CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 15, 1996
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2803
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 2803
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2804
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2806
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2808
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2808
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2808
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2808
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2809
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2809
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2810
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2810
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2810
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2810
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2811
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2811
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2812
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2813
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2814
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2814
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2814
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2814
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2814
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2816
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2816
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2816
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2816
Motion for concurrence 2817
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 129; Nays, 75 2818
Bill C-20. Report stage 2818
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 2819
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2823
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 2830
Motions Nos. 4 through 12 and Motions Nos. 16through 24 2830
Bill C-243. Report stage 2836
Motion for concurrence 2836
Motion for third reading 2836
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 2840
Bill C-205. Motion for second reading. 2840
2803
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 15, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian mining industry consists of very dedicated people.
Each day however this industry generates approximately one
million tonnes of waste rock and 950,000 tonnes of tailings; some
650 million tonnes of waste per year. We have approximately 6,000
abandoned tailing sites and over 10,000 abandoned mines resulting
in clean-up costs conservatively estimated at $6 billion, costs
which will likely be borne by taxpayers.
A sustainable mining industry would ensure that the price paid
for its products includes the costs of repairing damage to the
environment. To further the implementation of sustainable
development the government could ensure the efficient use of
minerals and metals through the removal of tax barriers favouring
the use of virgin material over recycled material.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nearly one
million people are directly or indirectly involved in the mining
sector. This week, national mining week, offers us an opportunity
to draw attention to their contribution to the economies of Quebec
and of Canada.
The men and women of the mining sector toil long and hard,
often putting their lives and their health at risk. They deserve our
admiration and respect. Their work is essential, for it contributes to
our quality of life and our collective wealth.
The mining industry provides us with the raw materials that are
transformed into high technology products we find in many items
used in our daily lives.
The federal government has promised to hand full responsibility
for mines back to the provinces. It will then be the Government of
Quebec's responsibility to help the mining industry to develop, and
we are confident that Quebec will be equal to that task.
In the meantime, we are asking the federal government to live up
to its promises, for once.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Sunday was Mother's Day. Who are the most influential
people in this nation? They are the parents who teach and train the
next generation, especially mothers who nurture and shape the
values and direction of our children during the time of their lives
that determines to the greatest extent what each child will grow up
to be.
Mothers have a tremendous influence on the future of a nation.
Families are the basic building block of society. Children that are
free to grow and develop in contact with loving caring parents are
the healthiest with the greatest potential to contribute to those
around them at the community, national and international levels.
All government programs need to be evaluated by a standard that
seeks to determine whether it will encourage mothers and fathers to
establish healthy lifelong relationships with their children.
I thank god for the mothers of the nation that faithfully serve in
circumstances that often go unrecognized. Thanks, Mom.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
express the anger of the people of Beauce at the latest increase in
2804
the price of gasoline. How can the government allow oil
companies to exploit us in this way, especially with the profits they
are already making?
I am calling upon the government, and the minister responsible,
to take the necessary steps to put an end to this abuse, to condemn
this unjust and unacceptable increase. Must we assume that the oil
producers are exploiting those with cars by plotting together to fix
prices at a high level?
The industry's retail price setting mechanisms must be examined
to ensure there has been no collusion. The people feel they are
being exploited.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the members of the House that May 12 to 19 is
National Palliative Care Week.
Canadians are proud of their health care system. As a
compassionate society we expect that care and support will be
available for those most in need. Part of this need which concerns
us all is palliative care.
The Canadian Palliative Care Association is to be commended
for its excellent work. The association provides important
leadership in the pursuit of excellence for terminally ill persons and
their families. Last year Health Canada contributed $70,000 to the
Canadian Palliative Care Association to assist with further
developments of the association's structure and national services.
Death is a natural part of the life cycle. We need to understand
and address the health care needs of those who have terminal
diseases.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the electoral campaign is in full swing. It is vigorous and exciting
from one end of the country to the other.
This was one hundred years ago. Wilfrid Laurier was going back
and forth from Victoriaville, on his way to becoming the first
Quebecer to be elected Prime Minister of Canada.
In the region of Victoriaville-Arthabaska, one hundred years
later, people are gathering to make a multi kilometre bicycle path,
on the right of way of the railroad Wilfrid Laurier used to use. This
project will be completed thanks to federal-provincial-municipal
financial co-operation and regional fundraising activities.
Today, like yesterday, people look to their elected
representatives at all political levels for co-operation.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, May 19 marks the 75th anniversary of Save the
Children-Canada. Its supporters have included Prime Ministers and
Canadians from every walk of life.
(1405 )
Today, Save the Children through its partners in 24 countries and
its volunteers across Canada assists in improving life for children
throughout the world, including Canada. Furthermore, Save the
Children programs are managed by its country directors working
with local partners on local needs.
As a founder of the rights of the child, Save the Children is a key
player in helping young people build a future that includes
education, love and protection from neglect and disease.
I thank Save the Children and its volunteers, especially in
Guelph-Wellington, for their valuable contribution to all of our
children.
Happy anniversary.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in Canada exports are the most important vehicle upon
which we create jobs, economic growth and maintain our standard
of living. We must continually be aggressive in trying to find new
markets and devising better ways to compete internationally.
In an effort to aid this process I have created an import-export
link on my web site on the Internet. This page will assist companies
in gaining valuable information on import-export opportunities
abroad, government contracts and other trade related information.
The goal of this site is to provide our companies with a temporal
advantage over companies in other countries that wish to compete
with us. I hope Canadian companies will use this information to
their competitive advantage in order to secure valuable contracts
for Canadians, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic
growth.
I share this with all members of the House. I hope that they will
visit this site at www.reform.ca/martin.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we learned of the death of
2805
one of Canada's most highly decorated second world war veterans,
John Patton, who died died yesterday at the age of 80.
He served in the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Engineers.
He was one of only three Canadians awarded the George Cross for
bravery. This medal, which is almost in every way equivalent to the
Victoria Cross, is awarded for acts of the greatest heroism or of the
most conspicuous circumstances of extreme danger.
After a daylight raid on an aircraft factory in the United
Kingdom, John Patton, with no thought for his own safety or any
knowledge of German bombs, volunteered to remove an
unexploded bomb from the site and so ensured that essential
wartime production could be maintained.
We offer our condolences to the members of his family and the
deepest respect for a Canadian who was a true hero.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
we are celebrating national police week in Canada with the theme
``Partners in public security''. Its aim is to bring the police and the
public closer together and have people learn about what the police
do every day.
It is also an opportunity for all Canadians to salute the men and
women who have chosen to dedicate their life to serving and
protecting the public, often at the risk of their own safety. If we
want to ensure order effectively in Canada, we must ensure that
relations among all involved are solid.
[English]
Police men and women in Canada are doing a tremendous job
and their accomplishments must not go unnoticed. I know that I
have the support of this House when I say we in government
recognize the dedication of our police forces across the country. We
pledge our continued support and gratitude for the work they
accomplish daily.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of
last week two young science students from Ecole Secondaire
Algonquin in North Bay were named the grand winners for the
most innovative and ingenious project of the entire International
Science and Engineering Fair in Tucson, Arizona. This fair has
been described as the Olympics of science fairs with over 1,000
competitors from 35 countries.
Brother and sister Stéfane and Renée Filion returned home to
North Bay on Sunday just as we welcomed over 1,000 participants
to our city for the Canada-wide science fair. Stéfane and Renée are
veterans of the science fair movement having won gold medals at
the past four Canada-wide science fairs. This is a scientific
accomplishment that underlines the excellence of our science
students in Canada. Stéfane and Renée have represented our
country well.
I wish all the Canada-wide science fair participants the very best
during this important week in North Bay. To Stéfane and Renée,
congratulations. Canada is proud of your accomplishment.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada, Denis
Desautels, tabled his report last week. Once again, this report
clearly shows that Canadians and Quebecers have every reason to
be unhappy with the way the Liberal government is spending their
taxes.
Two cases in point are the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency's inadequate monitoring of the closure of CFB Cornwallis,
in Nova Scotia, and the equipment wasted by the Department of
National Defence during peacekeeping missions.
How can we accept the fact that the architects' fees for the
building housing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
headquarters were twice as high as originally estimated?
Even the auditor general is concerned about the way the Income
Tax Act is applied to family trusts and capital gains.
How can we trust a government that appears more eager to cut
benefits for the disadvantaged and the unemployed than to end
waste and abuse of all kinds?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is enamoured with page 22 of the red face book, but I
would like to refer him to page 91: ``The people are irritated with
governments that do not consult them or that disregard their
views''.
I want to inform the Prime Minister that the people are hopping
mad. This government jammed through Bill C-33 without giving
time for consultation. The democratic process was trampled on
2806
with closure at all stages of the bill. There was no time for the
minister or MPs to receive letters.
Phone calls, faxes and letters that did get through were ignored.
Very thoughtful presentations in committee by organizations which
represent millions of Canadians were ignored. Over 110,000 names
on petitions were ignored. That is shameful.
The words of the red face book are for election purposes only.
What the Liberals say and what they do cannot be harmonized. The
voters have been-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the director general of elections in Quebec harshly
condemned federal authorities for their involvement in organizing
the federalist rally held in Montreal on October 27, 1995. This
involvement undermined Quebec's democratic process by
upsetting the balance that must exist between expenditures on both
sides.
The Liberal and former Liberal members accused by the director
general of elections not only refused to co-operate with
investigators, but some of them even went further, like current
Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin, the main organizer of the
Montreal rally, who said he would not hesitate to do it again.
I condemn the attitude of all those who violate Quebec's
democratic rules. I remind them that, in a democracy, it is one
voter, one vote, not one voter, one dollar. The people of Quebec
will never be fooled by their fraudulent tactics and their money.
Our fellow citizens will remember this in the next referendum.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Quebec Deputy Premier Bernard Landry
described the Canadian government's behaviour as more
authoritarian, intolerant and close-minded than the former
totalitarian communist governments.
Such remarks are completely thoughtless, inappropriate and
indicative of a total lack of knowledge of the global geopolitical
reality.
This man who, when defeat became imminent, deserted his post
as ``second in command of the light brigade'', leaving his
commanding officer to die alone in action, should take note that our
government recognizes, promotes and respects the democratic
values of our society.
In light of the ongoing bloodshed in Chechnya, I ask that
Bernard Landry withdraw forthwith his remarks, which
misrepresent the Canadian federation and constitute a thinly veiled
incitement to the taking of illegal means to effect Quebec's
secession.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.
Welcome back, Eugène.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is nice to be back in the House of Commons. I wish to
thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House and my
constituents for their kind words of encouragement following my
open heart surgery.
[Translation]
I also wish to thank Dr. Keon and his team at the Ottawa
University cardiology center for the great care I received.
I assure you that I greatly appreciate Canada's health system and
I am proud to serve in a government that does such a fine job of
preserving it.
_____________________________________________
2806
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on October 24 in Verdun, the Prime Minister intimated to
Quebecers that a yes vote in the referendum was irreversible.
Finally, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the federal
government would certainly not permit Quebec to declare
sovereignty unilaterally, thereby denying Quebecers' right to
decide their future. Today, the Prime Minister has to qualify his
position, because the path he chose was a dead end.
