CONTENTS
Friday, November 29, 1996
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading; and of the amendment; and the
amendment to theamendment 6891
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6901
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6903
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6904
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6904
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6904
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6905
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6906
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6906
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6906
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6907
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6907
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6909
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6909
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6911
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6912
Bill C-356. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6912
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6912
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 6913
Division on motion deferred 6915
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6915
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to committee.) 6919
Bill C-252. Motion for second reading 6919
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6919
Bill C-252. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6927
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6927
6891
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 29, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed;
and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in the past 30
to 40 years the evidence has been accumulating that all is not well
with mother earth. The list of endangered species lengthens, the
flocks of migratory birds dwindle, the lakes and rivers die. Even
the oceans are becoming toxic sinks. We are warned not to go out in
the sun. A tan is no longer a sign of health.
The aboriginal people understood these things. Many young
people understand them. Many adults do not, or will not. Our
modern, industrial, developed society is characterized in these
words of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins in his poem, God's
Grandeur:
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness like the ooze of oil
crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
and all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
and wears man's smudge and shares man's smell; the soil
is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black west went
Oh, morning, at brown brink eastward, springs-
because the Holy Ghost over the bent
world broods with warm breast and Ah! Bright Wings.
Hopkins' hopeful ending suggests that all may yet be well with
God's help. But this poem was written over 100 years ago and
human technology is now outstripping nature. We as citizens of this
planet must redress the balance with nature which is the only way
to ensure a sustainable future for all humanity. Unless we change
our attitude to the environment, we will destroy it and ourselves
into the bargain. The time is now.
This brings me to the bill before us today. Bill C-29 seeks to ban
the fuel additive MMT from Canadian fuels. I support the bill
because the most efficient way to protect the environment is to
prevent pollution. Bill C-29 accomplishes this.
Canadians know how important their environment is and they
expect the federal government to take a leadership role in
preserving and protecting it.
Some members of the House may ask why Bill C-29 is
important. Bill C-29 represents a prudent approach that ensures the
Canadian consumers and the environment are protected. It deals
with the uncertainty regarding the long term effects of MMT on
advanced emission control technologies such as on board
diagnostics, OBD, that are now being built into the motor vehicle
fleet on a widespread basis.
On board diagnostic systems are designed to monitor the
performance of pollution control systems, particularly the
catalysts, and alert the driver to a malfunction. These systems
prevent increased tail pipe emissions, including carbon monoxide
and other hydrocarbons which impact on local air quality, as well
as carbon dioxide, the principal contributor to climate change.
Properly functioning OBD systems are in essence an inspection
and maintenance tool in the vehicle, and inspection and
maintenance programs require vehicles to be tested on a periodic
basis for emissions.
The industry wide implementation of properly functioning OBD
systems will permit all Canadians to benefit from an emissions
reduction strategy. For example, an assessment of the emissions
benefit attributed to the air care inspection and maintenance
program in the Vancouver city area conducted on an annual basis
shows that hydrocarbon emissions have been reduced by 20 per
cent, carbon monoxide emissions by 24 per cent, nitrogen oxide
emissions by 2.7 per cent and fuel consumption by 5 per cent from
the tested fleet.
6892
Auto makers have indicated that if MMT remains in Canadian
gasoline they would take action, ranging from disconnecting OBD
sensors to removal of the OBD systems and decreased warranty
provisions for automobile owners. General Motors of Canada has
already advised the government that it has disabled certain
functions of the OBD system on 1996 model year vehicles.
Fortunately, there are alternatives to MMT. Alternative fuels can
replace this additive as an oxygen enhancer in gasoline. For
instance, ethanol is a renewable fuel that I and many of my rural
caucus colleagues have supported for its obvious environmental
and economic benefits. The ethanol plant in Chatham will have an
enormous economic benefit for southwestern Ontario. The plant
will be producing over 150 million litres of this cleaner burning
fuel which will ensure that a better alternative to MMT as an
oxygen enhancer is readily available for the Canadian consumer.
(1010 )
The earth is a global spaceship. The delicate envelope of
atmosphere which surrounds us is all the environment we have. As
human beings we share with all other species of animals and plants
this layer of air, soil and moisture. All citizens of Canada need to
keep in mind that wonderful picture of planet earth taken by
astronauts which shows it swathed in blue green swirls of
atmosphere floating in the black void of space.
Until all of us are aware of the finite, fragile and unique nature of
our world, and treat it accordingly, we must pass laws which will
protect this planet for future generations. Bill C-29 is such a law
and I am proud to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on manganese
based additives, but at the same time I find it sad that the
government continues to obstinately insist on passing a bill to ban
MMT, when there has been no proof of any real danger to the
environment.
In this matter, the official opposition has had the very
constructive attitude that, yes, it would be worthwhile to look at
this, that there would have to be impact studies, that we would have
to look at the potential advantages, impact and risks associated
with this additive. But the government has found no proof and has
no justification. It seems that the sole reason for the government's
continuing pressures is the lobbying by Ontario MPs, who see this
bill as a way of improving the cost-effectiveness of a not very
successful industrial sector in Ontario.
The government's insistence on pushing the bill through, no
matter what, has had several effects. As was said this morning,
Ottawa wants to push through a bill that will be harmful to
Montreal. It is, moreover, harmful to all of Canada, for there is the
possibility of a nearly $200 million lawsuit by an American
company, Ethyl, under NAFTA. The Canadian government, in
irresponsibly pushing this bill ahead, will once again be costing
Canadians a great deal of money.
Why does the government absolutely insist on adopting this bill,
when it could simply be sent to a committee for study, as long as
necessary to prove the environmental effects of MMT? Are there
harmful effects, yes or no? Could the validity of the Ethyl claim be
verified? When it comes down to it, will we be stuck with a major
legal battle, with millions of dollars spent on defending Canada in a
case about which we are not even certain? What is more, the
governments of Alberta and Quebec have already announced that
they intend to take Ottawa to court, and they are not alone. A total
of six provinces have spoken out against the federal government's
bill on MMT, this gasoline additive which has not been proven
harmful to health.
There are, therefore, some important elements to be considered:
the cost to Canadians, and the tarnishing of Canada's image by
defending a case about which there is no certainty under the free
trade agreement. What is still more dramatic for Quebecers,
however, was summarized very aptly by the president of the
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Alain Perez, when he said
``At this time, there are several factors threatening a Montreal
refinery, one of which is this bill''.
Is this one more case of the federal government putting Ontario
before Quebec, or changing the rules of the game? The competitors
are already in the marketplace, the rules of the game are already in
place, and if the refineries in the Montreal region are able to
survive, those in Ontario must be able to as well. If there are
problems with ethanol production, efforts must be made to make it
more profitable, to improve production processes and other
procedures, but not via political interference. Political interference
changes the rules of the game.
(1015)
We are seeing an increasing number of instances under the
current Liberal government. The same is being done with Canadian
International. By playing this kind of game, the government is
promoting unfair competition. On the one hand, the government
upholds a certain principle and the principle of free competition is
supposed to rule the market, because it will make us competitive
and people will get a better deal. But on the other hand, whenever
there is a very strong political lobby-in the case of Canadian, it is
western Canada, and in this particular case it is
Ontario-environmental considerations which are not justified are
used as an excuse to go ahead and rush a bill like this one through
the House.
I think that in this case, the federal government has clearly
shown that it is more or less being led by its strong delegation from
Ontario, by the lobby of ministers from that region. When a
decision is to be made here in Parliament, all aspects of a bill must
6893
be considered. Whether we are talking about economic costs, the
legal problems that can be expected with the provinces, the
potential damage to our international reputation and the impact on
employment in a region like Montreal, if the federal government
adopts this bill, if the Liberal majority manages to ram it down our
throats, they will prove once again that Canadian federalism is
good if it is good for Ontario.
When there is a choice to be made between economic benefits
for Ontario or for Quebec, like the Supreme Court in this country or
the Tower of Pisa, it always leans in the same direction. The federal
government always leans toward Ontario, which is more less what
is happening in this case.
In the coming year there will be an election campaign, when
Quebecers will be asked to consider the relevance of all this. It will
be up to them to decide, in this case as in so many others, who
conducted the best defence of Quebec's interests. Was it the federal
government, which is ramming down our throats a bill that will
benefit Ontario, without giving any scientific proof of the
environmental impact, or was it the Bloc Quebecois, which
defended Quebecers and the entire Canadian market, saying that
political lobbying was the only reason and that the lobbies fully
supported the federal government's position?
It looks as though the federal government has taken advantage of
the silence of the Conservative Party. Defending the interests of
Quebec does not seem to be its main concern. When one has a
federal vision of Canada, there are many things one does not talk
about. We in the Bloc Quebecois have no such constraints. We have
no wish to form the government, and so we are in a position to
defend consumers, Canadians and Quebecers, to ensure that the
choices made by the Canadian government produce long term
benefits for the Canadian economy and the Quebec economy.
When the Liberals vote on this bill later today, especially the
Liberal members from Quebec, I hope they remember this position
that was reported in the papers today. I am referring to what was
said by Alain Perez, president of the Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute: ``At this moment, the existence of a Montreal refinery is
threatened by a number of factors, including this bill, the bill on
MMT, on manganese-based additives''.
When the Liberals vote on this bill, every time a Liberal
member, especially those from Quebec, rises in the House to vote
in favour of the bill, he will be hurting Quebec's economy, and
Quebecers are sure to rembember this in the next election.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the environment as a topic currently is not the
headline grabber that it once was. However, the worrisome
fundamental trends for our planet remain.
The real problem is to determine what are wise actions for
governments to take to protect the environment in view of science,
economics and politics. Often it is the apparently obvious quick fix
that is tried and then eventually realized as no real solution. In
addition there is always the politics of balancing and reconciling
the vectors that pull in different directions. It seems in this case that
the vectors or forces of politics win over the policy vectors
indicated by science.
With this bill we have a political headstrong approach that is
characteristic of governments that think they are high in the polls,
believe their own press releases and have an arrogance that only
they have the divine right to govern. My how the tone has changed
from when these Liberal members were in opposition. Back then
they howled like coyotes when the other old arrogant members, the
Conservatives, used closure. The Liberals were outraged when
closure was used. Now that they are in power they do the same
thing.
(1020)
Voters have to remember this and resolve that such breaking of
faith with the community should not be rewarded in the next
election with support and a vote for any Liberal. What is being
done today reveals the inner heart of what drives Liberals in
government. It is a prime example of why federal politicians are
rated no higher than insincere used car salesmen. It is
understandable that Canadians turn off on politics.
Before us we have a bill which is anti free trade and which is
supposed to help the environment but it is not supported by
credible scientific evidence. This bill should have died on the
Order Paper but now we have it back again under the closure rules.
I despair that we will ever see a Liberal Minister of the
Environment who will be content with the best that science has to
offer for environmental policy. The quest for short term political
payoff is evidenced in this bill to ban the importation and trade of
MMT in gasoline.
We were not even close to having a realistic minister when the
member from Hamilton had the job. She had a manner of finding
her own departmental officials two steps behind her on nearly
every erratic policy course change in her quest for the heroin fix of
the political hit. Unfortunately now with the new minister,
Canadians are getting little improvement on the MMT score.
In the environment portfolio there has not been an abundance of
legislation. Since the Liberals took power in 1993 there have been
only six bills brought forward by the Minister of the Environment.
It is a stark comparison to the active Department of Justice which
has introduced 30 bills. With extra time to consult and consider,
6894
one would think that environment would only produce wise and
quality law. How wrong to surmise.
In May 1995 the former minister introduced a bill that would ban
the interprovincial trade and importation of the gasoline additive
MMT. Bill C-94 which is now Bill C-29 has easily become one of
the most starkly divided issues during this Parliament. No
legislation during the 35th Parliament has lasted this long in the
House. The reason is that the so-called science is in conflict. Ways
and means do not match up in this bill. When a basic idea is flawed,
the resultant legislation is bad. It does not deserve to be passed.
However the former minister and her political friends at the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association had a half baked idea
that went too far. The MVMA wanted MMT to be removed from
unleaded gasoline in Canada because it claimed that the additive
which is used to boost octane and reduce pollution was creating
havoc with the new onboard diagnostic pollution sensors in late
model automobiles.
There were only two ways to get MMT out of Canadian gasoline.
One would have been for the MVMA to conclude negotiations with
the stakeholders including Ethyl Corporation which manufactures
MMT as well as the petroleum companies and conduct independent
third party tests that would conclusively demonstrate if MMT was
harmful. The other was the strong arm approach to directly
legislate with the government trying to scare Canadians, claiming
that if MMT was not out of fuel, automobile manufacturing plants
could close and the price of cars would dramatically increase.
Those latter arguments put forward by the government proved to be
false.
The weighing of the policy options must have taken at least two
minutes for the minister to decide as the choice was so poor. The
choices were politics or science, and the minister chose politics.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, was
designed to create environmental protection and among other
things to ban substances that are harmful to the public health and
the environment. The former minister wanted to put MMT on
CEPA's toxic list but Health Canada did not find it harmful to our
health. Unfortunately for Canada's most unenvironmental
environment minister, Health Canada had already proved that
MMT in its present manner of use presented no harm to health and
it later stood by their conclusion on the record.
With the new minister, Environment Canada has been no better
off with this bill. He had his chance to put Bill C-94 on a permanent
shelf to collect dust. One wonders who is really in charge of
legislative initiatives with his department as it was brought forward
again in full view of the bill's discredit. The mistake of this bill will
certainly remain as a legacy to Liberal environmental legislation.
Reformers have opposed this bill without pressure from lobby
groups because the inherent nature of the original idea was bad.
Thorough and rigorous independent testing is the only way to
resolve the regulatory question of whether we should have MMT in
gasoline.
(1025 )
At present MMT helps cars run cleaner with better distance to
fuel consumption ratios so that less gas is burned which helps the
global warming agenda. I am told that MMT in gasoline is
significantly better for gas mileage than reformulated gasoline.
Further, we should carefully test some of the proposed alternatives
to reformulated gasoline as they may not be inherently as
environmentally friendly as first thought. Choices turn out that way
when politicians seek the short term rewards of political success
over what science may show as the long term public interest.
We also have to look at the taxpayer subsidies the Liberals are
pouring into ethanol production which may be an uneconomical
choice that in total in the big picture may not be very
environmentally friendly. The issue of MMT and why the
government does not like it I suspect has a lot to do with money and
who pays rather than doing the right thing for the environment.
Above all, the use of closure as a principle in Parliament on this
type of bill is disrespectful to members of the House. It is an
example of how old line system defenders, the Liberals in this case,
continue in their traditional ways and reinforce public cynicism
about representative government versus responsible and
accountable government to the people.
The bill is bad. Its methods are perverse. Now we have the final
insult of it being driven by closure. I hope Canadians will
remember this in the next election.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: Question.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, there has already been a certain
amount of co-operation among all the parties involved in this
debate, and I must also acknowledge that the Chair has asked if we
wished to resume debate. In a spirit of co-operation, we would ask
the Chair to please return to the matter under debate so we may
complete this nevertheless important bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I acknowledge
the remarks of the hon. government whip but I would remind this
House that, on two occasions I called for a resumption of debate,
6895
and no one seemed interested in doing so. I will call for it a third
time. Resuming debate.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There is a
practice in this Parliament that has gone on for three years at least
whereby the parties agree to provide you with a list of those who
will be speaking. The opposition has always co-operated and is
prepared to continue doing so.
However, a procedure, even if you did say it twice, must not be
used to speed things up and take people by surprise. We are
prepared to co-operate. I thank the chief whip of the Liberal Party
for recognizing the need to facilitate debate, but I do not want
things hurried up and the debate adjourned earlier than planned,
before everyone on the list has had a chance to speak.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would nevertheless like to say
that, in presiding over our debates at this time, the Chair has
certainly followed our Standing Orders in asking members if they
wished to resume debate. No one rose on either side of the House. I
do recognize that the Chair was right in following the procedure
and putting the question.
That said, and still in the spirit of co-operation among the parties
in this matter, I hope we can continue the debate.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon. whip
of the Reform Party has to be in his seat in order to be recognized.
An hon. member: He is.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce the
position taken by the government whip. The Chair has acted
entirely appropriately in this case. She asked repeatedly for
speakers, for anybody to stand. There was no attempt to rush things
through at all that I could see. I do not agree, of course, with the
time limitations and some of the other things that are going on, but
the Chair has acted appropriately.
