to take an interest in it and look at it not
simply on a domestic basis. We must look beyond our borders and
realize that we are responsible citizens of that global village who
have to consider this issue in that light.
Canada happens to be the world's leading supplier of radio
isotopes for cancer treatment. Radio isotopes also have other uses
such as industrial ones. They are used in checking for leaks in
sewage and other kinds of pipes. They are also used for sterilising
food. Perhaps members have heard of irradiated food.
5990
We must assume our responsibility for the proper disposal of
the isotopes we are exporting from this country. How can we do
that if we do not allow them back into our country?
The last member suggested that we were taking the wrong
approach. However, I recall the member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca saying less than an hour ago that we should not be leaving
decisions regarding technology to bureaucrats in the health
department. The bill would leave discretion about what waste
means and what kinds of waste would be allowed into the country
and what could not to the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.
It is strange on the one hand the member does not want to leave
things to the bureaucrats and on the other hand he really does. This
seems to be a contradiction.
Canada has taken a leading role in disposal technology for this
kind of waste. From the long term perspective it is better to know
where waste from products created in Canada and exported goes.
We have an interest in it. Wherever it ends up in the world it can
come back to haunt us later.
The management of radioactive waste is now regulated in most
countries. Canada's approach to safety generally exceeds
international recommendations. By the way, it is important to note
that Canada has no plans to import or export nuclear fuel waste.
From our point of view we are not talking about that. If the bill had
been clearer about what it intends we might not have that problem,
but it is not. It simply talks about radioactive waste and does not
clarify whether we are talking about nuclear fuel waste, radio
isotopes or other kinds of such products.
Nevertheless, some less developed countries are worried that
industrialized countries will be tempted to dump or get rid of their
unwanted waste within the developing world. I can understand why
they would be concerned about that possibility. They have banned
the import of radioactive waste. However, most developed
countries do not have such a ban. On the contrary, they see this
practice as one in which they have considerable expertise, thereby
helping to eliminate undue risks to health and the environment by
properly disposing of these products. They also consider this
practice to be compatible with sustainable development activities.
(1825)
The mid-1970s saw an increase in worldwide concern about the
transboundary movement of waste in general. At that time the
major concern was that nuclear waste and radioactive waste could
be exported from industrialized countries where there was an
absence of legal, administrative, regulatory, financial or technical
capabilities. In fact, the waste could have been sent to less
developed countries, causing great problems.
OECD member countries have also been concerned with the
control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste since the
beginning of the 1980s. This eventually led to the preparation of
the convention on the control of transboundary movements of
hazardous wastes and their disposal. This important international
convention was adopted in Basel, Switzerland on March 22, 1989,
under the auspices of the United Nations environment program and
entered into force on May 5, 1992. Canada is a party to that
convention.
Under the general obligation of the convention each party will
prevent the import of hazardous waste if it has reason to believe
that the waste in question will not be managed in an
environmentally sound manner. The convention also indicates that
the exportation of waste is allowed if the state of export does not
have suitable facilities to deal properly with the waste in question
and also if the waste is required as raw material for recycling or
recovering industries in the state of import.
Developing countries have also established their own
conventions, having recognized that they are particularly
vulnerable in not having adequate radioactive waste management
facilities. For instance, the Bamako convention on the ban of the
import of hazardous wastes into Africa and the import or
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes within Africa was
adopted in Bamako, Mali, on January 30, 1991. Although the
convention bans the import of wastes by African states, it permits
the export of such wastes when a state does not have adequate
disposal facilities.
Generally, it is recognized by states that the practice of
importing or exporting waste is not in itself detrimental, but that
conditions must be attached to this practice.
The first condition involves the proper notification of all
countries involved, followed by their acceptance. Governments
must respect the right of other governments to decide whether they
wish to provide disposal sites for radioactive waste originating
from other countries.
Second, there must be proper management of the waste by all
countries involved. Any country considering exporting its waste
would have to assure itself that the levels of protection for workers,
the public and the environment in the importing country are, at the
least, equivalent to those observed within its own borders.
Over the years general principles have evolved internationally
with regard to importing and exporting hazardous or radioactive
wastes. These principles include, if feasible, that waste should be
managed within the generating country. There can be sound
environmental or socioeconomic reasons for exporting or
importing waste for a variety of objectives, such as treatment,
temporary storage, recycling or final disposal. Controlling the
import or export of wastes, in the form of providing notification,
granting licences and compliance with regulations is necessary.
5991
Any state may exercise its sovereign right to permit or ban any
imports or exports of waste within its borders. Every state wanting
to participate in the international transboundary movement of
waste should have a regulatory authority and should adopt
appropriate procedures, as necessary, for the regulation of such
movement. No state should permit the receipt of waste unless it
has the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory
structure to manage and dispose of such waste in a manner
consistent with international safety standards.
(1830 )
Last, the ultimate aim remains to minimize the production of any
waste, as it should be, taking into account social, environmental,
technological and economic concerns and considerations.
With specific reference to the safety of radioactive waste
management, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA,
is recognized as the premier international body to provide expert
advice. Canada continues to actively support the IAEA efforts in
this area. The following IAEA activities are particularly relevant to
the import of waste.