Would the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by taking a legal
route to resolve the constitutional issue, which pleases the other
Canadians temporarily, he is heading down a cul de sac, which he
will have to get out of sooner or later, having once again falsely
lulled the rest of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have gone to court for a very simple reason: the
Quebec government lawyers, in the presentation they made before
going to court, alleged in their documents that the Canadian
Constitution would no longer apply to one of the provinces of
Canada at a given point in time, thus forcing the attorney general
for Canada to defend the Constitution.
2807
I was very happy this morning to see in the newspapers that
the Quebec government lawyer said before the courts yesterday
that a referendum was nothing more than a popular vote and posed
no risk of taking away anyone's rights.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how does the Prime Minister explain the subtle changes
he made this morning on ``Good Morning America'' to his
statement of yesterday that there was no question of permitting
Quebec to unilaterally choose sovereignty following a referendum?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke with the program before I came to the House.
There is no contradiction. Everything has to be done according to
the international and national systems of law. I said that in Canada
nobody wants to use violence to keep people in Canada.
I repeat what I said before. Everything has to be done according
to the Canadian Constitution and international law. I hope the Bloc
Quebecois is not advocating that it does not want to respect the law
of the land.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said this morning on ``Good Morning
America'' that Quebec's right to decide its future was not enshrined
in the Constitution, but that Canada was a democratic country and
if the people of Quebec expressed their wishes clearly they would
be respected.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, in the light of these
remarks this morning, he went much too far yesterday in the House
when he said that Quebec could not unilaterally declare its
independence following a democratic referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spent weeks saying in this House that 50 per cent of
the votes plus one was not enough. I think this is perfectly
reasonable. The desire must be clear and the question clear, and the
question must take the needs of the other partner into consideration
as well. It is totally logical. That is what I said yesterday on the
program.
However, when people try to come up with ways to say things
that are not clear and say they are going to separate but remain
Canadian, and keep Canadian passports and currency and maintain
economic and political partnership with Canada and remain
Canadian citizens for ever more-listen, you have to be clear.
These will be matters for negotiations, if there is ever another
referendum, so we make sure everyone is very clear on the issue,
the result and the consequences.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has cast doubt-and once
again we in this House have heard him do so-on one of the
fundamental rules of democracy, one that is universally
recognized. According to him, the rule of the absolute majority, 50
per cent plus 1, is not sufficient for the verdict of the people of
Quebec to be accepted.
(1420)
My question is a very simple one. Since the Prime Minister-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
government does not want to hear our questions, but hon. members
could perhaps listen.
The Speaker: Your question please, dear colleague.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Prime Minister is dismissing out of hand the 50 plus 1
rule, what percentage does he have in mind?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to see it clearly established that the rule of
democracy must be respected. Two referendums were held in
Quebec, and both were won by those who wish to remain within
Canada.
Yesterday, in the National Assembly, Bloc Quebecois Central
refused to vote in favour of an opposition resolution calling for
recognition of the outcome of the last referendum. So who is it that
is refusing to recognize democracy?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand from the words of the Prime Minister
that, in June, he intends to discuss with his provincial counterparts
the percentage which the rest of Canada would deem acceptable to
impose on Quebec for the next referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, because in my opinion today's debate arises out of the fact
that the Government of Quebec has tabled a motion stating that,
under certain circumstances, the Constitution of Canada would not
apply. In this connection, the Minister of Justice was absolutely
right. Not only was he right, but his mandate obliged him to come
to the defence of the Constitution of Canada. We are not the ones
who triggered the debate, the Government of Quebec did.
As for me, I have no intention of continuing it. My hope is to
have a federal-provincial conference where we will be able to make
a great deal of progress toward improved federalism. I hope to be
able to meet with Mr. Bouchard as soon as possible, in order to
discuss job creation and real problems, the real problems that exist
in Montreal at this time. I was prepared to do so at his convenience,
and still am, because the economic future of Quebecers is the issue
closest to the heart of this government.
2808
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at long last the Prime Minister has made it clear that the
Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of all Canadians must be
respected in any future attempt at secession.
If the Prime Minister had made that position crystal clear before
the last referendum we probably would not be discussing it today. It
is imperative that Quebecers and all Canadians know the ground
rules and the stakes before another secession attempt.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to back up his statements
yesterday with a motion in the House specifying the government's
position on a unilateral declaration of independence and on the
rules governing any future secession attempt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member of the third party said that right now the
national unity thing is coming back.
He was the one in the House in September who told me one vote
was enough to split Canada. I heard him many times. I want to say
to the House of Commons that the rule of law will prevail in
Canada. Canadian laws will be respected and international laws
will be respected as well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if one vote is not enough will the Prime Minister tell the
House how many votes are enough?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if ever we have a referendum in any province, I hope there
will be discussion beforehand to make sure the rules are known by
both sides.
(1425 )
If someone like the leader of the third party comes to me and
tells me 50 per cent plus 1 is enough to break up Canada, I will tell
him to go back home.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the trouble with the Prime Minister is he is not clear and
precise on an issue desperately requiring clarity and precision.
If the Prime Minister says he is to rely on the rule of law in an
unprecedented situation, he should translate his position into
legislative acts and motions before the House.
Again, will he introduce a motion into the House, a solemn
declaration affirming the people of Canada are free to determine
their political destiny and that Parliament will not recognize a
unilateral declaration of independence by any province?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the if the hon. member introduced a motion that a 50 per
cent plus 1 vote would be enough to split Canada, I would vote
against it. That is what he was arguing before.
My view is that at the moment there is no referendum. At the
moment we are working to make sure there will be progress in the
federation and that there will be no need for a referendum. This is
exactly what I am trying to do and what I have been working on. I
made it clear there will be a meeting in June to improve the
federation.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has been travelling
the land talking with premiers and ministers. I am also talking with
them. There is goodwill in Canada to make progress on that, and
with the collaboration of everybody we will make progress.
However, it is quite evident the leader of the third party has no
great interest in keeping Canada together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991, Quebec acted in good faith and complied with the
federal government's request to harmonize its sales tax with the
GST. It did so without any compensation. By comparison, three
maritime provinces will get a gift of $1 billion from the federal
government, including $250 million paid by Quebec taxpayers.
How can the Minister of Finance explain that Quebec, which set
an example of economic efficiency for the rest of Canada by
harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, and which contributed to
the smooth running of the Canadian economic and trade union, is
being penalized, while provinces that had so far refused to
harmonize their taxes are being rewarded?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a formula to compensate provinces that will lose more than
5 per cent of their sales tax revenues. This is not the case for
Ontario, British Columbia, or Alberta. It is not currently the case
for Quebec either, and it was not in 1990 when it signed the
harmonization agreement.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec harmonized its tax with the GST in 1991. Five
years later, it is easy to say that it does not meet the requirements
for compensation. It is easy to say so after the fact. But let us not
forget that it was at the federal government's request that Quebec
harmonized its tax. This is like inviting someone to dinner and
making him pay, not only his own meal, but also that of the next
table, since Quebec's contribution will amount to $250 million.
2809
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: This is the truth. It is terrible.
In order to be fair to Quebec, will the Minister of Finance pledge
to pay to the Government of Quebec, as he is being asked by the
province's deputy premier and minister of state for economy and
finance, a fair compensation for having done its job before
everyone else?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we offered a compensation to all the provinces which, based on the
formula, will lose money.
(1430)
Quebec did not lose money this year and did not lose any the
year it signed the agreement. It is exactly in the same position as
Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. We will compensate the
provinces that lost money.
The compensation formula is a cost sharing formula that will
only be in effect for a transition period of four years. Again,
Quebec is in the same situation as Ontario, British Columbia and
Alberta.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister wants Quebec to respect the results of the last two
sovereignty referendums. Will the Prime Minister take a bit of his
own advice and accept the defeat of distinct society in the last two
constitutional accords?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we voted on this in the House in December.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess that is as good an answer as we get. It is obvious the Prime
Minister once again has one standard for his actions and another
standard for somebody else's; in this case Quebec's.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, and I quote: ``This is not a
hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of
seven''.
[English]
Is the distinct society clause a three out of five or a four out of
seven?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to analyse the complexity of the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
For several months now, the minister has been referring to the
results of an impact study to justify his position on applying user
fees to the coast guard. In a letter dated April 23 of this year,
Christopher Wright, the author of the study, flatly contradicts the
minister's assertions and says that it cannot be concluded from his
study that the marine industry will be able to absorb the planned fee
structure.
Both of them cannot be right. Either the minister has
misinterpreted the study in question, or he has misrepresented the
results. In either case, can he inform this House on what he is now
basing himself in sticking to his decision?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, neither is true. The hon. member has to check his
assumptions. I am not sure whether he is referring to the letter or
the study, because some of the assumptions are different.
In the impact study the assumptions were the following. Based
on 309 million tonnes, which is transshipped in Canada, there
would be a fee of $60 million, with the inclusion of ice breaking
services, and there would be absolutely no cap on the amount of
cargo that would be charged.
The actual fee structure does not include ice breaking. It is put
together at $20 million. There is a limitation on transshipment. For
bulk cargoes we have a limitation of 50,000 tonnes. That is entirely
different from the reference made by the author of the article who
was, I believe, one of the consultants.
The assumptions are different and therefore the conclusions
must be different.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
could also take the time himself to reread the author's letter, which
has been published, because, whatever the case may be, according
to the actual study on the 20 million, the author also indicates that
he is concerned about traffic being diverted from Canadian to
American ports.
Now that it is clearly established that the minister cannot rely on
any study, what is he waiting for to scrap his user fees, until some
serious and credible impact studies are done?
2810
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps to further instruct the hon. member on the
detail of these disagreements, the total volume of cargo the impact
study stated as being sensitive to the fees at the $60 million level
was that fees at $60 million represented 7 million tonnes, which is
2 per cent of the 309 million tonnes in Canadian water borne
commerce. Even if the assumption is $60 million we are still
dealing with less than 2 per cent of the total volume.
(1435)
I would instruct and recommend to the hon. member that he
continue to check the figures and the assumptions before we
continue in this debate.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
procrastination seems to be the watchword for the government. It
did not come up with a real strategy for the last referendum and
now it is putting off developing a plan for national unity at all.
The Prime Minister promised Canadians plan A and plan B, the
carrot and stick. So far we have seen a lot of the stick but the only
thing vaguely related to the carrot is a national food inspection
service.
My question to the Prime Minister is not too complex. Will he
quit stalling and present Canadians with the details of the
government's plan for national unity now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has on her desk the speech from the
throne, the document we distributed to members of Parliament. If
she would just read it in English, in French if she wants, she would
see our program.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
shudder to think where that document ended up-
Some hon. members: On the floor.
The Speaker: Whatever you do, do not throw it on the floor.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: You have my word on that, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister is so reluctant to let his plans be known on
national unity. We are facing a crisis here and he must speak up on
this. He promised quite clearly, as he just referred to, in the
government's throne speech that Canadians, no matter where they
live, will have their say in the future of their country.