(1030)
By all means, if somebody wants to debate, then we will not
stand in the way of doing it. However, the Chair is absolutely right.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Thank you
very much. However, you will appreciate that if members wish to
speak and have put forth their name on the speaking list, they
should be in the House when it is their time for debate.
[Translation]
Accordingly, we are resuming debate with the hon. member for
Mercier.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, again in the spirit of co-operation,
I think a member on the Liberal side rose to speak, but you perhaps
did not see him. As we usually alternate our speeches, we are
prepared to have you recognize the Liberal member who rose.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have just
recognized the hon. member for Mercier in this debate. Does she
wish to continue the debate?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Yes, Madam Speaker,
after almost losing my turn because I hoped that the hon. member
across the way would rise in his place. I would like to speak to Bill
C-29 this morning, with the government having just imposed an
unacceptable gag.
The official opposition, under the enlightened direction of our
critic, the member for Laurentides, conducted a study and then
mounted a campaign on this issue, which has been presented as an
environmental issue, when in reality it is an economic one that pits
certain parts of the country against others, in this case Ontario and
Quebec.
After serious examination of the matter in committee, the
official opposition could only conclude, in the absence of
conclusive evidence backed up by independent studies, that by
banning MMT, the government is actually looking for a way to
satisfy the automobile industry, which is concentrated, as everyone
knows, in Ontario.
This ban will have terrible repercussions on oil companies in my
riding in eastern Montreal. Over the years, the riding of Mercier
has lost four oil companies. Their loss had a devastating effect, not
only on employment, but also on the rest of the petrochemical
industry and its future.
We would obviously have sought different solutions if there
were proof of serious environmental consequences. In the absence
of these independent and conclusive studies, we can only conclude
that the government is caving in to pressure from the automobile
industry, which claims that MMT in gasoline adversely affects the
performance of catalytic converters. This conclusion reached by
the automobile industry has not been proven in an objective and
independent manner.
(1035)
The official opposition therefore finds it disturbing that, with no
regard for the economic impact on the development of Quebec and
not just on employment in Montreal, the government is imposing a
gag order, when we have already suggested that passage of this bill
be delayed so that an independent study can be done. And if the
government truly wished to protect the environment, it would have
seen to it that these conclusions were accurate beyond all possible
doubt, or at least beyond all reasonable doubt. But, instead, they go
ahead with a gag order.
6896
The eastern sector of Montreal has not forgotten the federal
decision to impose the Borden line, which meant that Quebec,
once an exporter of refined oil to the rest of Canada, became an
importer. This was devastating for employment. And then the
Prime Minister came to Montreal and sadly asked ``What can we
do for Montreal?'', but in the weeks since then we see that the
government, through a gag order, is now trying to rush through
a decision that jeopardizes at least one of the two remaining
refineries.
I repeat, this issue has been handled by our environment critic,
who conducted consultations, who tried to have the bill postponed,
who tried to pin down the government in committee. And the
upshot was this gag order, this hasty decision in response to
pressure from the automobile industry.
On the eve of the next election, Quebecers will also remember
that the automobile pact was supposed to distribute auto assembly
plants more equitably, given that Quebec is one of the largest
consumers of automobiles in Canada, but that there is only one
assembly plant. Quebecers will also remember that to now
seriously threaten what is left of the petroleum industry in
Montreal does not make the government look good. So let Prime
Minister Chrétien come back and sorrowfully ask what he can do
for Montreal and pledge his full co-operation.
This morning's issue of Le Journal de Montreal carried an
article on the federal government's decision yesterday to gag the
opposition parties in order to pass a bill that could threaten the
survival of one of the last two refineries in Montreal. The article
also pointed out that the government had interfered in provincial
jurisdiction in drawing up this bill.
(1040)
It did so by using the fact that this additive, MMT, is produced in
the United States. It therefore decided to ban its interprovincial
trade and importation. It did not ban production, just importation.
This is an issue that Montrealers and Quebecers will remember
because the environment was used as a smokescreen for the
ambition of Ontario's automobile industry. If things had at least
been out in the open. But no, they were obscured by suggestions
that this was a dangerous product, when, in reality, its absence in
gasoline will require more refining and add to pollution.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased that the House is giving final consideration
to Bill C-29.
Canadians will remember that we have an opportunity here to
ensure that we pass legislation on the basis of both merit and good
common sense. Canadians will remember that this is not muzzling
Parliament, not gagging the House. We have had 10.5 hours of
debate and discussion. Canadians will remember that this MMT
legislation before us is an important stepping stone in the
prevention of air pollution.
This package of government initiatives will result in billions of
dollars in health benefits saved for Canadians and for our health
care system. This will help prevent the pain and suffering of
choking and gasping attacks by the young and the elderly when bad
air days shroud our cities with a dirty blanket of pollution which
happens too often in many of our cities, particularly during the
summer.
Today almost every Canadian motorist uses MMT simply
because Canadian refiners use MMT. The exact amount of this
additive may vary from one batch of gasoline to another. In
general, premium grade gasoline contains a higher volume of
MMT than regular grade gasoline.
Let me focus on the technological advances that have steadily
cut the harmful emissions coming out of our tailpipes. In fact, since
the early 1970s and the advent of national standards, over 90 per
cent of the most noxious tailpipe pollutions have been removed.
The automobile industry strongly warns that gasoline containing
MMT clogs and jams up the operation of sophisticated onboard
diagnostic systems.
However, I want to focus on the opportunity we have here to
promote the health of people. We cannot take chances with the air
we breath. We need this legislation for the health of Canadians and
a healthy environment. I can go on to talk about the 21 auto
manufacturers that are convinced that MMT clogs their pollution
monitoring equipment and that are supporting and petitioning the
government and members of Parliament, bringing forward their
concerns. It seems to me that it is quite clear that we need to heed
their message.
There are some 14 million cars on Canada's roads, each pumping
out over 4 tonnes of pollutants every single year. Therefore we are
on the road to disaster unless we do something now.
We are pushing for national emission standards so that our auto
makers can ensure that they protect the air for Canadians.
We have had debates in the House about health, the health of
Canadians. We cannot be indifferent to air quality because we
know that air quality has a profound effect on Canadians and that it
translates into $1 billion a year on our health care system.
(1045 )
We know that hospital admissions of infants for respiratory
conditions are linked to ozone and sulphate pollution. We are living
in an age when dangerous atmospheric pollutants rather than
hormones are poisoning babies.
6897
It is also important to note that scientists, including people at
the University of Waterloo and other Canadian universities, who
have done research work in this area, support this legislation.
We also know a whole list of groups and organizations support
getting rid of MMT. They have been mentioned in previous
speeches: the Allergy Asthma Association, the Canadian Institute
of Child Health, the city of Etobicoke public health, the city of
Toronto public health, the Council of Canadians, the
Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association,
Pollution Probe and Sierra Club. All of those organizations, who
spend hours working on research and looking at issues, cannot all
be wrong.
Of the 196 living Nobel laureate scientists, 99 joined with over
2,000 of the world's scientists to again sound a warning to us that
we need to do something about the air we breathe.
Canada is one of the few countries that uses MMT and therefore
it is important that we pass this legislation for all Canadians. It is
also important that we protect Canadians from increases in
automobile prices and I think the discussion we heard made
mention of that.
It is important that we support this legislation, that we think
about the health of Canadians and that a ban on MMT, supported by
health departments, is really the way we must go. A healthy
environment, the need to promote cleaner and alternative fuels, the
trend to North American harmonization, consumer protection and
all the economic pluses are the reasons why we need this
legislation.
This bill will do a number of things for us. Canadians will
certainly remember this day when we ensure that the air they
breathe is clean. I call on all members to support this important
piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, we have
noticed that most of the members taking part in this debate were
from Ontario. We understand why.
The largest concentration of automakers is found in Ontario. In a
way, we cannot blame the Ontario Liberal members for defending
the interests of their province. At the same time, Quebec members,
like me, cannot be blamed for defending Quebec's interests, not
only the interests of Quebec but those of the other provinces as
well. Ontario is somewhat in a minority position on this issue.
Earlier, the hon. member for Mercier talked about the businesses
and the refineries located in her riding. I have the same situation in
my riding of Lévis, where the Ultramar refinery, one of the most
modern and the second best performing refinery in North America,
is located. Even though it performs well and as such is less
threatened than the one mentioned by the member for Mercier in
the Montreal area, its managers have told me that if this bill passes
as it is, that will have an impact on the refinery, on the jobs and
most of all, as we should not forget, on car owners.
As for Quebec, the impact could reach $7 million, as was
mentioned in a newspaper article this morning. I think it is a lot
more, because some people want to change the rules in the interests
of Ontario where all the automakers are located. But it is also for
another reason.
(1050)
What do they want to replace MMT with? Ethanol. Who are
those most in favour of ethanol? Again, Ontario members. We have
nothing against those who stand up for the interests of their riding,
of their region; but we also have the right to stand up for the
interests of ours. We can see that the bill only takes Ontario's
interests into account. That is unacceptable.
Since I have only ten minutes, I will state ten facts that the
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute pointed out in a letter in
answer to the Automobile Club people.
The first point mentioned in the letter is the following: ``The
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and its members are not
opposed to prohibiting MMT and have pledged to withdraw this
product should there be any evidence'', and here comes the
important part, ``that the presence of this substance in gasoline is a
threat to health or to the environment''.
This is the problem. No harmful effect was demonstrated. If it
was proven that MMT is dangerous, or that manganese, which is
one of its elements, is dangerous, what would Health Canada or the
Department of the Environment do? They would ban this product.
This bill, however, merely seeks to prohibit its use in gasoline. A
product is either toxic or it is not. The fact is that neither the health
department nor the environment department banned this product.
Second point: ``Car manufacturers never clearly and factually
proved that MMT could adversely affect the operation of catalytic
converters''. This has not been proven.
Third point: ``Health Canada formally, publicly and in writing,
stated that there was no proof whatsoever that MMT was a threat to
the health of Canadians''.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I checked
this out. A study commissioned by Health Canada reveals that only
one manganese-related death was ever recorded in the world. This
death, which occurred in 1941 in Japan, was not linked to MMT but
to manganese, and a considerable dose was involved.
That was the only case ever recorded. Health Canada has experts
who maintain that, in quantities such as those currently found in
MMT, manganese is not dangerous. Not only is it not dangerous, it
is necessary to neutralize certain products in gasoline and prevent
pollution. In other words, it makes certain gasoline products less
6898
polluting. It is used not only to reduce the octane number, but also
to keep in check other pollutants found in gasoline.
Fourth point: ``Putting MMT in gasoline helps reduce toxic
emissions''. This is what I just told you about.
Fifth point: ``At the recent conference of the Canadian Council
of Ministers of Energy, eight provinces opposed Bill C-29.
Moreover, the premiers of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan
wrote the Prime Minister, asking that the bill be withdrawn. As for
Quebec, the National Assembly unanimously approved a motion
asking for the withdrawal of Bill C-29''. This motion was adopted
by all the parties, including the Liberal Party of Quebec. From time
to time, members of the Liberal Party of Canada should listen to
their provincial counterparts. But they do not.
Sixth point: ``On the federal level, the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Minister for International Trade have come out
against Bill C-29.'' Obviously, they were swallowed up by cabinet
solidarity at that point, and so nothing more has been heard from
them, but they had already indicated their opposition to the
minister.
Seventh point: ``Bill C-29 banning international trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of MMT constitutes a
violation of NAFTA-this is the written opinion of Gordon Ritchie,
former Canadian NAFTA negotiator-and of the interprovincial
trade treaty''. That means there is a risk of prosecution, and I
believe some legal challenges are already in the works.
(1055)
Eighth point: ``The automobile makers have refused our
organization's proposal to have a fully independent body examine
and report on the situation''.
If a complete, independent, exhaustive study proved that there is
indeed a danger, then we in the official opposition would also
respect the findings. The official opposition is opposed, but this is
because the government has not proven its case.
What are they doing instead? Yesterday, a motion was adopted to
gag the House by limiting the duration of the debate, in order to get
this bill through quickly. This attitude is becoming increasingly
common, and the opposition objects. When someone wants to gag
democracy, they try to paralyze the opposition. They try to rush
bills through when the Christmas or summer break is coming up.
As usual, the Liberal government is still trying to put one over us,
thinking that we will soon forget about it, because it is nearly time
for the Christmas parties to begin. But this is serious.
Ninth point: ``Banning MMT constitutes a threat to the
competitiveness of the Quebec refining industry, and would be
contrary to the interests of Quebec drivers''.
The tenth and last point is that the government stubbornly insists
it is right in this case. The Deputy Prime Minister began this debate
when she was Minister of the Environment in 1995, obviously also
putting the interests of Ontario first. She started it, and the
government tabled a bill. Now it has less and less faith in its
evidence, as it has really not proven anything. The only way to
proceed then is to push it ahead as fast as possible, by gagging the
House, so that it can get its way as usual.
Former Social Credit leader Réal Caouette sometimes had some
good quotes. He used to say: ``The government has your good at
heart, and it will manage to get its hands on your goods as well''.
That is what the government has on its mind with this bill. The
heck with the financial consequences, it says, the heck with the
consequences for hundreds, even thousands of jobs. It thumbs its
nose at all of this.
* * *
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, before proceeding with
Statements by Members, I would like to return to the question
raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie
following the statement made by the hon. member for Saint-Denis
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie alleged that the facts as
presented by the member for Saint-Denis were incorrect. He asked
the member for Saint-Denis to withdraw what she had said and
related his version of the facts.
Although members enjoy considerable latitude in the choice of
the subjects they wish to raise under Standing Order 31, it is for the
Chair to determine whether those statements are in order. The
Chair may, for example, interrupt a member improperly applying
Standing Order 31 or using language that might offend.
(1100)
I would furthermore remind members that statements
constituting personal attacks are not permitted. Speaker Sauvé
pointed out on January 17, 1983, at page 21874 of Debates, that:
The time set aside for Members' Statements should not be used to make personal
attacks.
Members' statements are an effective and essential mechanism
enabling members to express their opinions on a range of subjects.
The Chair does not want to block this means of expression in any
way.
6899
I have reviewed the blues, as I promised I would yesterday, and
I have very carefully considered the words of the member for
Saint-Denis. It is not for the Chair to make a pronouncement on
the truth of members' statements. I am concerned, however, by
the member's choice of words, since we were very close to a
personal attack.
On many many occasions in the past, the Chair has reminded
members of the need to honour the conventions and traditions of
this House, especially that of conducting themselves with the
courtesy appropriate to elected representatives.
An important element of this courtesy is refraining from
levelling a personal attack at someone else. The words expressed
are broadcast instantaneously to all regions of the country. Once
they have been uttered, it is very difficult to retract them, and the
impression they leave is not always easily erased.
Statements by Members must not be used to make personal
attacks. This is fundamental to maintaining order in Parliament.
My colleagues, the Chair cannot always predict the course of
debates. Members will understand that the Chair is often caught
between respect for freedom of speech and the rapid delivery of 60
second statements. For this reason, I must count on the goodwill of
every member. I intend to be very vigilant to ensure no one is the
victim of personal attacks in this House.
I encourage all members to treat their colleagues with the respect
they are due. I thank you for your attention in this matter.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
The Speaker: I would prefer to hear points of order following
Statements by Members, but is this a related matter?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I will explain it to you if I may, and
you will judge whether it should be dealt with after or before
Statements by Members.
You asked the Bloc Quebecois member to withdraw his remarks.
He did so on the understanding that you were going to make a
ruling today or later on the matter. However, the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie agreed to withdraw his remarks provided the
member making the accusations did so as well. According to these
allegations, he had used public money to promote his wife's
candidacy in school board elections, an allegation that was entirely
false. We therefore asked to have the member in question withdraw
her remarks. There is no mention of this in your ruling, I note.
We maintain our request that these offensive and totally false
remarks be withdrawn. We would ask the member of the Liberal
Party who made them in her statement under Standing Order 31 to
withdraw them.
(1105)
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
not up us to decide whether the Speaker's ruling is right or wrong.
We must accept what the Chair in its wisdom has decided.
Speaking for the government, I believe the ruling handed down by
the Speaker of the House is fair.
Also, I think that when members say they will withdraw ``on
condition'', we are on a slippery slope. I believe that members on
both sides of the House should never question the authority of the
Chair. We want to deal with this subject with all the respect due to
the Speaker and the Chair.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
The Speaker: I do not want debate. This is the last time.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, far be it from us to question the
authority of the Chair. We believe that the ruling you gave this
morning was given with a great deal of wisdom.
However, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could explain, with an eye to
future proceedings, how we should respond to false allegations
made by a member other than by appealing to the Chair and asking
for a withdrawal of comments that were very inaccurate, to say the
least? Otherwise, anyone in this House could avail himself of the
same procedure-accuse someone of not saying the truth-without
penalty, and give the public the impression that we have done
something wrong.
Mr. Speaker, tell us how we could prevent this from happening
again. Otherwise, we must conclude that we can use the same
strategy to accuse members opposite of other irregularities.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start a debate, as you
yourself pointed out. I simply want to say that we are actually
getting into a debate. Facts presented yesterday by other members
are a matter for debate. I do not think this is a point of order.
Like the hon. member for Joliette, we respect your ruling and
your wisdom, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: I appeal to the House that we should stay away
from any personal attacks on other members. I never know exactly
where you, hon. members, are going when you begin your
statements. That is why I give you so much room. Sometimes we
come very close but the House has a way of regulating itself.
I would agree in the sense that there can be no conditions on the
decision that a Speaker will take. I am your Speaker. You put me
here. I am the embodiment of the rules of the House. Many times
you have given me quite a bit of room in here. I do not know if I
could ever accept that any member would withdraw unparliamen-
6900
tary language on condition that something else happen, that I do
something else.
When I dealt with unparliamentary language, it was something
that was dealt with between myself as the spokesperson for this
House of Commons and another member directly. In the sense of
the rules, what one person says or the other person believes does
not affect me. We look at facts. It is the old story: Is the glass half
full or half empty?
I would appeal to all hon. members to be very judicious in your
choice of words when you are making statements in the House. My
only recourse if I feel that the statement is going in a certain
direction would be for me to intervene, cut off the member's
statement and go to the next member.
(1110)
I would hope that in this decision I have made like all of the
others in the House you would receive it in the spirit with which it
is given. First and foremost this institution is a place where we do
have freedom of speech. It is not incumbent upon your Speaker to
ever decide on the veracity of statements. When one member says
something is true, I accept it and when the other member says
something is true, I accept that. That is the only way we can
function.
I would leave that decision where it is. I will be very vigilant in
listening to all of the statements by members. I want to let this rest
where it is now and I want to proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
6900
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Wednesday we celebrated the official opening in Orléans
of a new public elementary school for young Franco-Ontarians in
the area.
The École L'Odyssée will start with nearly 450 pupils in
classrooms that will let them use the environment as a learning
tool. For instance, there is a glass wall that provides a view of water
pipes and conduits, there are protractors on the doors, trees
representative of the regional flora and hallways named after
famous Franco-Ontarians.
The school's ultramodern equipment will help prepare young
Franco-Ontarians for the world that will be theirs, the world of high
tech, computers and science, as reflected in the booming
technological sector in the national capital region.
The fact that École L'Odyssée has come to
Carleton-Gloucester proves once again that francophones are
capable of making their way in a country full of opportunity, by
developing their potential in their own language and culture, of
which they are so proud.
Bravo and many thanks to the principal of the school, Anne
Quevillon, to the parents, the teachers and the Conseil scolaire
public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the decision to go ahead with plans for a high speed train
in the northeast corridor between New York and Boston will have
important economic benefits for Quebec and for the Lower St.
Lawrence, thanks to the dynamism of the Pocatec company and its
president and general manager, Carl Casista.
With the initiative of teachers from the Collège and the Cégep de
La Pocatière, this SME has, over the years, built up a synergy with
Bombardier, and has met the challenge of high tech development
outside major centres.
The company won a $7 million contract to design and build
communications equipment for the high speed train. This is a
wonderful example of the economic benefits to be derived from
implementation of the high speed train project in the Canadian
corridor.
Let us hope that the preliminary feasibility study by Bombardier
and its five partners, recently confirmed by Bombardier's chairman
and CEO, Laurent Beaudoin, will make this dream a reality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
constituents in my riding of Peace River are fair and reasonable
people. When it comes to government they only ask that this
federal government be fair and reasonable also.
They want government to spend their tax money wisely and they
want their government to be honest. But these days many
constituents in Peace River are seeing red and in this case it is not
the government's flag program.
They ask: What will making farmers, ranchers and hunters
register their rifles and shotguns do to reduce crime in this country?
They believe this Liberal government is not being honest with
Canadians. They see this as a half baked measure that will waste
taxpayers' money, tie up the police force in paperwork and achieve
little in reducing a growing crime problem.
I agree with the constituents of Peace River. I believe most fair
minded Canadians do also.
6901
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Mr. Norm
Green, a constituent of mine, who is proving that with the right
attitude obstacles in life can be overcome.
After an accident caused him visual impairment, Norm brought
his trademark enthusiasm to the sport of blind lawn bowling in
1994. Today the St. Clements resident bowls several times a week
at the Elmira Lawn Bowling Club where he not only challenges
members with sight, he often shows them how to play.
(1115)
In 1995, only one year after taking up the sport, Norm entered
the Canadian National Blind Lawn Bowling competition and
finished a respectable fourth. That same year he finished first for
his class in the Ontario Lawn Bowling Championship. Then in only
his second year of competition, Norm won the National Blind
Lawn Bowling Championship in September 1996. Now Norm is
entitled to compete and represent Canada in the World Lawn
Bowling Competition in New Zealand this February.
I congratulate Norm on all of his achievements. I know that all
Canadians join with me in wishing him the best of luck.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
the city of St. Catharines celebrates the birthday of the Welland
Canal.
On November 29, 1829 the first Welland Canal was born. One
hundred and sixty-seven years ago, 40 wooden locks built over the
Niagara escarpment opened the transportation route into the heart
of this country.
On this special occasion we honour the builder of the canal and
Canada's father of transportation, the Hon. William Hamilton
Merritt.
Today the Engineering Institute of Canada will memorialize this
work with the unveiling of a plaque recognizing the achievements
of Canada's professional engineers in the construction of the
Welland Canal.
The Welland Canada is Canada's oldest active transportation
route. Over the years the canal has been enlarged three times to
accommodate Canada's growing transportation needs. It is a vital
part of the St. Lawrence Seaway and provides thousands of jobs
and great economic benefit to the country. It also attracts hundreds
of tourists who visit St. Catharines to watch huge ships climb 100
meters to carry cargo between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
I know members of the House of Commons join me in
celebrating the great achievements of Canada's engineers on this
the birthday of the Welland Canal.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last May I
congratulated Martin Streef from my riding for being named the
Ontario region's outstanding young farmer for 1996. Today I would
like to congratulate Mr. Streef for winning the Canadian
championship for the best young farmer of the year at the Royal
Winter Fair in Toronto.
Mr. Streef and his family operate Streef Produce in Princeton
and at the Toronto Food Terminal. Having started from scratch
while still in high school, Martin has led his company to become
one of the largest potato producers in Ontario. Streef Produce
currently operates five farms on 1,500 acres in Oxford and Brant
counties.
Like any business, the agricultural industry is constantly in need
of new blood. We can be assured that Canada's agricultural sector
will stay competitive with young farmers like Martin Streef leading
the way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour recently said, and quite
rightly, that the best collective agreement is still one that has been
negotiated.
However, the media have informed us that Air Canada is now
hiring strikebreakers in case of a strike. The company is brazenly
placing job ads offering $10 an hour, $1,400 for a training program,
and an $800 bonus for crossing picket lines.
When he tabled his reform of the labour code, the minister said
that an anti-scab provision was unnecessary, given that he was
convinced of the parties' good faith.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that there needs to be an amendment to
the Canada Labour Code prohibiting replacement workers. The
situation shaping up at Air Canada proves our point beyond all
doubt.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government continually talks about promoting Canadian unity but
its actions do not follow its words.
The justice minister's gun control regulations are just one more
example of this double talk. Instead of uniting Canadians in the
6902
common cause, they seriously divide Canadians against each other.
These regulations divide province against province by arrogantly
discounting the concerns of some duly elected governments. They
divide rural citizens against urban citizens because of traditional
lifestyles.
Worst of all, they divide Canadians by race: aboriginal against
non-aboriginal. While these regulations will be enforced
vigorously in most of Canada, the exemptions for aboriginal people
ensure that no aboriginal will ever be charged under the act, for the
same reasons that little effort is being made to stop the flow of
illegal weapons on Indian reserves straddling the Canada-U.S.
border. This law is unfair for aboriginal people. It is unfair for all
Canadians. We must be treated equally under the law.
* * *
(1120)
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise today to applaud the members of the
Mimico business community who this year re-established the
Mimico-by-the Lake Business Association in my riding.
For many years now the retail district in this community has
been in decline. The actions of local small business leaders, the
residents and City Councillor Mr. Peter Milczyn have proved that
when the community comes together it can produce positive
results. Already businesses like Universal Bakery and Pekao Travel
have changed the retail landscape. These improvements will move
in step with the plans for the waterfront motel strip development.
For almost five years there was no construction in the area. We
see that these changes and the fruits of this government's
infrastructure plan for the waterfront motel strip are turning the
economy around. The Mimico Business Association will join the
New Toronto and Longbranch Business Associations-
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
constituent in my riding of Beaches-Woodbine has informed me
that the Toronto Separate School Board is seriously considering
selling off 38 schools to private companies. The private sector
consortiums would then depreciate these buildings for tax purposes
the way any owner of a private office or apartment builder can. The
depreciation of these buildings will be calculated at 5 per cent
under the federal tax rules.
Although the private sector would initially pay millions for these
schools, it would more than recoup their investment through rents,
tax write-offs and the subcontracting of services.
This is a totally unacceptable way of financing our educational
system in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada. This uploading of
educational costs to the federal government by province of Ontario
is not acceptable.
Taxpayers have already paid for the construction of these schools
and are continuing to pay high educational taxes to maintain the
excellence of our educational system. By selling off these buildings
millions of tax dollars will go into the pockets of private businesses
at the expense of services to children. This abuse must be stopped.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1993 as Louis Turpin lay dying of AIDS complications, a snowy
owl landed in view of his window. Later that day, surrounded by his
loving family, Louis died but his illness and death inspired the
Turpin family and friends to dedicate their efforts to conquering
AIDS.
Yesterday the Snowy Owl Foundation was launched to support
AIDS education, prevention and services to persons living with
AIDS. Look Beyond was released, a book that captures in words
and photographs the faces and spirit of Canadians living with
AIDS.
One of those courageous Canadians is Billy Jo, a seven-year old
girl with AIDS. She spoke about her family and the joy of living
every day to the fullest.
To the Turpin family, to all those who have created and
contributed to Look Beyond and to the Snowy Owl Foundation we
owe our gratitude for inspiring life and hope.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite
of constant human rights violations in China, in spite of the
pressures exerted by environmental groups and the danger posed by
the export of nuclear technologies, the Government of Canada has
just entered into a contract with China to build two Candu nuclear
power plants.
Sure, we have to create jobs. However, the Bloc Quebecois
believes that this contract should have been accompanied by strict
conditions regarding the use of this nuclear technology.
Liberal government members already boast about having signed
the contract of the century. We should remind them that, while the
total value of the project is $4 billion, its spinoffs in Canada will
only reach $1.5 billion, since $2.5 billion will go to American and
Japanese companies.
6903
We should also remind Liberals that Quebec will only get $275
million, or a mere 18 per cent of the total economic impact in
Canada. Once again, Quebec is not getting its fair share in this
federation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Post mandate review recommends that the government
appoint to the board of Canada Post only individuals with the
expertise and stature to be directors of a similar sized corporation
in the private sector.
However, like most recommendations in the report, it appears
this one will be ignored as well.
Last month Gilles Champagne, a long time Quebec Liberal
fundraiser, was appointed to the Canada Post board of directors.
Mr. Champagne is well known for the $1,000 a plate fundraising
dinner he organized for the Prime Minister.
(1125 )
Last week Brian Steck was appointed to the Canada Post board
of directors. Mr. Steck's qualifications appear to be that he works
for Nesbitt Thomson, a company that gave over $197,000 to the
federal Liberal Party since 1993.
When will the Liberal government end the despicable practice of
rewarding party supporters and appoint only qualified members to
boards as recommended in the Canada Post revue and promised in
the red book?
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is Diabetes Awareness Month. Nearly 1.5 million
Canadians have diabetes. It is a major cause of premature deaths,
blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, stroke, limb amputation
and other significant health problems.
The chances of having diabetes increase with age and it affects
more than 13 per cent of Canadians between 65 and 74 years of age.
[Translation]
The Canadian Diabetes Association supports research on
diabetes, protects the rights of diabetics and their families, and
provides them with a wide range of services. I am proud to say that
Health Canada also plays an important role in the fight against
diabetes, by subsidizing research through the Medical Research
Council, by promoting the smooth functioning of the Canadian
multisectorial council for diabetes, and by conducting
health-related monitoring activities.
[English]
Please join me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes Association
and its many volunteers are very successful Diabetes Awareness
Month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
stress the innovative and effective approach used by our Prime
Minister to promote human rights, during his recent visit to China.
It is important to know that Asian countries are very sensitive to
anything they perceive as a form of interference in their domestic
affairs. Far from avoiding his responsibilities, our Prime Minister
chose to raise the issue from the angle of ``good government and
the rule of law''. Any society which, like China, is beginning to
open itself to the world, soon realizes the importance of
conforming to a number of universal rules.
Our Prime Minister used wisdom and intelligence to get his
message across to his Chinese hosts. We are convinced that this
approach will help increase China's awareness of the international
values we endorse.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, since the period for members'
statements began 11 or 12 minutes late, question period will be
extended until 12.12 p.m.
_____________________________________________
6903
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When questioned before leaving for Asia, the Prime Minister
said that the only solution for Canadian was to restructure the
company rather than look to the government for assistance,
because the company's problems were the result of bad
management, and an infusion of federal funds would not help
resolve this problem. The Minister of Finance took a similar line
Wednesday.
Since the Prime Minister has already made his government's
position plain, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who
authorized the Minister of Transport to open the public purse and
come to the assistance of Canadian by offering a rebate on fuel tax?
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, this government has taken a great deal of interest in the
6904
case of Canadian Airlines, because many of the company's
employees and clients have been deeply affected by the events of
the last few weeks.
I would point out to the member that 1,273 employees of
Canadian Airlines International live in Quebec. I think it important
for everyone that a bit of interest be shown in finding solutions to
these problems.
It was therefore necessary for airline management, creditors,
governments and employees to draw up together a plan that could
work. This step has almost been completed. Since the Prime
Minister's departure, all groups have tried to work together, except
for one union. Now all the interested parties have come together
with a common plan.
(1130)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out to the hon. minister that what is
important is that we follow the example of other countries. All the
major countries in the world, including France, England and
Germany-with the exception of the United States, which has a
population of 300 million-have only one national airline. We are
enjoying the luxury of having two. Therein lies the problem. If we
really want to save jobs, we must accept a long term solution and
have just one national airline.
We know that a number of airlines, besides Canadian
International, are now experiencing financial difficulties. Others,
like Air Canada, have made it back to the profit side of the ledger,
but only after many years in the red. What criteria will his
government use to decide which carriers will be entitled to the fuel
tax rebate and which will not? What will be the determining factor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this must be made very clear. The rebate will be offered to all
airlines under the same conditions. In return, a company will have
to give up substantial tax write-offs.
In other words, this could amount to payment of higher taxes to
the federal and provincial governments in the future. Let me be
very clear: this is an offer that will be made to all airlines.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to see such a medley of answers. I hope
that the minister who feels moved to reply to the next question will
give me the right answer, because we are moving along with the
specific information given us first by the Minister of Industry and
then by the Minister of Finance.
By changing the rules of the market, by subsidizing fuel, as it
seems prepared to do, is the government not contravening one of
the NAFTA rules, and will it not leave itself open to economic
reprisals from the United States, and even from other competing
companies in Canada?
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 can confirm for the member that a tax rebate is not a
subsidy according to NAFTA.
* * *
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health presented us with the main
thrust of the tobacco legislation he plans to introduce shortly. This
was a vague and fuzzy list of the measures he is planning,
particularly with respect to the sponsorship of sports and cultural
events on which he intends to pass regulations.
Can the minister indicate more clearly what he intends to impose
in the way of restrictions on promotional material at sports and
cultural events? In other words, can the Players Grand Prix, for
instance, still be called that?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we outlined the strategy of the Government of Canada to
deal with tobacco consumption in the country. Seven major
elements were outlined to the public in terms of what action we
will be taking.
We have put in place some restrictions with regard to
sponsorship promotion that companies will have to abide by.