In 1990 the IAEA established a code of practice for
transboundary movement of radioactive waste. The IAEA has
developed regulations for the safe transport of radioactive
materials which are binding on member states. Experience has
shown that these regulations are effective in ensuring safe transport
of such materials. Member states are currently developing an
international convention on the safety of radioactive waste
management. The IAEA has produced a technical document on the
nature and magnitude of problematic spent radiation sources.
In September the IAEA adopted a resolution which indicated
that under certain circumstances safe management of radioactive
waste might be fostered through voluntary agreements among
member states to use the disposal facilities for low level
radioactive waste available in one state for the benefit of the other
states.
For over 20 years, nations around the world have been working
diligently to find a sustainable way to deal with the transboundary
movement of chemical and radioactive waste. While we must
continue to be vigilant, the progress that has been made and that
continues to be made at the international level provides increased
confidence that the practice of importing and exporting radioactive
waste can be conducted within the context of sustainable
development not only on a regional scale but truly within the global
village.
We have shown that some countries do need to export the
radioactive waste that results from activities essential for
sustainable development. We must ensure that such countries
export their waste to countries that have the expertise needed to
effectively handle the radioactive waste. Canada can be such a
country and should not turn its back on countries in need.
I urge members of this House not to support this bill.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of Bill C-236 put forward by the member for Fraser
Valley East. The purpose of this bill is to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste.
Worldwide there are 413 commercial nuclear reactors, an untold
number of small research reactors at universities and other reactors
on ships or submarines. Together they have generated and will
continue to generate enormous amounts of highly toxic nuclear
waste, waste that will be deadly for 10,000 years.
Canadians in general do not want radioactive waste in their
backyard. It took eight years and $20 million for the siting task
force struck by the Minister of National Resources to find a place
for our low level radioactive waste. Note this does not cover high
level radioactive waste. The town of Deep River finally said yes in
September a year ago, but only two communities in Ontario even
volunteered to consider the question.
It should be self-evident to most that the import of radioactive
waste should be banned. As I will explain, there are some
compelling reasons why a law should be passed to firmly establish
this principle.
In doing so it should be clear that this bill would not ban the
importation-I hope members are listening across the way-of
plutonium from U.S. and Russian warheads to be burned as fuel in
CANDU reactors. This idea is only one of nine separate proposals
the Americans are considering as an option.
In essence the plan calls for the CANDU fuel bundles to be
fabricated in the U.S. and brought into Canada as fuel, not as waste.
It would be a great contribution to global disarmament but
Canadians would be expected to subsidize the conversion process.
In that regard I am opposed to the idea that the Government of
Canada should do any subsidization of a process such as this.
(1835)
If the process were to be done, I understand it would be on a
commercial basis most likely with help from Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited. As a crown corporation close to the federal
government, AECL's role might consist of paying and in effect
subsidizing the retool of facilities such as the old Bruce reactor
which might then burn the plutonium.
Clearly any support should be contingent on the Government of
Canada controlling the regulatory side but staying out of the
financial side. Pointedly, we Canadians should not be paying to
beat American and Russian swords into ploughshares. If we want to
use our tools to act as the blacksmith for the military powers of the
world, we should not have to pay for the raw materials.
5992
This proposal is not without an environmental cost to Canada.
The Department of Natural Resources tells us that the United
States is looking to get rid of 50 tonnes of plutonium over a
25-year period. We are also looking at the same amount from
Russia, 50 tonnes over 25 years. In total, 100 tonnes is how much
plutonium will be generated from the dismantling of a total of
40,000 nuclear warheads.
By way of comparison, at the moment we already have 22,000
tonnes of high level waste in Canada stored on sites of over 22
nuclear reactors. This includes 78 tonnes of plutonium. By the year
2025, we will have 58,000 tonnes which will include 200-odd
tonnes of plutonium.
The price Canada would have to pay is increasing radioactive
waste in our country by a third. The government's decision will
have to strike a balance between the environmental security of
Canadian citizens and the probability of plutonium in nuclear
warheads being used for more harmful purposes. Once Canadians
learn about this plutonium deal, they may want to think twice about
it. However Bill C-236 does not specifically address that issue.
To get back to the purpose of my colleague's bill, why do we
need a law regarding the importation of fissionable waste
materials? Because of the profit in the business of burying high
level radioactive waste. That is the reason.
There are profit oriented groups which might want to import
waste for money. The United States alone has an enormous high
level waste problem. Because of that, there is an enormous profit
potential in it.
The U.S. Hanford site located 300 kilometres south of the B.C.
border has enough waste to fill 86 football fields one metre deep. It
will cost $57 billion to dispose of that. It is estimated that the
clean-up cost in the United States alone will total a staggering $230
billion.
The problem continues to grow. The U.S. has a total of 77,000
tonnes of waste to bury. Someone is going to look to this for a
profit. Let us take an example. The Meadow Lake Tribal Council,
which represents nine Indian communities in northern
Saskatchewan, reported on February 25, 1995 that it was
considering the offer of land for a price. That underlines the
problem.
I will try to draw this to a close although I do have much more to
say about it. Even the Nisga'a law which is under consideration in
British Columbia can have an effect on this.
In conclusion, Bill C-236 provides a golden opportunity for
Canada to send a discouraging message to the United States and to
profit seeking groups within Canada who might view the absence
of legislation as a way to capitalize on the import of nuclear waste.
It is an opportunity for the government to respect the wishes of a
majority of Canadians who are opposed to the importation of
hazardous radioactive waste.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.40 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)