When will the Prime Minister let Canadians have their say? Will
he let them see this national unity plan? If so, will it be before or
after he gets together with the premiers behind closed doors?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat we had the speech from the throne and ministers
have spoken on the subject. It was debated, approved and voted on
in the House of Commons.
We have a list enumerated the day before yesterday in my speech
in Montreal. I repeated the list again yesterday and it is all public. I
have already discussed that with the provincial governments, and
they have read the speech from the throne and have commented on
it.
I hope someday the Reform Party reads the speech from the
throne. It would then know where we are going.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week as his official response to the
unanimous report of the Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Minister of Human
Resources Development came out with an insipid document
offering no concrete measures. After the unemployed, it is now the
turn of the handicapped to feel the wrath of the minister.
Can the minister confirm that, besides paying them lip service in
his report, the only concrete answer he has for advocacy groups for
the handicapped is to cut their funding without warning and in an
under-handed way, putting them in jeopardy?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we often have the opportunity
in this House to talk about jurisdiction, duplication, overlapping,
responsibilities, and various levels of government with regard to
individuals or activities.
In the throne speech, we clearly indicated, as a government, that
in all areas of shared jurisdiction, we were going to take every
possible step to ensure a sound and hopefully fruitful dialogue.
In this particular area, of course, the concerns of people affected
by changes, due to either the federal or the provincial governments,
are important. We are committed to keeping on talking with the
provinces to make sure that people with special needs due to a
handicap are well taken care of by the government responsible for
their well being.
(1440)
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the handicapped
themselves, we are talking about associations acting on their
behalf. There is a slight difference.
An hon. member: It is the same thing.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): It is the
same thing but the letter the department sent to these associations
congratulates them for their work and, at the same time, warns
2811
them that they are going to be scrapped. This is what the minister
has decided.
Is the minister telling us that the federal government will no
longer meet its responsibilities with regard to the handicapped in
areas under its jurisdiction, offloading them onto the provinces
without any compensation?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued when
members of the official opposition speak about jurisdiction. I often
wonder whether their motivation is based on concerns for the
people who are affected and who have legitimate anxieties about
changes in the way government delivers service or are they just
interested in compensation.
I was trying to indicate to the hon. member that if he is interested
in taking care of associations and organizations, it is our objective
to try to take care of the people who are affected by problems over
which they have little or no control.
I believe that handicapped Canadians in every part of the
country, regardless of the nature of the handicap, are concerned
about how governments will come to their assistance, not
necessarily the organizations that purport to represent them. Some
of these organizations do very good work. Other organizations are,
to say the very least, in a situation where I think we have to look
closely at the level of funding we provide for them.
Our commitment is to take care of the people who need help. We
will continue to discuss with those organizations that want to assist
us in doing that their future and how they will be funded.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[English]
In my riding and in ridings across Canada are many refugees
from Somalia who are held in limbo as they await the
determination of their landed immigrant status. In the meantime,
they are unable to go on with their lives or to live or work where
they wish.
[Translation]
Can the minister tell me what developments there are with
respect to the status of the Somali refugees?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my colleague from Etobicoke
North is a difficult one, as it involves legalizing the status of people
without identification papers.
The situation is quite delicate and complex, but I can also tell the
House that the situation of the Somali community is rather unique
as they have been living in this country for several years. They
were granted refugee status under the terms of the Geneva
Convention and are currently living among us.
I can assure the hon. member for Etobicoke North that we are
now in contact with the Somali community. My parliamentary
secretary met with the various leaders and we hope to be able, in
the near future, to announce a decision that will allow community
members to remain in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing with the unity file for
the last three years. Yesterday was the first time that he finally
summoned up the nerve to tell Canadians that it is not okay for
Quebec separatists to mock our Constitution by saying that they
will decide if and when they separate.
At every step, the Prime Minister has allowed the separatists to
drive the agenda. Now that he has let that happen, what is he going
to do to repair the huge damage he has caused? How is he going to
get control of the unity agenda?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to that question four times today to
members of the Reform Party.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we had
a non-answer every time.
The separatists are claiming that the federal government is
beating Quebecers over the head with the Constitution of Canada
and disregarding any democratic vote that they might hold.
Because the Prime Minister refuses to set the parameters by which
the government would respect a referendum vote or the mechanics
for separation, once again he is taking the jellyfish approach and
playing into the hands of the separatist.
Will the Prime Minister repair this damage and lay out the terms
and conditions as soon as possible.
(1445 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember in September when we were debating that in
the House of Commons, we had the pleasure of seeing members of
the Reform Party applauding the Bloc Quebecois when they were
arguing that 50 plus 1 meant the separation of Canada. They never
sided with me when I was defending that. It was a serious question
2812
that needed to be addressed in a serious way. I guess we will wait to
see how they deal with the unity of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
On page 70 of the red book, the Liberal Party promised to cut
greenhouse gas emissions over the Canadian territory by 20 per
cent. Yet, barely a year before the next meeting of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Canada
must recognize that it will be unable to achieve this goal.
Beyond the symbolic measures he has just proposed, when will
the minister finally decide to put in place a strategy that is both
realistic and vigorous in order to launch the fight against
greenhouse gas emissions?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It
is a very important and appropriate question.
Many of the commitments in the red book on environment and
sustainable development have been realized. We are also cognizant
of the international commitment that was made at Rio and at Berlin
on behalf of Canada and the international community. Climate
change is something that we take seriously.
A meeting is coming up some time in November involving all
the ministers of the environment and energy from Canada. At that
time we will receive the advice from the experts on how we are
doing on those commitments.
It is also fair to say that if the targets are not met, then it is
important for not only Canada but for all countries to be transparent
and open. Only through that transparency will we be able to
redouble and renew the commitments that the international
community made at Rio, confirmed at Berlin, and that is my
intention.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the fight against greenhouse gas emissions requires the
co-operation of the most polluting provinces, especially Alberta
and Ontario, what has the minister done so far to convince these
provinces to take serious initiatives in this area?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be an inappropriate strategy to have a national
commitment to try to divide and conquer based on partisanship or
region or geography or province.
The hon. member mentioned two provinces. It takes 10
provinces and 2 territories to make a national strategy. It takes
many countries to make the family of nations. We have to move
ensemble and that is clearly our intention.
I also plan to raise it later this month at the ministers' meeting on
the environment, the CCME in Toronto. I am very pleased that for
the first time in two years the minister of the environment for the
province of Quebec will attend. I think that is an indication of how
important issues on the environment are, not only for Canadians
but also for Canadians living in the province of Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will just summarize what we have learned from the Prime Minister
today on the national unity stage. He says that any separation
attempt must follow a strict set of criteria but he is not sure what
the criteria should be; a referendum result of 50 plus 1 is
unacceptable but he does not know what is acceptable; distinct
society is okay, even though it was defeated in the Charlottetown
accord.
Canadians are wondering if he has a plan or is he just going to
roll the dice and take a chance in June and see what happens?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we voted on distinct society in this House. During the
Charlottetown accord, the House of Commons and the 10
provincial governments voted for distinct society. There was a
referendum. The Reform Party voted against it and also voted
against an elected Senate.
Reformers should at some time look with some responsibility at
the whole package and look at the consequences of what they are
doing. For example, when we were in the referendum none of them
tried to help. Some of them wished that we had not won.
(1450 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister can certainly laugh in the face of the opposition
parties, but he is laughing in the faces of the Canadian people when
he says that he is not going to listen to the results of the
Charlottetown accord.
This introduces a new word into the Canadian dictionary, a new
oxymoron called Liberal leadership when it comes to the national
unity plan. This is yesterday's man with yesterday's plan. He does
not seem to have any of the answers we keep asking for.
2813
Will the Prime Minister give the Canadian people some
assurance that he has a plan? Will he table the agenda for the
upcoming June conference so that Canadians can be assured he
has a handle on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the speech from the throne is a few months old and the
member has not read it yet. It was a big feature in the speech from
the throne, yet his party did not read it.
Reform members are trying to find a new way because they are
in such disarray that they cannot find anything to talk about. They
were elected by telling everybody that there would be free votes in
the House of Commons; they have never had a free vote.
They said to the people that they would present a budget before
the budget of the Minister of Finance. They could not produce one.
They do not talk about the finances of the nation because the
finances have never been in such good shape, they have to put up
with that.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Beef producers in Carleton-Charlotte are very concerned about
the low price and the low demand for Canadian beef. These
producers suggest that current Canadian import levels may be to
blame.
Can the minister confirm today to Canadian beef producers that
he will do all possible to encourage the sale of Canadian beef and to
assure that any future import levels will not negatively impact on
Canadian domestic markets?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his
question. I appreciate the concerns which have been expressed by
his constituents.
Since the government came to office, offshore manufacturing
beef imports have not gone up. In fact, they have gone down
dramatically. In 1993, they amounted to something over 126,000
tonnes. In 1995, that figure had dropped to less than 82,000 tonnes.
In 1996, the figure has gone down so far this year by a further 20
per cent.
The reality of low beef prices is a North American phenomenon
caused by an oversupply situation in both Canada and the United
States. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that we take seriously
the matter of promoting our domestic market, and are making very
substantial progress in encouraging Canadian processing from
Canadian sourced beef.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last week, the government refused to hold public hearings on
the decision made by the firm Aéroports de Montréal to transfer
international traffic from Mirabel to Dorval. While these airports
are still public property, the government argued that it did not come
under its purview to act in this matter.
Will the minister take his responsibilities and tell us what
concrete actions are contemplated to provide a public forum where
the various stakeholders will be able to voice their opinions?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, responsibility for Aéroports de Montréal is in the hands of
local authorities. This means the cities of Montreal and Laval, the
mayors of neighbouring cities, the chambers of commerce, the
Mirabel promotion corporation as well as the Montérégie regional
economic development corporation and the City of Longueuil. It is
therefore up to local authorities.
We entrusted the decision to a regional organization, which has
made a quite tenable decision. I have no desire, at the federal level,
to make any attempt to interfere with what it has done.
(1455)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister denying at the same time having any
responsibility in anything relating to international air traffic, such
as international flights? In any case, aircraft require airports to land
on.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that the
federal government is hiding behind Aéroports de Montréal, which
is its own creature, to try to play down its own responsibility in the
historical fiasco with Montreal airports?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is always pressuring me in this House
to interfere either in the affairs of Quebec or those of some regional
organization or another. We, in the federal government, do not want
to get involved when it is not our responsibility to step in.
The hon. member should be reminded that my mandate consists
in ensuring that issues concerning aircraft and air carrier safety are
considered.
2814
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the future
of our great country is threatened because the government does not
have the will or the imagination to come up with a national unity
plan to answer the demand for change that I am hearing all over
Ontario.
The Prime Minister says that something big will happen at the
first ministers' meeting. Ontario and the provinces need to know
now whether he will stop delaying and announce whatever that
something big is today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is there any rule against repetition in the House of
Commons?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talking
about a lack of response or repetition, their answers would qualify.
History will show that while Canada was being torn apart, the
best this Liberal government could do was send in a lawyer to help
with a court challenge. This is nothing short of a disgrace.
The Reform Party had a plan. We made it public months ago.