However, I want to indicate to my colleague opposite that we are
not banning sponsorship in this country. Not at all. We have
restrictions on that promotion. The details will be contained in the
bill. I hope to give notice later this afternoon, with the tabling of
the bill on Monday.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister
assure us that his bill will be more specific than his speech, and that
he will not try to slip past us, as regulations, and therefore without
debate, more stringent measures concerning sponsorships?
(1135)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
11,000 Quebecers die each and every year as a result of tobacco
consumption. As the ministry of health, we have had to show some
leadership on this particular file. There is leadership but it has
consequences. The consequences are that there are restrictions on
sponsorship promotion. It will be regulated. We will consult with
6905
the industry. We will consult with the various cultural groups to
make sure there are workable solutions.
Make no mistake about it, there are restrictions and there are
restrictions on sponsorship promotion.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I found the Bloc's questions rather curious. It wants only
one airline per country but it wants to make this into two countries.
The government has now followed the lead of B.C. and Alberta
in offering Canadian Airlines some relief on oppressive fuel taxes,
but the offer may be meaningless. It is good only if Canadian's
employees vote to accept the restructuring package and the
government will not do anything to ensure that those employees get
that chance to vote.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the
government's convoluted tax rebate offer is worthless if the
employees are not allowed to vote on it, when will the government
take action to protect the democratic rights of Canadian's
employees?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the hon. member's question, I am certain that he is
aware of section 108 of the Canadian Labour Code. It precludes the
Minister of Labour from ordering a vote in circumstances such as
he has referred to.
The hon. member knows full well that the best way to ensure that
workers at Canadian Airlines have the right to vote is that we
continue to put public pressure on the union leadership.
However, if the hon. member is suggesting that the Government
of Canada intervene in terms of legislation in order to effectuate a
settlement there, he is away out of line in terms of what the
collective bargaining process is all about.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is really interesting the minister should raise section
108.1. Yesterday the Reform labour critic placed a motion before
the human resources committee asking for an immediate review of
section 108.1 of the Canadian Labour Code in order to ensure the
democratic rights of Canadian Airlines employees. The response to
that by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour was:
``Giving Canadian employees the right to vote is a waste of time for
this committee''. The Liberal and Bloc members then proceeded to
vote against the motion.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour. In the cold light of day, and after a good night's sleep, is he
prepared to withdraw those unacceptable comments and support
the democratic rights of Canadian employees who may lose their
jobs if this government does not act?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not aware of the context of the words which the hon. member
makes reference to, but I do not think there is a member on either
side of this House who does not want the members of the CAW to
exercise their right to vote on a particular package.
What the hon. member must understand is that we have the
Canadian Labour Code which outlines the procedures that
employers as well as workers must follow.
I would encourage the hon. member as well as his party to
continue to put pressure on the various unions which are involved
here in order that that right may be exercised.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's response to a plea by Canadian's
employees to be allowed to vote on the company restructuring
program has been that it is up to their elected union representatives.
Those union officials are supposed to be like MPs, and I say
supposed to be; that is representatives, not rulers.
It is both clear and democratic that Canadian's employees whose
jobs are on the line should have the right to decide on their own
future. It should not be left in the hands of Buzz Hargrove whose
job is not at stake, who will still have his job even if Canadian
folds.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The choice is
democracy or dictatorship. Buzz Hargrove has chosen dictatorship.
Is this government willing to choose democracy by protecting the
democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the substance of the hon. member's questions I concur
wholeheartedly. Union members should have that right in terms of
the package before them.
(1140)
But in view of the restrictions we have within the law, it is
incumbent on the leadership to provide that right to their members.
That is an internal thing they will have to deal with in the weeks
and the months ahead.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Health said that he considered that he
had no responsibility whatsoever to assume in connection with any
repercussions of his bill on the sponsorship of sports and cultural
events.
6906
Last week, the Toronto Star reports that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage also declined any responsibility in this area.
My question is for the heritage minister. Does she intend to
shoulder responsibility in connection with the organizations
affected, and will she propose alternative solutions when
sponsorships are reduced?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for the question. Let us be clear. The first
objective of the legislation and the proposals we outlined yesterday
is health. When 11,000 Quebecers are dying each and every year as
a result of tobacco consumption it behoves the government to take
action.
There is no need for a replacement fund because we have not
banned sponsorship across the country. It will be a corporate
decision of those individual companies concerning what they do
and the amount of money they provide to various sponsorships
across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister said earlier that there will be restrictions, there will be
repercussions on sponsorships, we are assured of this.
Departmental employees stated before the heritage committee
this past March that they were working on a report to assess the
impact of the Minister of Health's policy on cultural and sports
events, as well as a draft recommendation and suggested
timeframes.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. As we
speak, has the minister received these recommendations, which are
aimed at offsetting the effects of the Minister of Health's policy on
cultural and sports events, given that the government has always
sent a message to the organizers of cultural and sports events that
they should link up with the private sector?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is this:
sponsorships are still legal. No one needs funds to replace
sponsorships which have not been banned.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister who is answering for the Minister of
Labour.
The minister said very clearly in response to the transport critic
for the Reform Party that the government wants the workers to be
able to vote on this legislation. As the minister said, the
government knows that the present provisions of the Canada
Labour Code do not allow that.
The government is here to pass legislation for the benefit of
Canadians. If it wants the workers to be able to vote on this, why
will the government not give the workers the ability to do so?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two reasons. First, we respect the provisions of the Canada Labour
Code.
Second, as we speak, the Minister of Transport is in the province
of British Columbia having consultations and discussions with
various representatives of different unions to impress on them the
need to allow workers of the CAW to have the right to vote on this
restructuring package which is not a part of the collective
bargaining process.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government, despite the fact it says that it wants the workers to
vote, is hiding behind the provision of the labour code that Mr.
Hargrove is using to prevent a vote.
Yesterday I was at the human resources committee meeting. The
parliamentary secretary suggested this is a temporary solution and
may not be a profitable solution in the long run. That is not what
the company, most of the workers or provincial governments say,
and it is not what the federal government has said.
Is the federal government refusing to allow a vote to occur
because it really does not believe in the future of Canadian
Airlines?
(1145 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been a long time supporter of Canadian Airlines. Many in
this caucus and many members in this cabinet are very supportive
of Canadians Airlines.
The hon. member has it wrong. It is not the Government of
Canada, it is not the Government of British Columbia and it is not
the Government of Alberta. It is the union leadership of the CAW,
namely one individual who is at fault here. The pressure must apply
to him and his cohorts in order to give union members the
opportunity to vote.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The government's attempt to save its plan in Zaire will have
lasted only 24 hours. The agreement on the food drop mission
announced yesterday was seriously questioned today. Zaire is
opposed to the agreement, humanitarian organizations are sceptical
6907
and even General Baril does not seem convinced, since he would
use this option only as a last resort.
Since the Canadian government's proposal to drop food has met
with strong local opposition, are we to understand that the minister
submitted this proposal without considering all the consequences?
In other words, was the minister making a last-ditch attempt to save
the plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker. After the meeting on the weekend with
representatives of the countries concerned, especially the military
group, we carefully assessed all recommendations. We consulted
many countries on the level of consensus for international
initiatives and especially to assess the information on conditions in
Zaire.
In the process, we received the support of 20 countries. We have
the support of major humanitarian organizations, including the Red
Cross committee and other international groups. Granted, there are
some people, especially those in the Reform Party, who are critical.
But the major humanitarian organizations agree on the need to
provide humanitarian aid to the refugees.
There is an international consensus among the 20 countries
which will be meeting in Ottawa today to confirm this mission and
guarantee the capability of the international community to
distribute humanitarian aid in Zaire.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister apparently sees opposition coming from only a few
groups. However, according to our information, that is not the case.
Does the minister realize, as a number of intervenors in the field
have pointed out, that a food drop in a region where there are still
groups of armed rebels may threaten the safety and even the lives
of refugees who are now without protection?
That being said, and although we do not question the minister's
good intentions, could he tell us whether he intends to obtain the
agreement of the main partners in the field or propose another
option? Could the minister tell us, considering all the opposition,
whether other alternatives have been considered?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I make it very clear that we consulted with the major
humanitarian organizations before we put the proposal forward. As
I said before, the media can find the odd individual because there
are always critics everywhere, but we first established that there
should be a headquarters at Entebbe so that there is a multilateral
force on the ground able to make evaluations and responses.
Second, they would be given a mandate to undertake
reconnaissance missions to develop good information in Zaire to
determine where food assistance would be most appropriate, where
the refugees are and how they can be most effectively delivered.
(1150 )
At the present time that there is no access for convoys to go in.
That access has not been given by the countries but we do have the
opportunity to provide air assistance.
The comment was made by one minister of one of the
governments of Zaire. I would like to point out to the member that
there is total confusion in Zaire. There are two premiers. No one is
sure who is in control. The fact is that we have received the full
approval of the President of Zaire in discussions with Ambassador
Chrétien.
Those are the conditions we are working under. I am not saying it
is a panacea, that it is a full answer. However, I do believe most
Canadians, with the exclusion of some of my friends opposite,
want this country to continue to provide leadership to mobilize
whatever efforts are possible by the international community to
support humanitarian aid. That is our mission and we are fulfilling
that mission.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Evidence Act defence to hide cabinet documents from Krever is
bogus.
The McDonald commission in 1979 obtained secret cabinet
documents by an order in council and the then clerk of the privy
council, Michael Pitfield, admits the decision is discretionary and
lies with the Prime Minister.
Since there is a choice, why has this Prime Minister chosen to
hide the files?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the McDonald
commission occurred before the introduction of section 39 of the
Canada Evidence Act.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why do we care
about these documents?
In 1985 Saxon William Forbes was born. He was given a
tablespoon of blood to bring colour to his cheeks. He was
constantly sick, diagnosed with HIV and today he has full blown
AIDS. This did not have to happen.
Regulations were drafted in 1984. The government of the day
decided to quash them. Today the government also has a choice. If
it wanted to, it could release the documents to Krever. Why will the
Deputy Prime Minister not release those documents?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to get to
6908
the bottom of the issue surrounding the blood scandal more than
the government. The commissioner has the capacity to compel any
previous minister to testify. I believe at least one previous minister
of health has made a public statement suggesting that she would
like to go before the commission to provide information.
The fact is that commission counsel has suggested that her
testimony is not necessary. If any clarification can be brought to the
matter, I am sure that the commission and Mr. Krever will do their
best to compel those witnesses to come forward and put all the
facts on the table.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
In Canada, it is estimated that between 26,000 and 35,000
persons carry the AIDS virus. An average of 3,000 new cases are
identified each year in Canada. It is a sorry state of affairs, since
Canada, along with Australia, is one of the countries where the
average age of those with the disease has dropped since the start of
the epidemic.
Given the proportions of this scourge, is the minister prepared to
renew the national AIDS strategy for five years with its budget of
$40.7 million a year? Is he prepared to make the commitment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows that the subject matter to which he made
reference is a serious issue. It has been given serious attention and
will continue to receive serious attention.
We have provided substantial moneys for this fiscal year, the
next fiscal year and thereafter additional moneys will be made
available. We are presently reviewing the programs we have in
place.
By the testimony from many experts across the country, the
interventions by government have been very helpful and very
successful. I look forward to constructive suggestions being made
by the hon. member as well as the standing committee, the
subcommittee of which he is a member, as well as from other
Canadians as we get closer to the time at which we will have to
re-evaluate our position on additional moneys.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a little more leadership would not hurt.
Can the minister assure us that there will be a third stage to the
national AIDS strategy and that it will cover all the needs of those
with the disease, namely, treatment, community group support,
prevention, education and research? I invite the minister to take a
firm stand.
(1155)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is quite right. What is needed is a national
strategy. The federal government, being one part of that strategy,
would like to do everything that it can within its fiscal resources. I
hope that other governments, non-governmental organizations and
others can be a part of the solution and that they will not just stand
back and complain.
Many of the activists who I have met across the country have
come forward with some very valuable and constructive
suggestions. I look forward to that continuing as we get up to the
time at which re-evaluation and decisions will have to be taken.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
I was in Yellowknife not too long ago as part of the natural
resources committee study on rural economic development and I
heard some very deep concerns about the depletion in the
availability of carving stones for the Inuit. I understand that there
has been a major discovery of alabaster on Victoria Island recently.
Can the minister tell the House if NRCan played a role in that
discovery and what it means for northern communities and
Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question. It
is both a question of cultural and economic concern to the people of
the north.
This summer, during a regular geological field survey near
Holman on Victoria Island, one of the geological survey mappers
discovered a very large deposit of alabaster which will enable many
people of the north to continue their important carving activities.
The geological survey is committed to mapping and
documenting resources such as this. We appreciate that this is
important, not only to the economic self-sufficiency of this region,
but it is an important part of the culture of this region.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question yesterday from my colleague for
Comox-Alberni regarding the softwood lumber dispute being
taken to the WTO, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered: ``To
provide an orderly arrangement with our largest customer requires
us to play by the rules''.
6909
Surely the minister must know that Canada was one of the main
proponents in establishing the World Trade Organization. It took
nine years at the Uruguay round of the GATT to establish rules
to handle disputes of this nature which are extremely important,
more important in many cases than our NAFTA rules of dispute.
Would the minister not agree that it is time to use these rules to
defend Canada's interest in these types of trade disputes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past 15 years there has been, almost in every year,
a countervail action taken by the United States against the
Canadian softwood lumber industry. This has caused major
uncertainty in the industry. It has resulted in major costs to the
industry. There was $800 million collected on export fees alone by
the United States during one period. It has caused enormous
disruptions in the marketplace.
The Canadian government negotiated a five-year agreement in
which there will be no countervail whatsoever so there can be an
orderly marketing arrangement between Canada and the United
States without any threat of trade actions. That agreement was
based on a level of 16.4 billion board feet, which is the highest
level in the last 10 years, with the exception of one year, based on
average exports.
That was the deal which was arrived at. It was supported by the
exporting provinces. It was supported by the industry. It was put
into an agreement and now the export market is proceeding.
In the meantime, certain lumber companies rushed to the border,
exceeded their quota and they are now in the position of saying:
``We do not want to play by the rules any more''.
The Minister for International Trade set up certain safety valves.
They can borrow quota against their values for next year. They can
provide extra fees if they want to export more. It is all there, but
they cannot continue to say: ``Simply because we are not getting
our cake and eating it too we want to change the rules''. The rules
are there to ensure there is effective marketing and safety of the
industry against countervail costs being imposed by the United
States industry.
(1200 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, surely
this minister would know that every time Canada has had a trade
dispute with the United States on softwood lumber we have won. In
fact the $850 million he talked about was fully rebated to Canadian
producers.
The only thing that has happened is that the United States has
done an end run on us and changed its domestic legislation which
means that we will probably not win at the NAFTA panel any more.
That is why we are suggesting we should take this dispute to the
World Trade Organization.
We have been in contact with many producers in the last few
weeks. In fact, we surveyed companies and 80 per cent of those
which responded want us to cancel this deal and walk away if we
are countervailed by the United States again and to take this to the
World Trade Organization.
Why will the government not honour that kind of concern by
those companies that there is a threat of massive job layoffs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would invite the hon. member to be a little more
detailed. I certainly take his representation but if he wants to
produce those calls, those responses, those companies, I am sure
the minister of trade would be very happy to take that
representation.
In the meantime, the minister has established an advisory
committee made up of members of the industry from across
Canada to provide him with that kind of advice in terms of
constantly reviewing the agreement to determine quota levels and
ways of administering the agreement.
Rather than a random phone call survey, I would suggest the hon.
member put his case and his information to the minister of trade.
He can take it to the advisory committee which represents the
entire industry and determine if those cases have been made. The
hon. member constantly comes to the House and grandstands the
idea of ripping up the agreement and going to dispute. This is
simply continuing the uncertainty and the problems rather than
trying to make this agreement work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday, we heard about some questionable accounting
practices and the outrageous perks of the Canadian Space Agency
chairman, Mr. Evans. More details came out today. The chairman
has reportedly been given a severe reprimand by the information
commissioner for deliberately destroying certain documents.
In light of such disturbing facts, does the Minister of Industry
recognize that his former advisor, who now heads the Canadian
Space Agency, is bereft of credibility when it comes to heading one
of Canada's leading institutions, an internationally renowned
institution?
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.
6910
Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from the information
commissioner of Canada. The hon. member's allegations are false.
The letter does not say that Mr. Evans destroyed documents, and
Mr. Evans has clearly denied destroying any documents.