Reformers have shown leadership. Where is this government on
leadership? My question is for the Prime Minister.
The first minister's conference is only a few weeks away. Why is
he stalling, why is he frustrating federalists across the country and
why will he not announce his plan today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, check Hansard: two, three or four will apply.
I replied to this question many times. Members of the third party
are preoccupied with unity now when they were all hiding outside
Quebec last fall.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Using their power to boycott certain service stations, consumers
have forced government into action on gas pricing. The public
wants more than just a report under the Competition Act which
says that prices have gone up. They know that already.
Since it is already clear that the industry is not doing the
responsible job of self-regulation that the Minister of Industry
promised during consultations on amendments to the Competition
Act, will the government create an energy pricing commission
with power to regulate and roll back unjustified price increases?
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, we have a very decentralized federation as members
opposite well know.
When it comes to dealing with regulation of retail prices, I am
sure the hon. member knows that would fall within the jurisdiction
of a federal government if one were to choose to intervene in the
market in that way.
The member should also know that regulation of prices creates a
certain amount of rigidity and from experience prices tend to be
somewhat higher in markets where they have been regulated than
in markets where competition is vibrant and vital.
Our objective in this whole gas pricing affair is to ensure that we
have a very open marketplace where competition is real. We will
do our utmost to enforce the laws, ensuring that there will be real
competition. That together with consumers who are diligent will be
our best guarantee that prices will come down.
* * *
(1500)
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of International Co-operation.
While no Canadians can tolerate the acts of terrorism committed
by Hamas in Israel, we currently have a human rights concern there
with hundreds of thousands of women and children being deprived
of medical supplies and food. Is there anything Canada can do to
help in this situation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the last pledging conference, Canada offered to
contribute $5.5 million to help with the health, education and water
supplies in the West Bank and Palestine. That brings the total
contributions to about $70 million since 1993.
Last night in Montreal I attended a meeting of the Canadian,
Jewish and Arab communities, where they got together to talk for
the first time about what Canada had contributed. What is really
important is that the private sector should come together,
improving investment, commerce, trade and development. That is
the most important way we can give hope to the Palestinian people.
2815
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of all members, the
presence in the gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from the
United Mexican States, led by Senator Fernando Ortiz Arana,
President of the Senate.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like also to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Halldor
Asgrimsson, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of
Iceland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
2815
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to two petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the first report of the
Standing Committee on Finance, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from the citizens of Brandon,
Manitoba.
The petitioners would like to to bring to the attention of the
House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause
health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal
alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100
per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during
pregnancy.
(1505 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to table a petition today
signed by several members of the Beaver River constituency from
Thorhild and Radway, as well as several individuals from
Edmonton.
The petitioners state that the majority of Canadians believe that
the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should
not be extended to same sex relationships, and that societal
approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be
given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation as a ground of discrimination. They therefore pray and
request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend
to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition.
A number of my constituents from Welwyn, Saskatchewan pray
that the Government of Canada not increase taxes on gasoline.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present four
petitions concerning a bill which was recently passed in the House.
Two of the petitions are from the constituency of Port
Moody-Coquitlam and two are from Ontario.
All of the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval
of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending
the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Quebec are extremely upset with the inaction and
negligence of the Canadian government in the Tran Trieu Quan
case.
The five thousand individuals who signed this petition are
outraged by the imprisonment of this Canadian citizen in Vietnam
2816
and they are asking the House of Commons to take responsibility
for Mr. Quan's safety and to apply pressure on the government to
release him.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 25 citizens
who request that the Prime Minister and the Parliament of Canada
declare and confirm immediately: one, that Canada is indivisible;
two, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and
territorial waters may be modified only by (a) a free vote of all
Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, or (b) through the amending formula as stipulated in
the Canadian Constitution.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present two
petitions signed by hundreds of my constituents who strongly
object to the government's recent amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to
present a petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
the amount of unsolicited direct mail or junk mail sent to private
residences across the country is on the rise. Therefore the
petitioners pray and request that Parliament ask Canada Post
Corporation to change its guidelines so as to reduce junk mail.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the petitions I wish to present today are signed by
hundreds of people.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will
ensure the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects the
severity of the crime and reflects a zero tolerance toward this crime
by our government.
(1510 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a large number of petitions which I have put into
two groups.
I am pleased to present seven petitions today on the subject of
gasoline taxes. The petitioners come from many areas of my riding.
Because the cost of a litre of gasoline is about 52 per cent
government taxes and because excise taxes on gasoline have risen
by 566 per cent in the past 10 years, the petitioners ask Parliament
to not increase taxes on gasoline. They feel that we need to use the
natural advantage of a low cost energy source to offset the high cost
of transporting our goods over great distances to reach their
markets.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second group contains 59 petitions signed by
concerned citizens from all across Canada.
They oppose the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation in the
Canadian Human Rights Act. The signatures number 1,471 in total
and the petitions are still pouring into my office. These Canadians
believe freedom from discrimination is already protected in the
human rights act without this amendment. A brief summary of this
petition indicates that they feel the inclusion of this category will
infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the areas of
religion, conscience, belief, expression and association.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend federal legislation to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as
married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws.
The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18
years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting three petitions this
afternoon, all of which deal with Bill C-33.
The petitioners pray that the Parliament of Canada not pass any
legislation which would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitions are from Cilia
Bergsma, the Victory Christian Center and Beulah Alliance
Church.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 3 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
2817
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 3-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
How many prisoners incarcerated in federal penitentiaries are infected with
Hepatitis C, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) or have AIDS (acquired
immune deficiency syndrome), (a) how is this information determined to be
accurate, (b) if a prisoner becomes infected with Hepatitis C, HIV or AIDS
while under the care of the federal government will the infected prisoner be able
to make a claim for injury, damages or suffering claiming that the government
failed to properly protect him or her from the infecting act, (c) what specifically
is the government doing to protect federal prisoners and guards from becoming
infected with Hepatitis C, HIV or AIDS, and (d) specifically how much has it
cost the federal government, so far and annually, to implement each of the
measures the government uses to prevent the spread of Hepatitis C, HIV and
AIDS and to protect prisoners and guards from becoming infected with
Hepatitis C, HIV and AIDS?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on March 6, 1996, I put a question to the government
regarding the existence within the Privy Council, or in the federal
government, of an special emergency measures co-ordinating unit.
Although more than 45 days have passed, I have still not received a
reply. I wonder when the government will be good enough to give
an answer to a lowly MP. The question was Q-19.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I can respond to the hon. member that the
information I have is that the answer is still being prepared.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive
answers to my three questions on the Order Paper, Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
These questions first appeared on the Order Paper in the second
session of the 35th Parliament on February 27, 1996. I requested an
answer from the government within 45 days. As of today, 79 days
have passed.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, subject to being corrected I
believe that these answers were tabled today. Is that correct?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague would take yes for
an answer. The member will find that we tabled Question No. 3
today which I believe was the bulk of the member's concern. With
regard to Questions Nos. 2 and 4, Question No. 2 is being finalized
and Question No. 4 is close to being ready.
* * *
(1515)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2817
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise
Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act, laid
upon the table on Thursday, March 28, be concurred in.
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.
And more than five members having risen.
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
2818
(Division No. 88)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Young
Zed-129
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -75
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Collenette
de Savoye
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Nunez
Pettigrew
Proud
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Venne
Whelan
(1530 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, an act
respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: There are 26 motions in amendment standing on
the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-20, an act respecting
the commercialization of civil air navigation services.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4 to 12 and 16 to 24.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 13 and 14.
Group No. 4: Motion No. 15.
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 25 and 26.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions No. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.
2819
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1,
with the following:
``WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995
under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and
WHEREAS the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public
has priority over all other considerations in the business decisions taken by
NAV CANADA;
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and''.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1,
with the following:
``WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995
under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and
WHEREAS NAV CANADA is committed to ensuring equality of opportunity
for small and large carriers in establishing its charges and, in particular, in
achieving a balanced representation of small and large carriers on the Board of
Directors of the Corporation;
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1,
with the following:
``WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995
under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and
WHEREAS NAV CANADA recognizes that Canada is a country where air
service to northern and remote regions is essential;
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and''.
(1535)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in
the debate, which is at the report stage but which is also at the
second reading stage as the bill had been referred directly to
committee. This bill is about the commercialization of civil air
navigation services. Behind this bill is a commendable goal: trying
to make air navigation services more efficient, more profitable, by
reducing operating costs.
If the bill referred to this goal while recognizing that safety is
paramount, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, could
support it. We are proposing a number of amendments, and some
of the most important ones are in the first group.
What we really want is a preamble to the bill, which would be
used as an interpretive clause for the whole bill and would ensure
that safety is always paramount. Privatization or the establishment
of a non-profit organization in charge of managing air navigation
services, strikes a balance in a way.
We have gone from living in an era when everything was
managed by the public sector to creating a non-profit organization
that must become viable. Along the way, however, we forgot to set
aviation safety criteria based on operational requirements in this
area, in which errors can have disastrous consequences.
Yes, we must bring excessive costs under control, but without
throwing the baby out with the bath water. We want to make sure
that safety has priority over all other considerations and that is the
purpose of our preamble. We hope the government will pay
attention to our arguments.
There is another aspect we regard as important, as essential even,
an aspect which, in our opinion, must be approved as an
amendment if the bill is to be acceptable to Quebecers, to
Canadians, to users and to those who operate the system: small
carriers must be given an active role to play.
During consideration of the bill in committee, we realized that
the board of directors of Nav Canada, on which will sit
representatives of all air navigation stakeholders, did not include
enough small carriers. So how will we decide in the future what to
charge carriers for air navigation services? There are people who
do not have enough of a say.
Among these is the Association québécoise des transporteurs
aériens, which was unable to get a guaranteed seat on Nav Canada's
board of directors. We all know the importance of this industry as
far as the use of the French language in the future is concerned.
This is an industry where there have been problems for several
years. Today still, it is a daily battle for those working in this
industry to ensure French is recognized.
The bill states that the Official Languages Act will apply to Nav
Canada. Fine, but we feel that many other aspects of everyday use
of French in air travel are insufficiently protected. The use of
French is one thing, but there are also many economic
considerations.
For example, there is a risk with a fee structure based only on
criteria favouring large carriers, should it established. When the
time will come for the board to decide on a pricing system, since
the people sitting on the board are there to look after their own
interests, naturally they will make sure that the fee structure
selected is the one that penalizes them the least.
2820
A decision that impacts only minimally on very large carriers
may destroy small carriers.
(1540)
Very small air navigation companies do not have very high profit
margins. The fee structure could make the difference between a
given operation being profitable or becoming unprofitable, spelling
the death of small carriers in the medium term. This point was
made to us in committee by many witnesses, especially those in the
tourist transportation industry, such as outfitters and other small
carriers operating on lines which are not major commercial lines.
These lines are a source of income for them and constitute, among
other things, an interesting business activity for remote
communities.
The second thing we felt important to include in our preamble is
the fact that there should be a balance between small and large
carriers in Nav Canada's operations, thus eliminating the need to
hold a debate to specifically guarantee a small carrier a seat on Nav
Canada's board of directors. Our intention is that the preamble will
create a moral obligation, a need for statutory interpretation
whereby small carrier representatives will be able to take their
cases to the board of directors and have their say.
The third subject covered in the proposed preamble, which we
hope to see the government add to its bill, is northern and remote
communities. It must be realized that, while the bill changes the air
traffic control system and allows a non profit corporation to take
over this system, it does not oblige the corporation to take the
economic impact of its decisions on the regions into account.
For example, in the case of the airport in Mont-Joli, or any other
regional airport with air navigation equipment, Nav Canada will
have to decide, when trying to determine future equipment needs,
whether to buy new equipment, and what to install for safety
purposes at the airport.
Senior public servants told the committee that, under the bill, the
corporation is under no obligation to take the economic impact of a
regional airport into account. If equipment required to meet safety
requirements represent a major investment in terms of the volume
of traffic at the airport, the equipment might not be bought, thus
reducing the impact of the airport and resulting, in the long term, in
its closure.
Nothing is provided in this bill to allow those concerned by the
region's economic development to express their views. Several
other amendments will therefore be moved so that, when changes
are anticipated, the regional community will have to be informed
through the media and all other suitable means to ensure that
decisions are not made without consideration of their impact on the
region. Decisions must not be made without the knowledge of
interested local parties, to ensure they do not lead to a crisis. This
is the third element of our proposed preamble to the bill.
We could consider the bill to be acceptable if the government
included these three points in a preamble, namely to consider
safety as a paramount concern, to provide an adequate role for
small carriers, to protect airports in northern and remote regions,
and to guarantee that interested parties have a say when Nav
Canada makes decisions regarding equipment in regional airports.
The system could probably be changed effectively if such
elements were included to ensure an adequate balance regarding
the issues of safety, regions and small carriers.
Under the current system, costs were somewhat out of control
and the expected level of satisfaction was not necessarily met.
There would now be a return to private activity.
The government must analyse the situation, find a balance and
come up with a solution ensuring the paramountcy of safety. After
all, safety is the primary responsibility of Nav Canada.
(1545)
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to
the amendments the hon. member put to the House. A great deal of
work has been done by the Standing Committee on Transport,
which I had the privilege to chair in my previous incarnation.
In this situation we have witnessed an agreement that transfers
Canada's air navigation system to the private sector. This is by no
means an easy task with all the nuances and all the negotiations that
must take place between the two sides for a move from essentially
a crown corporation, a government entity, to a not for profit
corporation. Imagine all the legalities involved in such an
undertaking.
This change was made with a minimal number of bumps in the
road. There was agreement on almost all the nuances that took
place between both the federal government and the not for profit
corporation, Nav Canada.
Nav Canada came to the federal government with this proposal.
It was not that the federal government went out looking, but the
proposal was made and it was a solid proposal. As I have just
heard, the proposal was endorsed by the member opposite from the
Bloc. We on this side of the House agreed with the hon. member
when he said Bill C-20 is good legislation.
2821
As with any legislation there is some discussion on the ability to
see clearly each clause in a piece of legislation to ensure that each
one of these clauses is accurate and does what is in the best
interests of the travelling public and Canadians at large.
Priority number one for Transport Canada and for Nav Canada
has been safety. The hon. member opposite raised three issues in
the first group of amendments which I will speak to. The insertion
in the preamble is in our opinion unnecessary. The legal effect of a
preamble is to assist in the interpretation of other sections of
legislation. The three issues dealt with in this motion by the hon.
member, as well as Motions Nos. 2 and 3 which I will address
separately, are specifically addressed within the legislation already.
The value of the preamble is doubtful at best.
A preamble on safety is definitely unnecessary. For example,
clause 5 clearly establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act,
the legislation that governs safety. We all know safety is the most
important aspect of any mode of transportation, in particular this
mode of transportation.
Members opposite have alleged the bill does not adequately
address safety. Bill C-20 is intended to deal only with the transfer
of Transport Canada's air navigation services to a single not for
profit company and with the commercial and economic regulatory
arrangements for the continued operation of those services.
Clearly Bill C-20 establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics
Act. Section 5 states that nothing in this act affects the application
of the Aeronautics Act. Section 14 states that changes in services
and facilities must be subject to the Aeronautics Act, including any
regulations made under the act that relate to aviation safety or the
safety of the public.
(1550)
The preamble proposed by the hon. member opposite is bound to
overlook some important matter that otherwise would be dealt with
in the legislation. In the preamble proposed in Motion No. 1 there
is no mention of the safety of private and recreational aviation. We
do not want to put forward a preamble that might be void of critical
and important aspects that would affect the rest of the bill. We feel
that is covered in clause 5, which states the supremacy of the
Aeronautics Act.
The Bloc member who proposed the second motion is a new
member on the Standing Committee on Transport. He is well
versed on the matters of transportation and has been a hard working
member of the committee. We can tell the differences between
members who bother to care about anything in committee work.
This hon. member surely does.
On this motion, an insertion in the preamble, given the three
issues dealt with in the motion as well as Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are
addressed in the legislation, again we are not convinced of the
usefulness or value of this motion.
It is about charging and it is completely unnecessary. The
charging principles contained in clause 35 and the associated
opportunity to appeal charges to the National Transportation
Agency as well as the diversity of interests represented on the Nav
Canada board remove the need for a preamble dealing with equality
of opportunity and charging for large and small carriers.
Rather than clarify the charging principles, the proposed
language in the preamble may well confuse matters. In this case it
is the expression ``equality of opportunity''. I am not sure what that
means. It is ambiguous. It is certainly less clear than the charging
principles outlined in clause 35 of this legislation.
The final representation by the member, Motion No. 3, requests
that Nav Canada recognize Canada is a country in which air
services to the north and remote regions are necessary. Clauses 18
to 22 and the charging principles contained in clause 35(1)(g) take
care of the concerns of the hon. member about services to remote
regions of the country.
Clauses 18 to 22 establish a special process for designated
current air navigation services in northern and remote parts of the
country. This designation means that if Nav Canada, the new
private not for profit company, wishes to terminate or reduce any of
these services in a way likely to affect a significant group of users
or residents in any material way, it first must give public notice and
then must have the concurrence of all the affected provincial or
territorial governments and a quorum of users or the approval of
the Minister of Transport. Clauses 18 through 22 certainly make
the addition of a preamble in this area unnecessary as well.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to expedite the
business of the House I think you would find unanimous consent
that all the motions on the Order Paper be deemed to have been
read and moved.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member's proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1555)
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I did not fully understand what we
are doing.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has asked that the
House agree to a proposal she put forward. I asked if we agreed that
she could make that proposal. The House agreed. I also asked if it
could be considered that the proposal had been agreed to by the
House.
Ms. Catterall: Perhaps I could explain once again what my
proposal is.
The Deputy Speaker: The member can perhaps give her
explanation in French if she wishes.
2822
Ms. Catterall: It is simply to ask the House if there is
unanimous consent that all the motions, resolutions and
amendments be deemed to have been read and moved.
The Deputy Speaker: The clerk has just explained to me that we
do not need the consent of the House to accept this proposal. We
may say that, with the unanimous consent of the House, the
proposal is accepted by all members of the House.
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I do not fully understand. It is
obvious that we will shortly be voting on the motions group by
group. For the moment, we are looking at Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Of course, we are going to read them and comment on them, group
by group, and, if I have understood correctly, go on to the vote. I
presume that it is not a question of forgoing a vote by accepting in
advance to the motions as presented.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is quite right. The Chair is in
agreement with what the member has said. All the groups of
motions will be debated, but the deputy government whip has
merely asked that the Chair dispense with reading all the motions.
That is all.
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased the parliamentary secretary spoke
before I did. It was my understanding that it was to be Bloc, Liberal
and Reform. At least that is the normal rotation. That is why I
assumed that was what we were doing.
The parliamentary secretary in essence said many of the things I
would have said. I thank him for saving me from digging through
all of that.
The consideration for Nav Canada is to run a business guided by
economic and financial considerations, with safety of paramount
importance, regulated by the government.
However, one thing the parliamentary secretary said which I find
exceedingly interesting was that he thought it inappropriate to list
certain types of operators, small and large, and not address other
groups such as private and recreational users, leaving them off the
list. I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport feels it is bad to create lists if some people
are to be left off.
I suggest he review the blues on what he said and then read Bill
C-33, which the government has just passed and which I believe he
voted in favour of. That was the principal argument of the Reform
Party.
Likewise, I suggest the Prime Minister of Canada read that list
because now with this action dealing with the referendum question
in Quebec he is stating how important it is to uphold the rule of law,
as is the Minister of Justice. I would ask them why they did not
think the same way when they brought in the bill on Pearson airport
where the rule of law was clearly subverted.
We will not be supporting the Bloc motions on this for reasons
that have been adequately stated by the hon. parliamentary
secretary.
In essence, we feel these would politicize the mandate of Nav
Canada, and that is clearly not the intent of the bill.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has
said, we agree with privatization in principle, but we have
considerable reservations about its key mechanisms, so much so
that, should the amendments we will be presenting not be accepted,
we will find ourselves forced to vote against this bill.
For the moment, we are talking about the motions in Group No.
1, which address the preamble we wish to see at the beginning of
the bill, and which we see as important in expressing the ultimate
purpose of the bill.
Nav Canada is a private body, but one that provides a public
service. Because of that private status, perhaps the public will not
have the guarantees and services it would otherwise, if the body
had not been privatized.
The essence of our opposition to certain aspects of the bill
therefore lies with that point, that a private body providing a public
service must deliver the same quality and quantity of services as
would be provided without privatization.
For an overview of our position, I shall digress a little to list the
points covered in the motions of Group No. 1.
There are six applications to the principle I have just set out. The
first addresses safety. Public safety may be reduced by
privatization. I think that this is a perfectly obvious principle, and
one that must be set out explicitly in the preamble.
The second point is that Nav Canada's concern for profits must
not, either now or later, lead to the reduction of services to northern
and isolated regions. In terms of its viability, service in these
regions might be considered less profitable, but we feel that this
ought not to be a reason for Nav Canada's cutting back on services.
We therefore insist that the preamble explicitly include the
principle of maintaining services to northern and isolated regions.
This is also the case for the necessity of protecting the interests
of the small shippers, whose profit margin is very slim and who
2823
could run into rate problems if their interests were neglected in
favour of the large companies which, we feel, were the source of
most of the influence on the government around this proposed bill.
These three points I have listed are the ones covered in the
motions of Group No. 1. We will have an opportunity very soon-I
am stating them here to establish our overall position-in Group
No. 2, to talk about the need for sufficient local dissemination of
the changes Nav Canada would propose to charges or to the quality
or quantity of services.
We will also have to intervene to prevent private clients from
having to pay indirectly for services provided to public clients such
as organizations designated by National Defence; then, and this is
extremely important, we will have-and this concludes the
overview of our objections to the bill-to protect the personal
information on clients and personnel held by Nav Canada.
Generally speaking, this leads me to say that, when the federal
government delegates its power to an organization it has created,
services to the public must not be cut.