Second, I can tell the hon. member that, upon joining the
Canadian Space Agency, Mr. Evans immediately renegotiated the
arrangements between the agency and the U.S. He helped me by
preparing the agency's long term space plan. He has done an
outstanding job. As a result of his efforts, the space agency is
respected worldwide.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the allegations
were made by the commissioner of information, who is also a very
credible person. If the accusations are false, blame the
commissioner of information. It seems to me this situation is
starting to look like the Boyle affair. The minister cannot just
sweep it away.
In light of the very serious accusations hanging over the space
agency chairman's head, will the minister recognize that he has no
choice but to immediately suspend Mr. Evans, his former advisor,
and call a public inquiry into the questionable accounting practices
of the Canadian Space Agency and its chairman?
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 source of the allegations referred to by the hon.
member is Michel Vastel, a journalist, not the commissioner of
information. I have his letter in my hand.
Mr. Crête: Table it.
Mr. Manley: It does not say that Mr. Evans destroyed
documents. Why would he want to destroy the reputation of a man
who has served Canada well? It is outrageous to see how
irresponsible the people across the way are.
I can table the letter, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Go ahead,
table it.
(1205)
Mr. Manley: They do not want to hear the truth on the other
side. Since Mr. Evans has been at the head of the space agency, we
can say that some pretty terrific things have been done, not only for
Canada, but also for Quebec, in terms of francophone
representation within the agency.
I can quote statistics. When Mr. Evans joined the agency, three
of the 14 members on the executive committee were French
speaking. There are now eight. In addition, we are negotiating a
major contract for Phase II of RADARSAT. Discussions are under
way with a consortium led by Quebec companies.
I repeat, Mr. Evans is doing an outstanding job.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
almost a year of refusing to reveal details of the contract between
Corrections Canada and Clifford Olson whereby Canada's most
notorious serial killer was able to produce 12 videotapes about his
child slayings, Corrections Canada has finally and reluctantly
released the agreement under access to information rules.
The contract raises some important legal questions, particularly
with regard to who owns the tapes.
My question is for the solicitor general. Since it appears that
Olson and his lawyer own the tapes, what is to stop them from
selling those tapes to the media or other sensationalists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the tapes in question were not produced by Olson but by the staff of
the Correctional Service of Canada. Therefore, and this is not
changed in any way by the wording of the agreement which was
signed in June 1993, the tapes in question belong to the crown and
not to Mr. Olson.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly respect the opinion of the hon. minister but I hold in my
hand copies of the registration under the Canadian Copyright Act
which clearly puts Clifford Olson and his lawyer in possession and
in control of these tapes.
The facts are that the lawyer and Clifford Olson do possess the
tapes and they do have control. There is a real chance that Olson
will either release or sell the tapes to the media.
I appeal to the minister on behalf of Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt
and other parents who have lost their loved ones to this sick
maniac. I call upon this government to act immediately. Will the
Solicitor General confiscate and destroy the Olson tapes? Yes or
no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Olson is not personally in possession of any of the videotapes in
question. Second of all, the lawyer in question is in possession of
five of them. He has previously undertaken not to make them
public, but in any event I am advised that legal action is being
undertaken on behalf of the crown to regain possession of the tapes
from Olson.
I further want to point out that registration of a copyright does
not establish copyright but merely amounts in law to a claim. If
6911
there is a certificate of such a nature, I am advised that this does not
in law actually create a right in copyright.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Graduates from programs like communications studies at the
University of Windsor want Canadian jobs in a Canadian film and
television industry. What has the Department of Canadian Heritage
done to help these talented young Canadians find work in this
growing Canadian industry?
(1210 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the
House that on November 27 the agreement was signed establishing
the first contracts under the Canadian television production fund.
There are a range of projects including: ``B.C. Times'' in British
Columbia; ``Cotter's Wilderness Trail'' from Alberta; ``Wind at
My Back II'' from Ontario; and ``le Théâtre dans tous ses états du
Québec''. There are $160 million worth of applications.
Members of the Reform Party will be happy to know that this
new fund will lead to 30,000 direct and indirect jobs in what is an
incredibly vibrant and growing industry, the Canadian film
business.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The United States refused to give a second mandate to current
UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose term will end
on December 31.
Since Washington used its veto power to go against the will of
the 14 other countries forming the security council, and against the
will of most members of the United Nations, what does the
Canadian government intend to do to convince the United States to
reconsider its decision?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we expressed our support for the secretary general on
several occasions. We did so multilaterally and bilaterally, and our
Prime Minister expressed that support directly to the President of
the United States. Unfortunately, we are currently not a member of
the security council, which will make the final decision.
I hope a solution can soon be found, because, right now, the work
of the United Nations is being hindered by the debate or the process
relating to this issue. This is a concern for all involved, given how
difficult it is to arrive at a solution. We will certainly continue to
state our support for the secretary general.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
regard to parole, the auditor general's report states: ``When the
correctional services do not have enough information on the
offender and the crime, the information usually comes from the
offender''. Now that is a dear, sweet, comforting thought. The
auditor general goes on to say that there is a very high risk in this
whole area, that there is a mess.
What is the solicitor general doing to fix this situation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general is referring to the difficulty of the corrections
service in receiving information from provincial institutions,
courts, local police forces, provincial corrections departments and
so on. It has been working to get agreements with the provinces to
get this information. I have asked that this be expedited and that
this be put on the agenda for meetings with provincial ministers.
I want to use this opportunity to speak here in question period to
urge my provincial counterparts to sign the necessary agreements
as soon as possible so that the corrections service will have all the
information required to enable the right types of decisions to be
made.
In any event, I want to add that the auditor general strongly
supported the concept of offenders spending part of their term in
the community under supervision as the best way of protecting the
public. It was also pointed out that the concerns are based on a
relatively small sample. However, that does not mean that this is
not a problem and I am striving to see it corrected as soon as
possible.
* * *
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, in the course of question period in a rather heated
exchange, a serious allegation was made of the president of the
Canadian Space Agency. I referred to a document. I would like to
6912
table the letter from the Information Commissioner of Canada so
that members may see it.
I must say that in the heat of the moment after the exchange, I
may have been heard by the stenographers to have referred to the
hon. member as a ``menteur''. Out of respect for the traditions and
rules of the House I would wish to withdraw that comment.
(1215)
The Speaker: I do thank the hon. minister for the voluntary
withdrawal of that word. We will take the letter and it will be
tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was precisely to
have you ask the minister to retract what he said about me
following the question I put to him.
_____________________________________________
6912
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
responses to eight petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the
honour to lay upon the Table a notice of ways and means motion to
amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and
Reduction Account Act and related acts. I ask that you designate an
order of the day for the consideration of the motion.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 18, 1996,
your committee has considered Bill C-25, an act respecting
regulations and other documents including the review, registration,
publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other
documents and to make consequential and related amendments to
other acts, and your committee has agreed to report it with
amendments.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, unlike the case in the U.S., the federal
government does not have the legal power to order a manufacturer
to immediately recall a vehicle which has been found to have a
serious safety defect or has actually caused injury or death.
This bill forces manufacturers covered by the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act to notify in public in a specifically prescribed manner
when they become aware of a design, construction or functioning
defect in a vehicle which they sell or import.
It also provides the Minister of Transport with the power to order
an immediate recall of defective vehicles and prohibit their sale
until the defect has been duly corrected. This bill is the result of the
tragic and entirely preventable deaths of Thomas Bonnici, Natalia
Bajc and Stuart Herriot. These children died due to failures in the
current system.
Whether it was the inability to identify defects or failure to
adequately advise the public when defects become known or not
recalling the vehicle models concerned, these questions are left
best to the courts.
What is relevant from the government's perspective must be the
current inability of Transport Canada to quickly identify vehicle
defects even after people have been injured or killed and take
immediate action with manufacturers to recall vehicles and correct
the problems.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit, in both official
languages, a petition signed by residents of the Gaspé area, the
riding of Gaspé, who want the passenger train service between
Chandler and Gaspé to be maintained. They also point out that
commodities transportation by rail is crucial to the current and
6913
future economic development of the Gaspé area, including the
intermodal port-rail transportation facilities in the port of Gaspé.
The petitioners urge the Canadian government to release funds to
maintain the service between Chandler and Gaspé either to VIA
Rail or to a potential partnership made up of the various levels of
government and the private sector, as long as the majority interest
remains under the control of the public sector and the passenger
train service is maintained in this area.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by constituents in the national capital region calling
on this House to declare Canada indivisible.
* * *
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, Question No. 76 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 76-Mr. Caccia:
What are the financing terms and conditions for the proposed sale of two CANDU
nuclear reactors to China, what proportion of the cost is based on loans and/or grants
secured through the Export Development Corporation and/or other Government
departments or agencies, what are the terms and conditions of these loans, and how
do the loans and/or grants to China compare to the grants and/or loans given to other
CANDU purchasers in the past, namely Argentina, Romania and Korea?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows regarding Atomic Energy Canada Limited, AECL.
Loan agreements in support of CANDU sales abroad are
commercially confidential documents to which AECL is not party.
Therefore, AECL cannot provide information with respect to the
terms and conditions of eventual loans to China, as the sale has not
yet been finalized, nor can it provide comparative information in
relation to past loans to Argentina, Romania and South Korea, for
the first CANDU reactor. South Korea's purchases of three
additional CANDU reactors on two separate occasions have not
necessitated loans from the Canadian government.
The Export Development Corporation, EDC, is participating in
export financing negotiations for AECL sale of two CANDU-6
reactors to China. However, all terms and conditions have not yet
been finalized. It is important to note that there are no grants or
subsidies involved. Any financing would be repayable with
interest and normal fees would apply. In other words, any loan
would be on a non-concessional basis and would respect the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
OECD, parameters.
With respect to comparisons to previous AECL CANDU sales,
EDC does not disclose the terms and conditions of transactions or
potential transactions it supports for reasons of commercial
confidentiality. However, all transactions involved repayable loans
and fees.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed
_____________________________________________
6913
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be
rread the third time and passed; and of the amendment and the
amendment to the amendment.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
our last chance to speak to Bill C-29. Unfortunately, we have been
gagged, but I still have a few comments to make on Bill C-29,
hoping that the bill will be reviewed in the Senate, and that it might
amend or defeat this bill, which would have a huge impact on
Quebec oil companies.
The Liberal government is finally showing its true colours. Since
the beginning, the government has lacked the will to be transparent
and get to the bottom of this issue regarding the addition of MMT
to gasoline.
The present environment minister and the former one, the deputy
prime minister, have always refused to shed light on this issue.
Instead of ordering scientific studies as we have asked, they simply
caved in to the auto makers lobby and the Ontario Corn Producers
lobby. By a strange coincidence, both lobbies are from the same
province as the two ministers.
To put a damper on the controversy surrounding their bill and the
strong opposition it is encountering, the Liberals have brought in
time allocation at third reading. In other words, they are gagging
us. The Liberal government is telling members: ``Enough. Keep
your mouths shut. We will decide and you have nothing to say
about it''.
6914
Debating, the reason we sit in this House, is defined by the
Webster dictionary as: ``To consider reasons for and against''. As
parliamentarians, we are here to discuss bills at length. The right
to speak is the Parliament's raison d'être. This is what democracy
is all about.
(1225)
The gag strategy that the Liberal government is imposing on us
today with Bill C-29 goes directly against the very raison d'être of
Parliament. Closure violates freedom of speech, it is
unparliamentary and undemocratic.
We, in the opposition, still had some things to say about this bill.
We wanted the Liberal government to listen to us so it would
recognize that its bill is unfounded and without any sound scientific
basis. Bill C-29 simply responds to the automotive industry. This
proves once again that the Liberals are responding more to lobby
groups than to the real issues. That is a disgrace. It shows all the
weakness and lack of vigour of the environment minister in this
matter.
The auto industry lobby systematically refused to reveal its
studies and thus scientifically support its allegations that the
additive was effectively clogging anti-pollution devices,
particularly the OBD-2.
As for the Ontario corn industry, it congratulated the
environment minister on his bill, seeing that the MMT ban would
throw the door wide open to another additive, ethanol, which is
produced from corn. Since Ontario produces 80 per cent of
Canada's corn, this bill means an exceptional market opportunity
for corn producers in that province. This would be a gold mine for
Ontario corn producers.
Ethanol production is extremely expensive, both in terms of the
environment and in terms of production costs. Fertilizers and
pesticides play a major role in corn production. Moreover, the
production of one litre of ethanol increases the cost of energy from
oil products.
I must also remind members that production costs are so high
that the excise tax is removed from this product at the federal level
and that the provinces are doing the same, particularly Ontario,
with a tax exemption of 22 cents a litre. This weakens the myth of
ethanol as ``green gasoline''.
It is in Ontario that the biggest ethanol plant will soon be built. It
is also the federal government that launched in 1994 an ethanol
development support program. Are these all coincidences?
Not very likely. The government should be looking at other
alternative fuels instead, because ethanol from corn has shown
obvious weaknesses.
The only scientific data based on the results of tests conducted
on various automobiles were provided by Ethyl Corporation and oil
companies. These data are the opposite of the allegations made by
the auto industry, which has not provided any supporting data. The
MMT lobby says it is ready to withdraw its product if independent
tests, approved by all parties, prove that MMT gums up the
onboard diagnostic systems. These tests could be conducted within
a very short time frame and would clarify this issue once and for
all. But the government says no, preferring to hide behind the
anti-MMT lobby.
The majority of provinces strongly opposed Bill C-29. There
was strong opposition to this bill even within cabinet, particularly
from the Minister of International Trade, who sees this bill as an
obstacle to free trade. As a matter of fact, Ethyl Corporation has
given notice of its intention to launch a US$201 million lawsuit
against the government, claiming that Bill C-29 is an obstacle to
free trade and to the free trade agreement. Is the minister sure to
win his case in court? Let us hope so, otherwise it will be very
costly.
Bill C-29 is the reincarnation of Bill C-94, which died on the
Order Paper during the last session. We would have thought that the
new minister would do his homework more carefully, but no. That
is not the way it is. The minister came up with the same bill without
being able to justify it. We have every reason to be concerned. If
the minister does not take his work more seriously and does not
show more thoroughness in his decisions, the Prime Minister
should replace him without delay, because he is a liability for the
environment.
(1230)
Having accomplished nothing and unable to fulfil their promises
with regard to the environment, the Liberals had to do something.
So they came up with Bill C-29. What a performance. As if there
were nothing else to do for the environment.
Of course, there is Bill C-65 on endangered species, which the
government recently scrambled to introduced recently to show that
it is doing something for the environment. Let us not forget that the
Liberals have been in office for more than three years. Before Bill
C-65, the minister was seen last summer on a boat in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence when the Irving Whale was raised. What an impressive
record.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment to the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
6915
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a recorded
division on the amendment to the amendment stands deferred to
Monday, December 2, 1996, at the ordinary hour of adjournment.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
November 29, 1996-The Minister of the Environment-Second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
of Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move for the Minister of the Environment:
That Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development.
(1235 )
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to the referral of Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species
Act, to committee for study and action.
Canadians from all walks of life, from urban to rural areas, have
told us we need endangered species legislation.
Members of Parliament on both sides, in the government
benches and in the seats across the way, have reflected this genuine
concern for Canada's wildlife. That is why the government looks
forward to working with the committee while they study and
strengthen Canada's first ever endangered species legislation.
The government commitment to this legislation was made in the
speech from the throne. It followed extensive consultations with
wildlife conservation groups, other environmental groups, farmers,
the private sector, provincial and territorial governments and
individual Canadians.
Our planet is losing from one to three species per day, mainly as
a result of human activity. The recently released IUCN red list
contains over 5,000 animal species currently at risk of becoming
extinct. Unhappily some countries now have up to 50 per cent of
their mammal species in this category.
Fortunately Canada is nowhere near that figure but we are not
immune from this disturbing trend. One out of every 25 of our
mammal species and one out of every 33 of our bird species are
threatened or endangered. In Canada 276 species of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals and plants are facing extinction and
once they are gone, they are gone forever.
All levels of government have a duty and a responsibility to
work in partnership with one another and with concerned citizens
across the country and around the world to do all in our power to
prevent this from happening.
Canadians care passionately about the natural environment.
When we have the opportunity to enjoy wild places, few of us can
deny the incredible feelings that overwhelm us. We must never
forget that not only are we in nature but that nature is in us. Our
connections with nature are expressed through social, biological,
economic, cultural and spiritual relationships.