(1605)
This sort of delegation must not-and this applies to ADM as
well-result in the organization created serving as a screen
between the public and the government so that, as the Minister of
Transport has just said, the government cannot say: ``It is ADM; or,
it is Nav Canada. We are innocent of the blood of this just person'',
in the words of Pontius Pilate.
There is no way we will accept this surreptitious dropping of a
hot potato, under the guise of decentralization, with the blame
being directed elsewhere: ``It is not me, it is Nav Canada; or, it is
not me, it is ADM''. We totally object to this handy way to fob off
responsibilities.
This summarizes my position on these three aspects of block 1. I
will no doubt have occasion to rise again on the other aspects I have
spoken to briefly.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I am
not on the transport committee, but I was in the aviation field for a
number of years, and when I caught wind of this issue, I saw there
were some things not right about the bill.
As my colleagues have said, we are not against the bill, but there
are certain things that are slipping past the public, and in some
respects the issue is such a complex one that people are not
reacting.
We are in agreement with the privatization of air navigation
services. It is a good idea. We have reached the point where we
must pay. The problem is the manner in which the government is
going about it. They have created an agency called Nav Canada to
examine ways of privatizing air navigation services.
The first problem is that in the group of 15 people making up the
board there are very few, if any, representatives of small carriers. It
is for this reason that I wished to speak on Motion No. 2. When Nav
Canada has to decide on fees for users and carriers, will it take
small carriers into consideration?
I come from a remote area, Lac-Saint-Jean, where the air link
between Montreal and Alma is very important, and small carriers
like Air Alma are essential. A study has been done showing that if
the price of an airline ticket goes up by one dollar, there are losses
of one dollar on this same ticket as a result of this bill. Each time
airfares go up, there are some very negative repercussions for
airline companies.
What I find fascinating is that the only reactions come from
Quebec. There is very little reaction from other air carriers. We
were told that Nav Canada's board includes representatives of
small carriers such as Air B.C. Air B.C. has BA-146s, which can
carry 146 passengers; this, in my book, does not make it a small
carrier.
What is interesting and important is that, first of all, this board
should include Quebec members so that French language air
navigation services are always well represented. We are also
proposing that AQTA, the Association québécoise des
transporteurs aériens, be represented.
At a recent committee meeting, we were told that the president
of AQTA had refused. I have here a letter from ATAC, the Air
Transportation Association of Canada, which refers to the
invitation to the president of AQTA to sit on the Nav Canada board.
I have a second letter in which the president agrees to sit on the
board. I have a third letter saying that, unfortunately, the president
of AQTA will not be able to sit on the board. This is a major
disappointment because AQTA represents both Quebec and small
carriers.
(1610)
Within Nav Canada small carriers are represented by the
president of ATAC, Mr. Crichton, who also represents ATAC. The
problem is that some 70 per cent of ATAC's funding comes from
large carriers. One therefore has good reason to fear that the way
air services are taxed may hurt small carriers.
You may argue that small carriers are not happy because the
price of their tickets will go up a little. This could have a very
negative impact, even on chambers of commerce. I think it was the
Matane chamber of commerce that sent the Prime Minister a letter
saying: ``It is about time to lower the price of tickets''. This goes to
show how important this is, because the prices have to be
reasonable for the representatives of chambers of commerce
routinely doing business with Montreal to be able to get to
Montreal regularly.
2824
Not only are air carriers adversely affected, but employment in
regional airlines, chambers of commerce and any company doing
business with Montreal and across Canada are also adversely
affected.
This may look like nothing, but I think it could have serious
consequences not only in Quebec but also across Canada. Some
will say: ``Why is Quebec the only province griping about this?''
That is because, in Quebec, we have a permanent organization
known as the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. I
say ``we'' because I worked in that field for three years. Our
purpose in having a permanent organization is to ensure that all
small carriers are represented by an association capable of
analysing the issues concerning them.
Another problem I can see with the Nav Canada committee is the
fact that Nav Canada is not accountable to the people. After the
committee has been established, it is very important to undeerstand
that small carriers must have a say. If they disagree with
something- because of the lack of representation I mentioned
earlier-will they be heard, even if they take to the streets? There is
cause to be very sceptical.
As my hon. colleague indicated, the same kinds of problems
were encountered with ADM. Nav Canada then acts as a shield
behind which the government can hide by saying: ``This is no
longer our responsibility. Blame Nav Canada''. Except that Nav
Canada was created by the government. Again, we realize that the
system is flawed in that regard. We have every reason to examine a
consideration that could have very serious consequences.
It is also important, in considering this bill, to take a look at the
various forms of taxation. At present, three separate methods of
taxation could be contemplated. There is, however, reason to
believe that only one of them would work to the benefit of small
carriers, but that Nav Canada is not considering that particular one.
I will sum up by saying that I really hope that the government
will be able to revise its bill at least to include small carriers and an
AQTA representative, so that small carriers can have a say about
the method of taxation. It would be much too complicated to get
into the various methods, although I touched on the subject, but all
I really want is for the minister to allow an AQTA representative to
sit on his committee. I am not asking for anything complicated. In
fact, it is quite simple, yet it would be very important.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, is this still debate, or are we now at
questions and comments?
The Deputy Speaker: This is the period for ten-minute
speeches, without questions or comments.
(1615)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill
C-20 which, among others, establishes a corporation called Nav
Canada.
I want to stress the importance of the Bloc Quebecois' first
motion. The motion proposes that the preamble of the bill includes
a mention that the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and
the public has priority over all other considerations in the decisions
taken by Nav Canada. This motion seeks to have the government
and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take
precedence over money considerations.
I have been the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue since the last
election, two and a half years ago. Our party did not oppose the
privatization or, rather, the commercialization of civil air
navigation services. We did, however, have some reservations and
we still do.
For example, we know that, given modern technology and
satellites, air traffic control services for all of Canada could be
provided from a single location, for example a mall in Mississauga
or North Vancouver. One of the Bloc Quebecois' concerns was the
preservation of French in this area.
As members of the official opposition, we have a duty to be
vigilant. In the years 1975-76, a battle took place in Quebec
regarding the use of French by air traffic controllers. This episode
turned out to be a determining factor in the Parti Quebecois'
victory on November 15, 1976. Thanks to these efforts, a French
speaking pilot and a French speaking air traffic controller could
now communicate in French. This was not the case before. Until
then, two francophones were forced to speak English to each other,
seemingly for safety reasons.
We do not want such gains, including those of the Association
des gens de l'air du Québec, to have been made in vain and to
simply be forgotten. This is why I just mentioned that modern
technology makes it possible to set up, in a Mississauga mall, a
national air traffic control centre that would include Quebec's
airspace. This is particularly true now that a corporation primarily
interested in making profits will have responsibility over this
sector. We are not talking about a charity or a non profit
corporation. Consequently, profits might take precedence over the
requirement to provide services in French in Quebec's airspace.
Despite the victory won by the Association des gens de l'air in
1976, still today, on the Lower North Shore, still today, in the
Magdalen Islands-and we in the Bloc Quebecois have regularly
asked questions about this-pilots tell us that they have trouble
being served in French in some sectors, including the one covered
by the Moncton area control centre, which is apparently supposed
to be bilingual.
2825
I also wanted to speak to Motion No. 2, because we realize that
there is a certain common denominator in the composition of Nav
Canada's board of directors, and that the large airline companies
are very well represented.
Our new colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has, I believe, his pilot's
licence and therefore knows whereof he speaks, and did so most
eloquently a moment ago, in my opinion. Where I find fault, as
does my colleague, is with the composition of Nav Canada's board
of directors. It is unfortunate that this government did not respect
the wish of small carriers to be represented, to be listened to.
So this will be just large carriers, and regional carriers will not
be heard from. Is it acceptable, for example, that the Association
québécoise des transporteurs aériens cannot sit on Nav Canada's
board of directors? Is that realistic?
(1620)
What were we told in the Standing Committee on Transport?
That the association was a member of the Canadian council, and
will therefore be indirectly represented. I am sorry, but this does
not really meet the expectations of the aviation sector, in any event,
not those of Quebec carriers.
The bottom line is that if all the seats are held by representatives
of large carriers, the priorities set regarding cost per passenger
could also give them an advantage over small carriers. Because we
know that what matters is who gets in there first. If someone in the
family makes a big chocolate cake and the first person to come
along helps himself to a great big piece, the others will have
nothing but the crumbs that are left to divide up among them.
Human nature being what it is, the big companies will not want
to assume the lion's share of the bill, so they will arrange to pay
just a bit of it and to pass the rest on to the small regional carriers,
who will not be able to afford it. And who will the small carriers
pass the buck to, since their profit margins are so slim? To the
passengers.
When I was in the Saguenay, I recall being told that flying from
Bagotville to Montreal costs more than from Montreal to Miami
and, in certain seasons, more than a round trip ticket
Montreal-Paris. They used Bagotville-Montreal as an example,
but it could as easily have been Val-d'Or-Montreal,
Sept-Îles-Montreal, or Gaspé-Montreal. This is aberrant. Once
again, the people in the regions are the ones to be penalized by such
a decision.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the potential impact of
Bill C-120 in this area. We are proposing, and this is the purpose of
our motions, that an addition be made to the preamble stipulating
that Nav Canada must commit to maintaining equality of
opportunity between small and large carriers when imposing all the
charges.
I will conclude on this point, because time is running out. The
third and final motion I wish to comment on attempts to include in
the preamble the fact Nav Canada must recognize that Canada is a
country where air service to northern and remote regions is
essential. A tour of Dorval airport reveals that it is not only the
people of Dorval who fly out of it. People in transit at Dorval come
from the regions and are on their way to another destination, such
as the south, Europe or other provinces in Canada. They are people
from the regions, and we must take this into consideration with
respect to air services.
The aim with this provision is to establish a parameter for
interpretation purposes, drawing attention to the fact that one of
Nav Canada's prime objectives is to serve the regions.
In conclusion, we must remember that it is true Quebec has
Montreal and Canada has Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, but we
must not forget that Quebec and Canada are made up of regions as
well. Sometimes decisions made centrally here in Ottawa by
bureaucrats do not take the regions into account.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleagues, I too am happy to speak to Bill C-20 on the
commercialization of civil air navigation services. In the final
analysis, what we are discussing today is the establishment of a
private air navigation corporation.
I think that the Bloc Quebecois has a duty to review the bill
before us very carefully. After looking at the motions to be debated,
I asked to speak. Although I was not on the committee, I asked to
speak because I was a long time member of SOPRAM, the
organization promoting the Montreal airports, which revolves
around ADM and the Montreal airports. I asked to speak because I
thought we had done a good job, especially on the motions before
us today in Group No. 1, including the motions saying that safety
must take precedence over commercial considerations.
(1625)
Of course, the private corporation being formed will try to make
a profit. I remember that, for ADM, this was often an area of
concern. We often looked at safety versus deregulation, versus
privatization, as there is a tendency to confuse deregulation with
privatization.
We also realize that setting up a commercial, for-profit
corporation is often done at the expense of safety. Even our
American friends are asking questions about this whole issue, as
we saw with the crash of a ValuJet DC-9. Investigators in the U.S.
are asking if Americans are safe when these companies may be
cutting corners on safety to make a little more profit.
We may wonder if, in Nav Canada's decisions, people's safety
will take precedence over making a little more profit. As far as the
safety of passengers, personnel and the public is concerned, it
seems quite logical and right that the preamble to the bill should
provide that safety take precedence over Nav Canada's profits.
2826
I often like to give examples from my riding. In Saint-Jean, we
have an airport with a control tower paid for by Transport Canada.
What will happen the day after Nav Canada takes over? I made
some enquiries today. Naturally, officials at Transport Canada are
telling me: ``Do not worry, Mr. Bachand. In any case, Nav Canada
will take perhaps a year or more to consider what it should divest
itself of, what it should keep and what to do with what it keeps''.
There are about 50,000 aircraft movements per year at the
Saint-Jean airport. Dynamair, a flying school, is responsible for the
majority of these movements. Of course, teaching students to fly a
plane means many takeoffs and landings. The same is true of the
gliding school where air cadets attend glider training every
summer. You will understand that the bill before us has an impact
on my riding as a region.
I must admit that we are somewhat concerned about what would
happen if, a year from now, Nav Canada said: ``We have decided to
make changes at the control tower in Saint-Jean. Air traffic will no
longer be controlled by air controllers, but by people like those of
the UNICOM project, for example''. A single individual mans the
tower and directs traffic. That is a bit on the lean side. These are not
professionals like air controllers. They will have to call upon the
services of the airport in Saint-Hubert.
This raises serious questions in my mind and in the minds of my
constituents about the impact this bill here today will have.
What will happen to the flying school for instance if we no
longer have air controllers at our airport? This is rather serious,
considering that there are often three, four or five aircraft taking off
and landing, not to mention the possibility of a plane from another
airport entering the school's airspace.
We are right to warn the government. We agree on the issue of
profits for Nav Canada, but these profits should not jeopardize
safety. We also wonder about the other side of the issue, the
introduction of user fees. Some of my colleagues just gave the
example of large carriers versus small ones. This is the object of
Motion No. 2. Industry officials in Quebec told me that the
Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens would have liked
to be represented on Nav Canada's board.
The minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Human
Resources Development, said: ``You are only a regional
association''. I happen to think that Quebec is larger than a region.
(1630)
This was not good enough for the minister. He added: ``See if
you can form a group''. A council of air carrier associations was set
up. It included the Quebec association and several other
associations in Canada. Some 800 companies were represented by
the council.
After forming the council, these people asked again for a seat on
Nav Canada's board, but the minister told them they could not be
represented, because the work was already too advanced. People
were upset that they had taken the time to form a council, only to be
told by the minister that, as small carriers, they would be excluded
from Nav Canada, that only Air Canada, Canadian and all the large
carriers would be represented. The danger exists that Air Canada
and Canadian will say that they want preferential rates, and that if
Nav Canada wants more money it has only to turn to the small
carriers.
This has an effect both on privatization and on control towers.
There are also repercussions for users, such as the pilots' school I
mentioned earlier, and the air cadets, who might be slapped with
user fees. Right now, there are no user fees at Saint-Jean. Airplanes
landing and taking off from Saint-Jean pay no fees.
This could have major consequences for an industry such as
Dynamair, which could find itself paying fees for each landing and
take off. These are the negative consequences. This is why the
motion before us today says that safety must take precedence over
business considerations.
In conclusion, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention
remote areas. You know that, as Indian affairs critic, I am often
required to travel to remote areas. These people are worried also,
because air services are absolutely essential to them. I think that
the bill before us does is neither satisfactory nor sufficiently
reassuring for these areas.
The motions moved by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois add
the necessary amendments and safety for remote areas. I thought
this needed to be said. I invite the government to join us and agree
to these motions, which will increase safety and take account of
remote areas in Quebec and in Canada.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take my turn in speaking to Bill C-20. First of all, I
would like to remind you that, in July 1994, when the former
Minister of Transport, now Minister of Human Resources
Development, released the policy for commercializing airports and
air navigation, the Bloc Quebecois came out in favour of the
principle.
At that time, however, we did not know how this new policy
would take shape, and so we voiced some reservations on its
application.
Today we are starting to have a somewhat clearer idea of how the
government plans to put into practice the principle made known in
July 1994. Why did we agree with the principle at that time? It
struck us as reasonable, and more efficient, to make local
administrators who are familiar with their region, its resources, its
strengths and its weaknesses, responsible for the way their local
airport developed.
2827
Nevertheless, even then, we had some concerns about what
would become of the regions. My colleague has just spoken of
this. There are 26 major airports in Canada, and there is very little
doubt in our minds that management of those major airports by
the private sector is more dynamic than management by public
servants in Ottawa.
(1635)
However, we must also remember that there are over 500 or 600
airports in Canada. This raises the question of what fate is in store
for the small local and regional airports. Things are not moving
along very quickly, because, at the moment, some 20 local and
regional airports have been transferred to municipalities.
My remarks apply primarily to three elements of the first block
of motions. The first concerns safety. In recent years, I have been
involved in the issue of safety because there is an airport in my
riding, Jean Lesage international airport, and we have watched how
the government-Transport Canada-has dealt with this issue over
the past few years. While we supported the principle of
commercialization of airports and air navigation services, it is still
possible now for us to have serious reservations. Increasingly, the
government's motives are becoming clear, transparent.
It is not out of generosity. It is not because the government
places greater faith in local managers that it is withdrawing. No, it
is doing so strictly in order to pull out and to save money. Therefore
this bill must be considered in the light of this.
May I remind the House of some cases that show how relevant
my comments are. A little over a year ago, almost two years ago in
fact, Transport Canada decided to close a number of terminal
control units at five or six airports, the last one being the one at
Jean-Lesage airport.
We then waged a major fight to try to convince and show
Transport Canada that there was still a ray of hope. The system that
had been put in place to monitor all of Quebec did not always work
properly. I remember in particular that, on April 9, 1995, a Quebec
City terminal control unit that was following a plane suddenly
realized that the plane had done a 180-degree turn. What was going
on? Very simply, the radar allowing controllers to monitor the
plane suddenly focused on a flight of Canada geese going in the
opposite direction.
Every time we asked the Minister of Transport a question, he
told us: ``The most important thing is the safety of passengers''.
Allow me to question how safe they are.
We were also told, to justify closing the terminal control unit in
Quebec City, that the emergency control unit at Dorval airport was
fully operational, which was not true. When we went to the airport,
we saw that the equipment that was supposed to be there did not
exist and, what is more, that it took exactly 20 minutes to move
crews to the regional control centre.
That is the first point. So, when government members come and
tell us: ``Our primary concern is safety'', we do not believe them.
Let give you another example, still in connection with safety. In
the interest of economy, always, Transport Canada discontinued
the security services normally provided by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police at a number of Canadian airports. Again,
Jean-Lesage airport was one of those affected. RCMP officers were
replaced with veterans, I think. Granted, they can perform some
functions, but I does not seem to me that they can do the same job
as the RCMP officers.
Further evidence of the fact that the government, through
Transport Canada, does not care about safety can be found in the
length of aircraft allowed to land in Canadian airports. Of course, it
is regulated.
(1640)
The applicable regulations take into account, among other
things, runway length of course, but also firefighting services
available at the airport.
Given the number of firefighters on duty at the airport in Quebec
City, the number of fire trucks available and the type of trucks
used, it was clear that Transport Canada was not abiding by its own
regulations. What did the government and Transport Canada do?
They took one more truck away and reduced the number of
firefighters, departing even further from their own regulations.
This government has decided to decentralize to the regions only
to save some money. We have seen what it has done with Canadian
National Railways. You might say I am getting sidetracked, but I
am not. I am still discussing the same theme. The government is
withdrawing from this area, not out of generosity towards the
provinces, but to avoid fulfilling its financial obligations.
Transport Canada neglected the Quebec City bridge for 15 years.
And no sooner was CN privatized last year, what did the federal
government do? It started saying: ``Yes, the Quebec City bridge is
in bad shape, but like Pontius Pilate, we are washing our hands of
the whole thing. CN is now a private corporation. Consequently, we
have nothing to do with the maintenance of the bridge''. Yet, it is
because of CN's negligence, and Transport Canada's negligence,
that the bridge is in its current state of disrepair.
The issue of navigational aids in the St. Lawrence River, which
we raised on numerous occasions in recent weeks, is another
example of government withdrawal. The reason is always the
same: to save money. Safety is hardly a consideration. Without first
conducting a real economic impact study, Canada was divided in
three zones and the government is telling users of the St. Lawrence
Seaway, to the Great Lakes, that they will now have to pay for
services provided to them. The decision was made without even
2828
bothering to see if it will impact on the volume of traffic and if it
will result in ships using American ports instead.
ADM is another example of the government's quickness to say it
is no longer its responsibility, when it withdraws from an area.
ADM was established and we agree with the underlying principle.
Now there is a problem, and the government, instead of requiring a
public examination of the effects of transferring flights from
Mirabel to Dorval, said, instead: ``No, no, this is no longer our
concern. We are no longer involved and have passed the
responsibility for the Montreal airports on to a private firm''.
I would also like to talk a bit in this context about Nav Canada's
representativeness. Colleagues have already spoken on this. Nav
Canada's board of directors does not represent the Canadian reality.
Only the Transportation Association of Canada has been authorized
to appoint representatives to the board. And where do these
representatives come from? Two are from British Columbia and
two are from the Ottawa region. This composition of the board they
claim represents Canada. There is no one from Quebec.
Two groups in particular have been very involved in navigation
in Quebec over the past 20 or 30 years: the Association québécoise
des transporteurs aériens and the Association des gens de l'air.
They had a special place in air transportation and were dismissed
with a wave of the hand, simply because, as they were told: ``You
do not represent a national association. You are regional''. So there
is no one from Quebec.
When the criticism is made to the Minister of Transport that
there is no one from Quebec, his response is very smooth.
(1645)
He says: ``Well, we appointed someone from Quebec to
represent you: Michel Vennat, the president of the Council for
Canadian Unity''. He is representing the interests of Quebec
aviation with Nav Canada. What does Mr. Vennat know about air
transportation? Probably nothing. I am not criticizing him. I am
criticizing the government for appointing him.
It refuses to appoint people from the industry and appoints a
political person, someone who plays a very dubious role in
constitutional discussions, to the board of Nav Canada to represent
Quebec's interests.
We should be having serious doubts about this bill. Agreeing
with the principle is one thing, but accepting the bill as written is
another.
In another vein, I would like to return to the matter of French. I
do not consider the guarantees at all satisfactory. The minister says:
``We will ensure that the Official Languages Act applies'', but
while Transport Canada was managing air control, it took no steps
to ensure that the Official Languages Act was being complied with.
Why should we trust a private company to do so? I will come back
to this a little later.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise immediately after my colleague from the riding of
Louis-Hébert, in Quebec, to speak to Bill C-20, which the Bloc
Quebecois has introduced motions to amend. This bill is of
particular concern to my riding, the riding of Abitibi, which is
definitely a remote area relying heavily on air services. I think that
these motions should be given serious consideration.