Thomas Berry, an eco-theologian, urges us to maintain a sense of
respect and a sense of gratitude toward the earth. Indeed, Canada's
identity has been shaped by our wilderness in the grandeur of its
gifts. It is how we see ourselves and how we are known by others
throughout the world.
As I said, Canadians feel passionately about our natural
environment. Our provincial and territorial colleagues and our
federal minister have listened to Canadians. Last month we agreed
to a national accord to the protection of species at risk. With it we
have put nature first and jurisdictional disputes second.
The accord commits all provincial and territorial governments,
along with the federal government, to take action within specific
time periods to provide for the recovery of species in danger. I am
confident that the provincial and territorial governments will live
up to the spirit and the letter of that agreement in the same way that
we are doing with this legislation before us today.
Provisions throughout the bill enable federal action to protect
critical habitat, including automatic protection of wildlife
residences until the recovery plan has been developed. It covers
threatened and endangered species that move across international
borders. There are authorities in this legislation for immediate
action with other levels of government, the private sector,
environmental groups, farmers, fishers, loggers and individual
Canadians to work together to protect species in imminent danger.
Once an endangered species is officially listed, activities causing
damage or destruction to its residence will be prohibited. This bill
requires that recovery plans address threats to survival of species,
including threats to critical habitat. It will also give provision for
immediate emergency protection of habitat. Offences under the
legislation could result in fines up to $250,000 and up to five years
6916
in prison. Corporations would be subject to penalties up to half a
million dollars.
Another important element is the provision to protect
international cross-border species at risk. Only the national
government has the ability to work co-operatively with other
countries for the conservation of species.
(1240)
I would be remiss if I did not mention public participation. It
gives all Canadians a chance to play an active part in the protection
of species. The public can take part in everything from proposing
species for listing to access to the courts for legal redress.
This is good legislation. Members of the committee have shown
an active interest in working on and improving what is before us.
They, like most Canadians, understand the special reverence we
have for Canada's wilderness. This legislation will help us protect
species at risk. It is time now to continue the work of putting in
place Canada's first ever endangered species legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada
from extirpation or extinction, has finally been introduced in this
House.
Following this stage, the House will be able to refer the bill to
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development. We will thus have complied with regular legislative
procedures. At the outset, we have to admit that everyone agrees
that wildlife species must be protected. The flora and fauna are
vital components of life on earth. Without flowers, trees, plants,
animals and fish, life on earth would be impossible.
Unfortunately, human activity has seriously damaged
biodiversity. Only recently have we acknowledged this and started
trying to reverse the process. We must act vigorously before it is
too late, though it is unfortunately too late for some species which
are already extinct.
In the last two decades, the preservation of biodiversity has
become an international priority. As a result, we had the 1980
World Conservation Strategy; the 1991 report entitled ``Caring for
the Earth''; the 1987 report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development entitled ``Our Common Future'';
and more recently, in 1992, the International Convention on
Biological Diversity. As we can see, environmental awareness is a
recent reality.
In Canada, some provinces and the federal government have
already passed laws in this area. Some 12 federal acts deal with the
conservation and protection of threatened species.
These laws include the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds
Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act, the
Health of Animals Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act.
At the provincial level, four provinces-New Brunswick,
Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-have their own laws designed to
protect endangered species. As for the other provinces and the
territories, they have laws on wildlife management and endangered
species. Their content varies considerably.
On October 2, at a meeting in Charlottetown, the federal and
provincial ministers responsible for wildlife agreed in principle on
a national convention for the protection of wildlife in Canada. This
agreement is designed to prevent the extinction of wildlife species
in Canada as a result of human activity. It establishes a new
framework for co-operation between the federal, provincial and
territorial governments. It deals with co-operation, collaboration
and complementarity between its signatories.
(1245)
Quebec, which supports the general principles and goals behind
Canada's endangered species conservation projects, was already
reluctant to support the national agreement, fearing overlap
between Bill C-65, which we are debating today, and the laws
already in effect in the provinces, particularly the one in Quebec, in
force since 1989, which works well and is already producing
results.
Quebec minister David Cliche said, and I quote: ``We risk
creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what
really matters to us: the fate of endangered species''.
Bill C-65 introduced by the federal minister only confirms the
apprehensions of the Quebec minister. Again, the federal
government clumsily encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction.
For ministers in Quebec and other provinces, including Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the principle behind the
Charlottetown accord was very simple: if the ministers agreed that
a species was endangered, the entity having jurisdiction over this
species' territory or habitat would be responsible for the protection
of both the species and its habitat.
It is impossible to protect a species without protecting its habitat.
Since the provinces have jurisdiction over the habitats found within
their territory, the province, in this case Quebec, is responsible for
the protection of this habitat. But, obviously, the federal minister
did not understand that principle adhered to by four provinces
which already have legislation on endangered species.
Bill C-65 says that the federal government can act in order to
protect the habitat of any federal species, and the definition of
species is not limited to those species under federal jurisdiction
6917
like migratory birds and any species identified as transboundary,
such as caribous crossing the border, for example.
In clear terms, that means the federal government could
unilaterally decide to take action on provincial territories if it
considers that a given species is threatened, endangered or at risk,
which caused an outcry from provincial ministers.
Bill C-65 goes against the intent of the Charlottetown accord,
which says that if the ministers agree to put a species on the list, it
is up to the jurisdiction controlling the territory to make sure the
habitat of that species is duly protected.
Bill C-65 could allow some unthinkable and unacceptable
interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-65
essentially replicates the main points of the bill presented by the
previous minister in 1995. That bill had been so massively opposed
that it was never passed. One of the criticisms was that the
proposed measures were not strong enough.
We believe that this bill presents some tremendous risk of
duplication and federal interference. Its scope is much too wide and
it could create legislative overlap and duplication.
We also have much to criticize in the whole process for
implementing the protection system described in the bill. In
particular, jurisdiction as provided will allow enforcement by the
federal government on provincial land without the consent of the
provinces, because of the definitions given of federal land, aquatic
species and migratory birds. One provision empowers the minister
to rule on transboundary species, which means that the federal
government would be able to take action not only with respect to
nearly all species, but also with respect to their habitat, without the
issue being debated in the House, as the House does not discuss
regulations.
I will conclude by adding that, in any case, this bill will be
referred to a committee, where we will surely propose some
amendments to ensure that the legislation does not duplicate
existing and very good provincial legislation. I hope the
government and the official opposition will agree on various
amendments.
(1250)
We will also see what can be done after hearing from various
witnesses. We will then determine the position of the Bloc
Quebecois on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to be able to speak to this motion today which
has some basic optimism about doing good things which have
general social support across the country.
As civilization on this planet becomes more developed,
humanity encroaches on the world ecosystem. Although there is
some adaptive specialization and limited evolution to the living
world, what we observe is a general trend to deterioration of the
environment and living things, and more prospect of dying than
living and the trend to extinction rather than survival.
There is difficulty for mankind to find better health on this
spaceship earth, as it is turning into everything opposite of the
garden of Eden.
Society may not be able to halt all of what is happening to the
earth, but we can be reasonably responsible in stewardship.
Mankind is on a life support system called earth that hurdles
through space. It is all we have for our children, so we have to take
care of its bounty and all those who live on it.
Today with this bill we are attempting to mitigate some of the
excesses of civilization on other species. It is not the dawning of a
new day but some basic housekeeping for our land.
We need to have a national conversation about this piece of
legislation. We must have committee hearings where Canadians
can speak, as it is fundamental to governance in a modern
democracy. Consequently we have Bill C-65 to be moved to the
committee stage before second reading.
As many members of the House are aware, the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was
supposed to travel this week to Vancouver, Edmonton, Montreal
and Toronto. Unfortunately politics got in the way and the trip was
cancelled at the last minute. I had several calls earlier this week
from potential witness who are very upset that the committee
would not be able to hear their testimony.
I want to state for the record that the Reform Party agreed to the
original travel plans and continues to believe that it is essential that
Canadians from all parts of the country be heard on this bill. It is
the concern of the committee to receive submissions from
non-governmental organizations as well as private citizens.
However, it will not be any Reform Party strategists that will
oppose this bill, but we on this side of the House will be the voice
of the community, especially those who think that often they are
shut out by arrogant majority governments that seek out political
credit rather than wise governance.
Let me state publicly that if the minister does not openly listen
and act on the suggestions of all the relevant stakeholders who have
deep concerns with Bill C-65, this bill might become Bill C-29's
big brother.
Some will say is that a threat. Maybe yes, but not from
Reformers. It is, rather, a signal of the rules of the game from the
thousands of Canadians who are paying attention to the passage of
this bill. It is the reasonable expectation of all Canadians who want
to protect our environment while at the same time protect our hard
won political rights, our vital freedoms to live in a free market
6918
economy and earn an honest living. A poor bill could become very
problematic on those counts.
What is paramount for all members of the Reform Party is to
ensure that all stakeholders, including ranchers, farmers,
environmentalists, private citizens, will always play an integral
part in the preservation and the recovery process of species that are
endangered.
For years, non-governmental organizations like the Canadian
Cattlemen's Association have taken the initiative to protect
endangered species. For example, cattle producers have voluntarily
co-operated with programs like the North American water fowl
management plan as well as operation burrowing owl. These
programs require equal participation from the producers and the
conservation groups.
Many individual producers have set aside parts of their land
specifically for the protection of wildlife habitat. The bottom line is
that producers are willing to take the necessary action to ensure the
sustainability of endangered and threatened species.
One of my concerns has to do with section 34 of the bill which
deals specifically with emergency orders. In this section, either the
Minister of the Environment, Canadian Heritage or Fisheries and
Oceans will make an emergency order should the minister decide
that immediate action is required to protect a specific species. As I
read it, the order includes a provision that relates to the prohibiting
of activities that directly affect a species or where the habitat is in
imminent danger for the survival of the species. Therefore this
could affect private land, not just the federal land that the bill
claims it only covers.
(1255)
Nowhere in the background material provided by Environment
Canada does it state that the bill will or could affect private land.
Yet when I questioned officials from Environment Canada they
made it very clear to me that in certain circumstances the bill could
affect private land. This is exactly the kind of thing the committee
needs to work out before this legislation will be accepted by the
vast majority of Canadians.
In meetings with farmers and ranchers they have told members
of the Reform Party that they are willing to work alongside the
government in the protection of endangered species. However,
their biggest concern is that there should be no expropriation
without fair compensation. I hope this does not become the very
point where it all unravels.
Definitions need to be tightened up. I will give one example.
What if a species lives on federal land and for some reason
becomes endangered and the provisions of the act are triggered?
The species, say a non-migratory bird, may also nest on some
adjacent industrial land that is about to be expanded. It is adjacent
private land in this case that is not governed by a provincial law.
So if new roads and power and sewer facilities are to be completed,
nests will be destroyed and this would not be accidental.
The private landowner will be affected by the act if there is no
such legislation in the province. The owner would indeed be
consulted about a recovery plan, but when it came down to it, it
could mean that the expansion of the industrial park would be
stopped and the landowner's real estate value would plummet and
they would suffer loss. Then the question is who pays for the
catastrophic financial loss because of a new regulation from
government.
The gist of this bill seems to be that the provinces that do not
have endangered species legislation would come onboard in the
very near future. Indeed this would strengthen Bill C-65.
Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case, at least for the
province of British Columbia.
Recently B.C.'s environment minister, Paul Ramsay, was quoted
as saying that it was not on his government's agenda to introduce
legislation even though he signed the national accord. In British
Columbia this act will cover only less than 1 per cent of all the
land. So without the help of the province of British Columbia, this
act is more than 99 per cent useless. In the province of Alberta, for
example, the ratio is only slightly higher but not enough for the
minister to get even a little excited.
The auditor general says in chapter 22 of his November 1996
report that the federal government is not doing all that well in
cleaning up polluted federal land. Therefore is it clear that in the
federal House of responsibility species will indeed be protected and
that the same consequences will apply to bureaucrats as ordinary
citizens as a result of this bill? Will public servants be fined? It
seems to be the old problem of the lands in common and crown
land where no individual or specific entity appears accountable.
There are big penalties for private corporations but will
members of the armed forces be charged and will national defence
actually pay the corporate fines when it hurts endangered species
on federal land such as a low fly zone or a firing range? There must
be no double standard.
I stress again that the minister needs to listen to all Canadians
before he will get support on this bill. He does not want to go down
as the environment minister who brought in Bill C-29 which caused
more smog from automobiles and caused more endangered species.
We must ensure this bill will not be used for a perverse purpose
by an economic competitor to mess up the marketplace and put a
company out of business merely because the competitor wants an
economic advantage for their own firm. The bill must be an
instrument for community co-operation and a point around which
actual species can be preserved.
6919
I want to prevent the situation wherein the only species
preserved are lawyers who could use this new law to litigate every
project for years and allow every fringe environmental group to
unreasonably promote their religion to the detriment of the big
picture of the environment or the basic rights of Canadians.
Therefore the section on citizen complaints must be clarified.
The Reform Party will not oppose for the sake of opposing. We
say three things about our role. First, we have a duty as opposition
to hold the government to account and to test the veracity and merit
of what it brings forward in legislation and also how it delivers its
governance. Second, we desire to compliment the government
when it goes in the right direction. Third, if we heavily criticize we
must be prepared to present thorough and realistic alternatives on
the table for all to examine. Reform is ready to govern, but until
called upon by the people we will do our duty with this bill.
Therefore, we support the motion for Bill C-65 to go to
committee before second reading to broaden the circle of
examination and to provide Canadians outside this Chamber a
better chance to participate. The terms of the bill assert a new level
of ongoing community co-operation and consensus. Let it be also
said in the making of this bill that we will have the same spirit of
consultation and willingness to adjust as the bill becomes tested in
the community.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Speaker: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to committee.)
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be disposed
that the Speaker might see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. I see that
the member under whose name private members' hour stands is in
the Chamber and we might proceed to private members' hour at
this time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put his
suggestion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the suggestion.
Is it agreed that we should proceed at this time to Private Members'
Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: It being 1.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6919
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mines), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to speak on my
private member's bill, Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal
Code relating to mines.
This bill deals with an epidemic that we have in our midst which
is affecting over 60 countries in the world. It is an epidemic which
kills over 25,000 people every year. It is an epidemic which harms
over three times that many people. It is an epidemic primarily
designed to kill and maim innocent civilians, often children. The
epidemic I am talking about is the epidemic of anti-personnel land
mines.
This scourge affects many countries and often the poorest
countries of the world. It is often spoken of on the same level as
biological and chemical weapons. These heinous devices, these
heinous silent killers which lay underneath the ground beside trees,
on walking paths, beside watering holes and in fields are devices
which violate virtually every single tenet of humanitarian law.
They are in effect by their very nature, by the way in which they are
used and by whom they affect, illegal. Yet there are in the world
today countries which still use them, countries which produce them
and countries which sell them.
The purpose of this bill is to give Canada a leadership role in
banning anti-personnel land mines. To the credit of the
government, it has placed a moratorium on land mines. It has also
destroyed two-thirds of its stockpile. That is a move in the right
direction. If we are calling for an international ban on
anti-personnel mines which we have been doing, we must first take
a leadership role in banning them domestically. It is disingenuous
for us to call for a ban of these mines internationally on the one
hand and on the other not do the same within Canada. It is a shame
6920
because these weapons are not necessary, from a military or any
other perspective. I will get to that later on in my speech.
(1305)
There are two different kinds of these mines. There are blast
mines which when stepped on blow up. There are fragmentation
mines which contain pieces of shrapnel and metal one of which
elevates itself above the ground to rip out a core and affect people
perhaps in a 50 or 60 yard radius from where the mine has blown
up.
The fragmentation mines shoot out projectiles at rapid speed
which can tear into a person's bowels, legs, groin, chest, eyes and
face. The blast mines can take off a limb. Perversely, these devices
are not meant to kill but are actually meant to maim. The perverted
logic behind this is that a person who is injured is a greater problem
to society at large than somebody who is killed and removed from
society.
Most of these mines are laid in battlefields. Most of them are
laid in the poorest nations of the world. The mines are also used for
a number of other different purposes. They are used to terrorize.
They are used as blackmail. They are used to starve people. The
Khmer Rouge used them very effectively in Cambodia. They
would lay mines around the fields and say to the people that they
could only get back into their fields if they paid them money. The
Iraqis used them very effectively to starve the Kurds.
These mines, as I have said before, affect the poorest nations of
the world. When a war is over and people want to go back into the
fields they cannot do so because of the mines. This continues the
cycle of starvation and destitution within these nations.
The mines are also used in a number of other heinous ways
which is well known to the people here. Over 40 countries in the
world manufacture mines and the list of companies that make them
reads like the Who's Who of Fortune 500. In fact if we look at the
nations that make them, we find sadly that those who claim to be
the leaders in peace at the United Nations Security Council are
those who are the greatest producers of land mines in the world. It
is important to know that. The list includes companies such as
Daimler-Benz, Daiwa and many others that can be found in
Fortune 500.
Many of these devices are often designed to look like little toys.
The reason they are designed to look like toys is that children will
pick them up and their arms will be blown off.
My personal experience with land mines occurred when I was
working on the Mozambique border in southern Africa during the
war in Mozambique. It was usually young people, adolescents,
children, youth, who had their limbs blown off. If you have ever
looked into the eyes of somebody who is sitting on a hospital bed
with one of their limbs torn to pieces and fragmentations embedded
in various parts of their body, knowing full well that that the person
is going to die or at best live a life of utter poverty and destitution,
then you cannot arrive at any other conclusion but that these
devices must be banned.
In fact looking at the current conventional wisdom, the Pentagon
has called for a ban of these devices. Twenty-two top military brass
in the United States have called for a ban. Canadians have called
for a ban. The international community has called for a ban, yet we
do not have a ban. Furthermore our country has not called for a ban.
The International Committee of the Red Cross put forth a very
eloquent document which looked at the use of land mines purely
from a military perspective. It was done by 12 top military brass
including General Itani, a Canadian. The outcome was they said
that there was no legitimate military use for anti-personnel land
mines in the 1990s and there would not be in the future. They
strongly recommended that these devices be banned.
(1310)
Within 24 hours that document was supported by another 24 top
military brass. Within 48 hours, 72 top military brass supported it,
including General Norman Schwarzkopf and our own General
Lewis MacKenzie.
The primary reason for keeping land mines within our arsenal
comes from the military, from a very archaic view of the use of
mines. Unfortunately that is the view that is being held sway within
our country today and that needs to change.
I am greatly disappointed that this bill which in effect has been
supported by members across this House and in fact in the Senate
was not made votable. There have been dozens and dozens of
interventions by members from the government, the Bloc, the
Conservative Party, the NDP and Reform Party to ban
anti-personnel land mines in Canada. There are even senators from
all party lines who desperately want this to occur. There is no
reason this bill should not have been made votable so that the
House and the people of this country could vote on this very
important humanitarian issue.
An hon. member: The government should bring forward a bill.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): That is right. The
government should forthwith bring forward a bill calling for a ban.
I am sure we could get speedy passage of that bill through this
House and the Senate to make sure that Canada is playing a
leadership role.
We are not the only country to have addressed this. Many
countries have done so. For example, Belgium which had a vast
stockpile of anti-personnel mines has made a ban. Sixteen
countries across the world have taken leadership and it is high time
that we as a nation did too.
Apart from the military aspect of land mines, there is also the
issue under humanitarian law. There are rules which talk about the
proportional or discriminate use of weapons. Land mines violate
international humanitarian law on at least four or five tenets. They
6921
are disproportionate, they affect civilians, they are not addressed
necessarily to combatants, they continue to affect people long after
a war is finished and they are inhumane by any stretch of the
imagination.
If we are in agreement with international law, with the tenets that
we have signed with the United Nations, then we have to arrive at
no other conclusion but the fact that anti-personnel land mines are
illegal and must be banned. There are no two ways about it.
If we want to speak in purely selfish terms, there are over two
million land mines seeded around the world. Every year we take
out 85,000. The cost to make a land mine is between $3 and $10,
yet the cost to remove one can be anywhere between $300 and
$1,000. We are losing the battle. We cannot keep up with the
scourge if we are only removing that many and indiscriminately
dumping over two million of them a year. And indiscriminate it is.
Mines are tossed out of helicopters and from the backs of trucks.
There are machines made in Great Britain, France and the United
States which toss literally hundreds of them around.
In the gulf war a staggering 400,000 anti-personnel land mines
were laid every single day. What is the cost to remove them? The
worldwide cost is over $35 billion. Who can afford that? Not the
countries that have them because they are some of the poorest
countries in the world. Not the international community because
we are all labouring under huge debts and deficits which we simply
do not have the money to pay for.
What happens in the poorest countries of the world with the
mines? It prevents these countries from getting back on their feet.
Mozambique, Angola, El Salvador, Somalia; the list is endless.
These countries will never become self-sufficient, will never be
able to stand on their own two feet unless these issues are dealt with
forthwith.
(1315 )
Some of my colleagues will speak today about the people who
are affected by mines and what happens to them if they are lucky
enough to survive the blast. Some of them may be lucky enough to
go to a hospital where they will receive proper medical treatment
and possible amputation. They then will suffer months if not years
of future surgeries. Because the mine fragments are embedded
deeply they often get septic. The people become sick and require
antibiotics which are not often available. They might need revision
surgeries if it is available to them or they die a very painful and
horrible death.
We talk about prosthetics. Prosthesis for these people are not
readily available. When one is making $15 U.S. a month and the
cost for prosthesis is over $125 U.S., and children will use over 20
of these in their life, one can see that is simply not available.
Those of us who have travelled in the third world, as many
members have, know that these people who are affected by mines
and are amputation victims live a life in the lowest possible social
strata in their society. They are in effect outcasts in a world of
poverty. They often crawl on the ground using the remnants of
rubber tires on their knees and beg. The families cannot take care of
them and they can hardly take care of themselves. It is clearly
inhumane.
Therefore, it completely violates any of the tenets of
humanitarian law under which we are supposed to live.
Canada has a great opportunity. We have taken a leadership role
in many other areas in the past. During the times of Pearsonian
diplomacy we demonstrated that we can take a leadership role to
strive for peace and understanding among people. We have
demonstrated a leadership role in humanitarian aspects. We have
Louise Arbour who is the head of the war crimes tribunals in the
Hague. Canada has a pre-eminent role in diplomacy and in foreign
policy.
I would ask that the government look at this issue and bring in a
bill that will have a domestic ban on anti-personnel land mines. If
we can have a domestic bill on these devices then clearly we can go
to the international community and talk with a great deal of
personal conviction and credibility. We can tell other countries that
it is in the best interest of the poorest countries and the poorest
people of the world, indeed all of us, to ban these devices. They
must be put on the same level as chemical weapons, biological
weapons and lasers that are designed to blind people. All of these
weapons have absolutely no place in warfare in the 20th century.
So-called military experts will say that there are rules that
govern mines. They have mapped them out and they know where
they are. However, the facts of the matter are that is completely not
true. Although we may try to do that, guerrillas can go in and move
the mines around. Weather patterns shift the mines around. We do
not know where they are. Guerrillas can take mines as they go
through a mine field and use those mines to damage and destroy
that which they are supposed to protect. They can also be used
against the parties that they are supposed to protect. There is no use
for these devices now and they must be banned.
Strangely, although the military is the primary objector to calling
for a ban on these devices, the primary use is by non-military
combatants, non-conventional combatants or guerrillas. They are
the ones who use these discriminately and they are the ones who do
not adhere to common practices of war. We all know there are
really no rules in war.
Some people have said that if we call for a ban on these devices
not everybody is going to adhere to it. That is very true, but by
banning these substances we will be able to arrest the epidemic of
the distribution of these devices so we can at least lower the
numbers that are being laid. As I mentioned before, if one is laying
6922
two million mines a year and taking 85,000 out we have a losing
proposition and they must be removed.
(1320 )
These mines are not used for military purposes. They are
primarily used in a inhumane fashion to terrorize the civilian
population. Many are designed to target a civilian population by
putting them along the pathways to watering holes. The military do
not do that. They know how to deal with mines. This practice is
meant to terrorize the civilians.
I would like to congratulate a number of groups in Canada which
have worked extraordinarily hard on this issue. Mines Action
Canada, the International Committee of the Red Cross, just to name
a few, along with many Canadians from coast to coast have tried to
bring the issue to the forefront of international consciousness.
I would ask that the government follow the desires and wishes of
the majority of Canadians and ban a device which is so heinous it is
beyond our comprehension unless we have dealt with or heaven
forbid, been affected by land mines or anti-personnel devices.
I will stop there. Based on what I have said today, I would like to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to make my private
member's bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Finlay): Is there agreement that the
bill should be made votable?
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in support of private member's Bill C-252, calling for a
domestic ban of anti-personnel land mines.
I have a particular interest in this issue, since last week at a
conference of the North Atlantic Assembly I was elected Special
Rapporteur to the Science and Technology Committee to report to
the assembly on anti-personnel land mines with the objective of
banning them. In the coming months I will be studying this issue
very closely.
In recent years, due in part to the efforts of numerous
international non-governmental organizations, as mentioned by the
previous speaker, the issue of anti-personnel land mines has been
brought to the forefront of international relations. We are becoming
increasingly informed and aware of the destruction and havoc
caused by such weapons all over the world.
These efforts have led to an international campaign to ban
anti-personnel land mines, a movement in which I am proud to
state Canada has taken a lead role.
In October of this year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs held an
international strategy conference toward a global ban on
anti-personnel land mines where representatives of 70
governments, non-governmental organizations, multilateral
agencies and private citizens attended. The Ottawa conference
concluded with the adoption of the Ottawa declaration calling for
an international ban on anti-personnel land mines.
The problem is enormous. It is estimated there are 119 million
uncleared active land mines around the world in more than 64
countries. Currently, as the previous speaker mentioned, only
100,000 are being cleared and disarmed yearly at great expense.
The United Nations has projected that if no further land mines
were laid, it would still take 1,000 years and $33 billion to clear the
land mines that are already in place. However, each year two
million to five million new mines are put in the ground. We cannot
sit idly by and allow the situation to continue unchecked.
These horrible weapons currently claim more than 2,000 victims
a month and over the last 50 years have probably inflicted more
death and injuries than nuclear and chemical weapons combined.
While the use of land mines began as a counter to tanks, the use
of anti-personnel land mines have become increasingly popular.
They have become the weapon of choice for parties involved in
guerrilla type operations and international conflicts as they are
cheap, as little a $3 a piece, easy to lay and highly effective in
killing and maiming human beings, particularly women and
children. They are used in some cases to deny access to farm lands,
irrigation channels and power plants. The effect of these usages is
devastating in a country recovering from war.
Once land mines are laid, they are indiscriminate in their actions
since they do not have to be aimed or fired. They are nameless and
faceless weapons. Unless they are cleared they go on killing long
after the end of any conflict. In fact, the United Nations has
estimated that land mines are at least ten times more likely to kill
or injure a civilian after a conflict than a combatant during
hostility.
(1325 )
Moreover, floods, landslides, moving sand dunes and natural
erosion can shift their positions long after they have been laid and
marked. In Namibia 88 per cent of post-1980 land mine casualties
were civilian. The same situation is reflected in many other
countries where land mines are numerous.
The effects of land mines are gruesome and abhorrent. One
person is killed or maimed by a mine every 20 minutes and nearly a
third of the survivors have at least one limb amputated. On a
current election monitoring trip to Bosnia I was shocked to note
that about one in every ten adults and children walking along the
street in a town called Gorazde had either a hand, an arm or a leg
missing.
6923
By comparison, in the U.S. there is one amputee per 22,000
inhabitants. In Cambodia, one of the countries most affected by
mines, there is one amputee per 384 inhabitants. A study in
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique found that the
number of mine incidents in these four countries more than
doubled between the early 1980s and the early 1990s.
Land mines cause havoc in a society and severely hamper
post-war reconstruction. Most mines strike those who are poor and
must go into debt to pay for their medical bills if they can afford
medical treatment at all. Gorazde has 20,000 people and two
doctors from Doctors without Borders.
The day before I arrived in Gorazde a little boy picked up a red
lunch pail and blew his arm off at the shoulder. All the doctors
could do is cauterize it and send him to Sarajevo. No one knew
what happened to him after that.
Mines also prevent the use of land for agricultural production in
many parts of affected countries, severely limiting economic
recovery. For example, in Libya only 27 per cent of arable land is
usable because it has been covered by mine fields since World War
II. Mines make reconstruction of rail and road networks, power
lines and waterways slow, dangerous and costly.
When I was in Bosnia they only had power for two out of 24
hours. It was erratic. It could not be repaired. Sometimes the
electricity came on from two until four in the morning, the time
when most people do not have much use for it.
Not only do anti-personnel land mines prevent the use of
resources, they also place a strain on the budgets of countries
affected, especially since those countries are likely among the
poorest in the world.
In addition, land mines prevent the settlement and resettlement
of refugees which is essential to the success of the peace process.
Peacekeepers are also at risk in these circumstances and we have
many Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia right now, over 1,000.
A total of 203 UN peacekeepers have been injured by mines and
60 have been killed to date. A further 39 UN civilian personnel
have been injured and 7 have been killed by mines. One of the most
important briefings I got repeatedly before I went to Bosnia as a
civilian election monitor was all the rules and regulations on how
to avoid getting maimed or killed by a land mine. I was in one of
the most beautiful countries in the world yet I could not step off the
sidewalk or the road on to the grass anywhere.
For all of these reasons, land mines make it difficult, if not
impossible, for countries to make the transition from conflict to
peace through economic recovery, which is what those countries
desperately need in order to reduce the chances of future armed
conflicts.
Land mines are not a significant source of revenue for most
countries. About 100 companies in some 55 countries produce
approximately five million land mines a year comprised of about
360 different types of anti-personnel land mines. Few countries
profit significantly from the sale of conventional anti-personnel
land mines, most of which sell from $3 to $30 each.
Not only are clearance costs between $300 and $1,000 per mine,
the human costs are overwhelming. Each victim will incur lifetime
expenses and each country will incur serious human and economic
costs from those injuries. We can be very proud. Canada has one of
the best trained forces in the world in disarming these mines.
The review conference of the Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons adopted on May 3 a revised version of the
convention's protocol II regulating the use of ``mines, booby traps
and other devices''. Some of the revisions include an extension of
the protocol to apply in both international and non-international
armed conflicts, a clear assignment of responsibility for mine
clearance to those who lay the mines, and a requirement that all
mines be mapped and recorded. Of course that requirement is
useless in many countries. As soon as the weather changes the
mines shift and it is impossible to find them. Self-destructing
mines may be used without any specific restriction but they are few
and far between.
While I am pleased that such efforts are being attempted it is not
enough. The provisions will be phased in over nine years. In
addition to this delay, many of the provisions are costly, difficult to
ensure and unlikely to be followed, particularly in the midst of war.
(1330 )
Even if states comply with the recording and mapping rule these
techniques are only marginally effective when land mines shift
easily over unstable ground. Self-destructing mines can be
delivered in huge quantities and are extremely difficult to map.
Their use could lead to an even greater increase in civilian mine
casualties.
The limited military usefulness of land mines must be
overridden by humanitarian priorities. I have had the opportunity to
witness firsthand, as I have mentioned repeatedly, the destruction
caused by anti-personnel land mines.
On the trip to Bosnia the most nervous part of the whole trip was
not fear that I would be shot at or fear that there would be conflict
between the people we were there to observe, it was the fear for my
own person. I thought to myself there are many people, young
people, who do not have work, 85 per cent unemployed, and they
have the added fear that if they step anywhere that they should not,
off a road, off a sidewalk, they can be maimed for life.
I can only imagine the dangers the average citizen faced on a day
to day basis there. Fighting had technically ceased. Just because the
6924
act of war was over did not mean the citizens were out of danger.
Rather, they faced a whole new set of problems, not the least
among them was trying to rebuild a country with so many obstacles
in place.
Canada must take a lead role in achieving a global ban on
anti-personnel land mines. Bill C-252 is non-partisan. It has been
presented by a member of the Reform Party but I wholeheartedly
endorse it in a non-partisan fashion. It draws our attention to this
very important subject and provokes serious debate and
consideration of the issues involved.
I strongly urge thoughtful consideration of this bill because
ongoing dialogue is essential to any future progress.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-252.
Although it is a very rare occurrence, this bill has elicited an air of
peace and a desire to resolve a situation that causes terrible
problems and suffering throughout the world.
We must recall the Government of Canada's position on
anti-personnel mines. There is an international agreement. Canada
has destroyed two thirds of its mines, and I think this bill today
contributes an important additional element. It would completely
close the door on any trade in anti-personnel mines. It would
prevent there being any more international military transactions in
Canada relating to mines. I think this should be incorporated in the
Canadian government's international policy.
I would like to remind the House of statements made in this
regard on December 12, 1995 by the hon. member for Laval East
and on May 8, 1996 by the member for Terrebonne expressing the
official opposition's desire for a strong, definite and clear policy on
the part of the Canadian government prohibiting mines so that in
the 21st century there would be no mines on earth and so that they
could not cause the horrible injuries we often see in reports on the
civil wars still raging unfortunately in a number of countries in the
world.
This is why the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is interesting. We cannot overlook the
possibility of arms dealers becoming increasingly greedy for gain
and, despite the will to destroy these types of mines, of individuals
from other countries, manufacturers for instance, or dealers using a
country like Canada as a contact point within North America or
even the whole world, or maybe as a place to set up business.
I think we had better find a way to follow up on this legislation.
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the offer for sale, purchase,
possession, giving, barter, manufacture, assembly, import or export
of a mine or an apparently harmless device, which is another
definition for a mine.
Overall, this piece of legislation would prohibit the trade of this
type of weapon in Canada.
(1335)
It has been clearly demonstrated that these anti-personnel mines
are left-overs from more barbaric times. Just like international
conventions were signed to deal with gas warfare, it is important to
try to solve this problem once and for all before the end of the
century.
Unfortunately, mines are used in what could be called
conventional wars raging in several continents, wars between
neighbouring countries and even factions within a country who can
only afford cheap weapons and mines, which makes this type of
weapon interesting for a warring group. Victims are either maimed
for life or are beyond recognition.
The most horrible aspect of antipersonnel mines is that they
make no distinction between a child, a woman, an adult or an
elderly person and soldiers engaged in combat. It is very important
that the Canadian government's message to the rest of the world be
quite clear.
We have a firm policy, and we have destroyed two thirds of the
mines. Is two thirds enough? Should we not have destroyed 80, 85
or 90 per cent? Good question. We already have at least one
element of the debate on the destruction of two thirds of Canadian
mines. But there is one element missing from Canada's policy and
that is to ensure there are no sales on Canadian soil. I think the
contribution made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca is important in this respect.
In a speech the Minister for International Co-operation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie gave on October 3, 1996 at
the international conference on strategies for a complete ban on
antipersonnel mines, the minister said that the continued presence
of 110 million antipersonnel mines in developing countries, mainly
in rural areas, actually means that these countries are still a war
zone. Because antipersonnel mines are cheap, easy to obtain and
easy to lay, they are the weapon of choice among belligerents in the
poorest countries.
However, we must not forget that in many cases, the trade in
these weapons which are used by belligerents in wars in the poorest
countries is often in the hands of people in wealthy Western
countries. We must ensure that Canada is not in any way involved
in this international arms trade. That is why the bill before the
House today can be useful.
The minister also said in his speech that together we must put
pressure on governments to prohibit the manufacture, sale and use
6925
of land mines. So I fail to understand why the government majority
refused to let this bill be a votable item. I do not see why just now
the majority refused to let this bill come to a vote.
If we look at the bill itself, it does not contain much that is
controversial. In fact, it consists of only two sections: the first one
defines what a mine is, which I mentioned earlier, and says that
every person commits an offence who purchases, possesses,
manufactures, assembles or imports a mine or an object or device
referred to in the second definition.
The bill even provides that the Government of Canada or of a
province, or a corporation, might possess mines for the purpose of
gaining experience in mine clearing or acquiring information about
mines. Therefore, the exemption allowing the government to
undertake meaningful action regarding those mines that are still
active, one third of the all remaining mines, is already provided for
in the bill.
It also provides for penalties which I find appropriate and which
would be substantial in the case of someone committing an offence
under this bill. A first offence could result in up to 10 years in
prison; for a second offence the maximum penalty would still be 10
years in prison, but there would be a minimum of one year in jail
and, subsequently, for each additional offence the maximum
penalty would be 10 years with a minimum of two years less a day.
The only reason I believe this bill is not votable is because it
does not come from a member of the majority.
(1340)
This is rather upsetting, because private members' business is
part of the parliamentary agenda. Its very purpose is to allow
members who have developed an awareness of certain issues to
propose corrective measures when government policies are flawed,
and to have these measures properly debated.
In conclusion, I personally believe a consensus can be reached
on this bill in Canada. After adopting a national policy to destroy
two thirds of the mines, we ought to be able to reach the same
consensus to prevent the sale of mines in our country.
I hope the government, which refused earlier to give unanimous
consent to make this bill a votable item, will find a way to integrate
this policy. The hon. member who introduced this bill deserves
credit for doing so, because it is important to state that mines are
prohibited throughout Canada.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had some very good interventions here today.
I want to congratulate the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
for bringing this forward. I know the work he has done on this
issue. I know that the personal experiences he has obviously help
him to understand the issue better.
This is a very important issue for me as well in that the
deployment of anti-personnel mines is a massive human tragedy. It
not only maims but it takes life and a lot of the time it affects
women and children.
One of the opportunities I had on this issue was with a delegation
at the Interparliamentary Union led by Senator Bosa. I was given
the duty on behalf of the Canadian delegation to have this issue of
banning anti-personnel land mines on the agenda. The
Interparliamentary Union is made up of 133 countries. This is an
international issue. It is up to members of Parliament from around
the world to build a consensus and come to an agreement on having
a total ban on anti-personnel land mines.
At the Interparliamentary Union it was our task to get this issue
on the agenda. However, just to get issues on the agenda of an
international organization is a tremendous task. There had been a
number of attempts before by Belgium to have this issue put on the
agenda and they had failed.
There was a real effort by all of our delegation. We had written to
many of the ambassadors of other countries to inform them that we
wanted to have this on the agenda. One of the ways that happens is
there is a vote at the IPU on the first day. We were able to convince
members of Parliament from around the world to come together
and vote on this issue. We were very successful in convincing them
to put it on the agenda.
Once the issue was on the agenda a drafting committee was
struck. I had the privilege to be on that drafting committee. The
Canadian text was adopted as the working document. This was the
document that was accepted. It would have been a great asset to
have other members, like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca, with us when the work was done there. Unfortunately his
party does not want to go to some of these international forums.
These international forums are very valuable to put international
issues on the agenda. We are working with members from around
the world and Canada has taken a leadership role in the world. Too
often as Canadians we undersell our influence around the world.
This is a good example where the Canadian delegation was able
to get this issue on the agenda and have the Canadian text as the
working text for the committee. What happens in these
international organizations is that it goes to the working
committee. The working committee debates some of these issues
and comes up with a consensus.
As Canadians we ask why would some countries not want to
support the banning of anti-personnel land mines. It seems very
logical. There were some countries that were not interested in
doing that. One of those countries is China. It produces more
anti-personnel land mines than any other country. When the text
was being examines, the Chinese were not interested in a very
6926
strong text. I said to my other colleagues, most of whom were very
supportive, that in the public mind these international
organizations often water down what is necessary.
(1345)
This resolution should not be watered down. It is very strong and
asks for a total ban on anti-personnel land mines. It would stop
their production, their transportation and their use.
The Canadian delegation, along with other countries, was able to
adopt a very strong resolution at the IPU. The final paragraph asked
the IPU to work with other international organizations like the
United Nations so that the international community could come
together to formalize a convention for the total ban of
anti-personnel land mines.
Many of my colleagues here today have articulated the tragedies
which land mines have caused. I also want to inform the House and
the Canadians watching this debate of the tragedies which
anti-personnel land mines have caused.
The October issue of Equinox has an excellent article. One of the
stories was about a mother and her four-year old daughter who
were out working on the farm. The mother had the daughter
strapped to her back when she stepped on an anti-personnel land
mine which costs no more than $3 or $4 to produce. It went off with
12 pounds of pressure. The mother was killed. She lost her limbs
and died right there. The four-year-old child who was on her back
lay there with one of her legs blown off for three days before
someone found her. That four-year-old child will have to spend the
rest of her life with one leg. Imagine the tragedy. That tragedy
happens 500 times every week. It happens in those countries which
are least able to deal with it.
When my wife and I toured the refugee camps on the
Thailand-Burma border we went to a clinic which is partly funded
by the Canadian government. This clinic is in an old barn which has
been converted into a hospital. It was not a hospital in the sense of
what we are accustomed to. It was just a broken down building
which had been put together. Normally it would hold ten patients.
There were 100 people in that hospital.
Our memories are very vivid. We met a 21-year-old Burmese
student. Due to a land mine both of his arms had been blown off
and he had no vision. It made me feel good that as a member of
Parliament I was able to, in a very small way, help to bring this
issue before the international community. Canada has a very
important role to play in this regard. It has taken a leadership role.
A conference was held in Canada. We tried to bring those
countries who are like minded together. It is not easy to get the
international community to agree to something. One thing that I
have learned as a member of Parliament is that Canada is very well
respected by the international community. It is well known that
Canada will take a leadership role on very important issues. It will
be able to get those countries together but we have to do the
groundwork. We have to get those countries together and ensure
that we do our homework to get this done. There will be countries
that will say they do not need it because they will ensure there are
regulations so that the mines are not laid indiscriminately and it
will be okay to do. However, the reality is that it is not true.
(1350)
We are losing the battle. If we were to remove every one of the
anti-personnel land mines presently on the ground it would take us
2,000 years at today's rate. However, two to five million mines are
being laid in the ground each year. It is a real tragedy.
I know my time is limited so I will conclude. It is up to the
members not only in this House but around the world to come
together and say that as members of Parliament, as people we want
to make sure that we correct this problem.
I want to thank the hon. member from Esquimalt for bringing
this forward. He can count on my support to continue to work in the
international forums. Canada is willing to go along with it but we
need all the other countries in the world to come on board. We need
to concentrate on the international forums and put this debate
forward. When we win the support of all the other politicians
around the world then we will be able to deal with this issue. I am
sure we can be successful in working together on this issue.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes in this House a very special thing happens and that is a
feeling of unanimity about a particular issue. This is certainly one
of them.
I would like to commend my colleague, the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Within all of our lives there are defining
events. Clearly this has happened in the life of my colleague where
he has been involved in this issue at a very personal level.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a
column he had written that appeared in the Financial Post on
Tuesday, May 21, 1996. He writes:
For those who survive, the horror often begins with an ominous click as the
detonator is triggered. It is followed by a deafening roar and having your body
catapulted through the air. The result is either death, or a life of destitution in a
developing country where people who are disabled occupy the lowest social rung in
a land of poverty and despair.
In January 1992, Tomas Chiluba was a strong and fit 18-year-old Mozambican
fleeing his country, a land wracked by 15 years of civil war. Just before arriving at the
South African border and the hope of a new and better life, Tomas heard that fateful
click. He was dragged into the hospital 18 hours later. The explosion had torn into his
legs, ripping the flesh off his left leg, while shattering the bones and sending mine
fragments and bone shards into his right leg. For the next three hours we amputated his
left leg above the knee and tried, as best we could, to remove dead tissue, dirt and mine
fragments from the good leg in the hope of salvaging it. Thousands of times each year,
far from the prying eyes of the world community, this tragic scenario is played out.
6927
The international community convened in Geneva earlier this month-
-that was in May of this year-
-to deal with this silent menace. Sadly, only marginal progress was made with
calls for the use of ``smart'' mines (a real oxymoron) that self-destruct only 90%
of the time, and the prohibition of plastic anti-personnel mines. Canada called for
an international ban but refused to do the same domestically citing that land mines
are essential to our troops in the field. However, this argument has been
effectively dispelled by a number of studies, the latest by the International
Committee of the Red Cross. The time has now come for our country to take a
stand. We have significant moral suasion in the international community and it is
time we took a leadership role by banning their production and use in Canada.
This will send a clear message for other countries to follow suit.
Land mines have been with us for decades and have become a long lasting and
lethal by-product of war. Sixty-nine countries harbour over 100 million of them in
their soil, their precise location unknown. Indiscriminately seeded over large
areas, they can be active for over 50 years.
Many of the anti-personnel devices are made of plastic and are usually targeted
against innocent civilians. Some are even designed to look like toys so children
will pick them up, play with them, and have their arms blown off. They are not
meant to kill, but to maim, the perverted logic being that a disabled person will be
a continuous drain on society and therefore more costly than someone who is
dead. The toll in human suffering they have exacted around the world is
enormous. In Cambodia, one out of every 260 people are amputees and in Angola
it is one in every 470 people.
Over 40 countries manufacture over 300 different types of mines at a cost ranging
from $3 to $70. They include such nations as Italy, Sweden, Canada and
paradoxically every permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
The company names run like a who's who on the Fortune 500 and includes such
notables as Daimler-Benz and Motorola. Even in Canada, SNC Industrial
Technologies in Quebec makes the C3A2 land mine, dubbed, ``little Elsie''.
Although mines are cheap to produce, their removal is extremely costly and
dangerous. The worldwide bill for demining is a staggering $85 billion. Who will
pay for this? Last year, 85,000 mines were removed worldwide at a cost of $70
million. However, at the same time two million mines were widely and
indiscriminately seeded. Thus, despite our efforts, we are losing the battle.
Above and beyond the ruined lives and huge demining costs that mines cause is their
devastating effect on an economy as they render huge tracts of land unusable for
decades. This is particularly sad since those countries that are mined tend to be the
poorest, and have been decimated by years of civil conflict. Their starving
populations, desperately in need of the land to feed themselves, cannot because of
the risk of stepping on a mine. The world community recognizes this silent menace
but must now organize itself to do something about it.
For the sake of Thomas Chiluba and thousands of others like him, it is imperative
that we eliminate the use of land mines and anti-personnel devices worldwide. To
not do so will commit thousands of young people to a life of disability, leaving a
lethal legacy in impoverished countries already devastated by war. Banning them
is our only option.
(1355)
Those are the words of my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca. He has proposed in Bill C-232 a very small step toward the
objective of reducing and finally banning land mines. I think that
his bill makes a lot of sense from the perspective that it is not
grandiose. It does not say anything about our country as a country.
It does not say anything about armed personnel. It does not say
anything about armament in bases around the world. But what it
does say is that:
Every person commits an offence who sells, offers for sale, gives, barters or
exports
(a) a mine; or
(b) an object or device that the person, on reasonable grounds, believes
(i) is designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into a
mine, or
(ii) will be used in the manufacture of or assembly into a mine.
(2) subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who purchases,
possesses, manufactures, assembles or imports a mine or an object or device referred
to in paragraph 1(b) above.
The bill makes sense in that it talks about putting this into the
Criminal Code so that we at least take one small baby step, on
whole legs, toward the objectives that we have of seeing land mines
banned.
Once again I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that
Bill C-252 be sent to committee at this time.
The Speaker: I have a point of order from the hon. solicitor
general.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to raise a brief point of order of which I have just given you
notice. The point of order is for the purpose of allowing me to make
a correction to today's
Hansard. I would have raised this earlier but
this matter has just been brought to my attention.
During today's question period I answered a question in part as
follows: ``Mr. Speaker, Olson is not personally in possession of any
of the videotapes in question. Second of all, the lawyer in question
is in possession of five of them. He has previously undertaken not
to make them public, but in any event I am advised that legal action
is being undertaken on behalf of the crown to regain possession of
the tapes from Olson''.
It is clear from the context here that I was referring to Olson's
lawyer. As I say, it was just brought to my attention that I ended a
sentence with the word Olson, creating an apparent contradiction
with what I said at the beginning of my answer. I wish to confirm
that I was referring to Olson's lawyer when I said that legal action
is being undertaken on behalf of the crown to regain possession of
certain tapes.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-252,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (mines), be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have a request that the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca be given a few seconds to wrap up. I see
by the clock there are only a few seconds remaining. Rather than go
into a full debate I am going to give the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca the remaining time to wrap this up.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for your consideration.
6928
I would like to thank my colleagues for Mississauga West,
Vancouver South, Kootenay East and
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for their kind and heartfelt
interventions on this enormous humanitarian issue.
In closing, I would just like to say to every member in the House
that as has been mentioned passionately by the members here from
across party lines, this issue is one of non-partisanship. It is an
issue of basic humanitarianism. It is an issue that we as Canadians
stand for as part of our soul in being fair and equitable people who
want to do the right thing and fight for those who are most
dispossessed in the world.
I hope the government will bring forward a bill forthwith on this
issue calling for Canada to play a leadership role in banning
anti-personnel land mines.
I ask once again that the House make my Bill C-252 votable.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the
motion to the floor?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not permission.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Accordingly the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
It being 2.05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on
Monday.
(The House adjourned at 2.03 p.m.)