One of the motions is to add to the preamble that Nav Canada
recognizes that Canada is a country where air service to northern
and remote regions is essential. We are seeking, in this way, to lay
down a parameter that would help prevent areas such as ours from
being frequently left out of the equation.
In my area, Val-d'Or, an airport is affected by this bill. Right
now, the city, or the chamber of commerce, whichever is working
on the question, is required to know whether Val-d'Or will keep its
airport when the Department of Transport cuts off its dwindling
grants. Will the city of Val-d'Or have the money to run this airport?
For five years now, the policy of the Department of Transport
has been to reduce the size of airports. It is obvious that, in the past,
airports had practically the same services. The regions did not
always ask to have all the fancy services available at Dorval,
Toronto, or even Vancouver. It is not necessary to have moving
walkways, the sophisticated checking systems of major airports,
but areas such as ours must receive essential and equitable service.
Why do people in regions like ours, as my colleague has said in
the speech prior to the last one, pay two or three times more per
kilometre to fly than people who go from Montreal to Toronto, for
example, which is almost the same distance? Why can they get seat
sales at $149, while we have to pay $550 for a regular fare between
Val-d'Or and Montreal?
What about the air fare between Val-d'Or and Quebec City? It is
$650, which makes it expensive for people from Abitibi to get to
Montreal or Quebec City-usually not for pleasure, but for
business. Pleasure trips are also possible, as they are for people
who fly from Montreal to Miami, but people with average incomes
find it almost impossible to fly from Val-d'Or to Montreal or
Quebec City.
(1650)
This has, I feel, become impossibly expensive. Some months
ago, when I spoke on decentralization and deregulation of
transportation services, I called for recognition of equal rights for
the people in the regions, whether my region or some other region
in Canada, to receive quality service. Not necessarily the plush
service there might be in Toronto or Montreal, but service which
would allow people to get quickly from place to place as needed.
Often trips of more than 700 kilometres are required, to get to
2829
Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City or beyond. These services are
necessary, I believe, for sometimes trips have to be made on an
emergency basis because of illness or death or the like, and
sometimes there is no choice between driving and flying.
But now Val-d'Or is faced with a choice: Will we continue to
maintain our airport? Will we have the $500,000 or $600,000
needed to put into it yearly? Will the taxpayers have to foot the
bill? I do not feel it should be necessary to ask such questions.
People in regions like Val-d'Or ought to have access to an real
operating airport, so that, for instance, if there is a health
emergency, a government plane can land quickly and rush the
patient to hospital in Montreal or Quebec City.
The Val-d'Or region also serves a vast area of nearly 1,500
kilometres north of Val-d'Or: the Inuit and Cree territories of the
Far North. It is from Val-d'Or that the goods intended for these
people are shipped.
All the goods sent to the Inuit and the Cree go through Val-d'Or.
Shipping may cost less than a third of what it would if the goods
were sent from Montreal. It is easy to understand, as an air mile
costs much more than a road mile. But, if the Val-d'Or airport
closes, shipping costs for the Inuit and the Cree may increase even
further, while the people of Val-d'Or would come out even.
I used Val-d'Or as an example, but I am sure there are other
airports in the northern regions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba that
serve Native communities living further north who also need
services at fair and realistic prices.
A few years ago, during the air service decentralization process,
the air traffic controllers in Val-d'Or lost their jobs. They had
uncovered documents proving that keeping them in Val-d'Or did
not cost more than sending them to Toronto or Montreal, where air
traffic is monitored. They could also control air traffic over a rather
large territory, and there was less of a safety risk.
One of the things the Bloc Quebecois wants to find out about
Nav Canada is if the safety level of the people in those areas is not
as high as that of the people in Montreal or Toronto. Why are they
seen as being candidates for reduced service? Because they live in
outlying areas? I think that most of the people in the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue region work in the natural resources
sector, that is to say, in the forestry and mining industries. These
people generate a lot of money for those who live further south.
As my colleague was saying, when I hop on a plane in Val-d'Or
or Rouyn-Noranda to fly to Montreal, Quebec City or Toronto, I
pay money to those national airports. If we could get only half the
taxes collected on the cost of plane tickets, we could finance our
own airports and control our own destiny.
We also wanted Bill C-20 to say that Nav Canada should let
small carriers have a say, as they would like to. That is the wish
representatives of the Association québécoise des transporteurs
aériens, or AQTA, have expressed to the Air Transport Association
of Canada, and people listened to what they had to say. With the
support of the Canadian council of air carrier associations, the
Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens made
representations to be fully represented on the board.
(1655)
How can your interests be defended when you are not even
represented on the board? If Quebec's small carriers serving our
regions have no control or say, how will we go about ensuring any
degree of protection? Quebec users have received only a negative
answer.
When the airport decentralization and air transport system
devolution policy was introduced in the latter part of 1993 and
early 1994, we were promised that the system would be more
cost-effective and deliver the same level of service at a lower cost.
The letter from the Association des transporteurs aériens du
Québec makes us wonder what services are to be expected. What
can we do, if we are not even given the right to know what goes on
at the board?
I take a strong interest in this matter, because in deciding the
future of their airport, as I indicated earlier, the people of Val-d'Or
cannot help but wonder also about future changes Nav Canada
could impose on a local civilian authority like the City of Val-d'Or,
when people will not have any control over future changes.
At the airport in Val-d'Or, for example, there is an aircraft
approach system. This system will be under the control of Nav
Canada. What would prevent Nav Canada from sending the City of
Val-d'Or a bill for the maintenance of the system three, four or five
years from now? This is one of many possibilities that have been
raised. Last week, I attended a meeting of the chamber of
commerce on the Val-d'Or airport acquisition project. People were
wondering how they could be sure that costs would remain
constant, if there is no control over any of these elements.
Again, if we include in the bill a motion to ensure the safety of
air services in northern regions, it will always be possible to tell the
government in the future: ``Listen, the municipality cannot absorb
the annual costs of $200,000 or $100,000. It should be up to Nav
Canada to ensure our safety. Aircraft cannot land without an
approach system''. Then, we, who live in regions, will be
protected.
2830
In conclusion, I am asking the government to be receptive to
the needs of regions. For too many years now, the government has
been making decisions under cover of cuts required by its debt.
Regions can absorb part of the deficit. However, the government
must realize that if it does not stop depriving us of essential
services, people will get discouraged. Sometimes, we cannot help
but wonder if the government is trying to shut down regions.
In my estimation, this would be a serious mistake, given what
northern regions such as ours provide to other regions, given our
great natural resources, which are not even developed here, but
taken to southern destinations to increase their worth. Indeed, it
would be a serious mistake to conclude, here in Canada, that
northern regions generate costs and not profits.
The government should support this motion, so that all regions
will feel, even though they do not get additional funding, even
though they have to learn to live within their means, that they have
some security, that they are respected, and that no forgotten bills
will show up in the future.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The
question is on Motion No. 1.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
(1700)
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 2 and 3.
[English]
Group No. 2. A vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motions Nos. 5
through 12 and Motions Nos. 16 through 24.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page
10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page
10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means;''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page
10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to every user and other person who has, at least 10 days before,
notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or
announcements under this Act;
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c)
have been complied with.''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page
11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page
11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page
11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified
the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under
this Act;
2831
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph
(c) have been complied with.''
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page
13, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page
13, with the following
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page
13, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified
the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under
this Act;
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c)
have been complied with.''
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page
20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page
20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means''.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page
20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the
Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this
Act;
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph
(c) have been complied with.''
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page
21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page
21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means''.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page
21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified
the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under
this Act;
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c)
have been complied with.''
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page
24, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
2832
(a) published in every news paper that primarily serves the regions that, in the
opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page
24, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(b) sent by mail and by electronic means''.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page
24, with the following:
``(3) A copy of the notice shall be
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the
Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion
of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and
(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified
the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under
this Act;
(c) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to
persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and
(d) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c)
have been complied with.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the motions in Group No. 2 deal with clauses 15, 18, 21,
36, 37 and 40. We put forward 18 motions on these six clauses,
which goes to show how important this group of motions are.
The main objective of these motions-which is also why they
were grouped together-is to ensure broader distribution of the
notices Nav Canada has to give in some instances stipulated in the
act. The main instances where Nav Canada has to give such notices
to the regions and the organizations concerned are the following. It
has to do with the notices Nav Canada has to give when it wants to
increase or reduce the services it provides.
Another specific clause deals with the instances where Nav
Canada wants to increase, reduce or modify designated northern or
remote services.
Lastly, Nav Canada must give notices when it wants to establish
a new charge or revise an existing charge or review the
organizations that have to pay those charges.
Those are the three instances where Nav Canada must give
notices. In these three cases, the current legislation provides for
notices to be given to the organizations concerned. However, the
problem we have with this, and which deserves our attention, is
that the list of organizations that may be concerned is too vague, as
are the means to be used to reach these organizations.
All our motions propose, in the three cases I just
mentioned-changes in services, changes in northern or remote
services, changes in user charges-that advance notice be served
first to all local daily newspapers. Obviously people must be
advised of such important changes as those to the services provided
by Nav Canada.
We also think that, if need be, the band council or councils
concerned should be informed. Generally, theses notices should be
sent as much as possible not only by mail but also by E-mail.
We also want the large and small organizations representing the
users to be advised of changes to the user charges and services.
Finally, since individuals should not be forgotten, anyone who has
expressed an interest in the previous ten days should be informed.
This, then, covers the cases in which we want notices to be sent and
the type of notices to be sent.
(1705)
We do not think these provisions are useless. We just want to
specify the means that must be used. Let us not forget that, since
Nav Canada necessarily has a commercial purpose, we, as
legislators, must protect ourselves and protect users against the
tendency Nav Canada could have, for financial reasons, not to
announce widely the measures it intends to take, or to save money
in the way it makes these announcements.
We want to avoid anything arbitrary in the way Nav Canada
provides information concerning the measures it intends to take.
Again, these amendments are based on the general principle that
even though Ottawa delegates some of its powers to a private
organization that has to provide a public service, it does not mean
that this service must be reduced in terms of quality and quantity.
In this second group of motions, this service is the provision of
information.
Since we are talking about information, I will take this
opportunity to draw a parallel between this and another creation of
the federal government, namely Aéroports de Montréal. ADM is
another example of the government's unfortunate tendency to
delegate responsibilities to an organization in a way that allows it
to use this organization to avoid providing services that it had an
obligation to provide before this delegation of responsibilities took
place.
The parallel being drawn here, with respect to information, is
justified by the fact that ADM has just taken a decision that is
extremely important for the region and even, I would say, for
Quebec and for Canada, because it involves international airports.
With respect to the measure taken by ADM, my office asked for
copies of the studies on which ADM is basing its decision. If you
can believe it, we were told that ADM is subject to the
requirements of the Access to Information Act and that therefore
they do
2833
not have to provide us with the studies on which they are basing
their decision. We therefore have here another federal creature,
which, thanks to the delegation of authority, may decline to justify
in a manner satisfactory to the public the decisions it wants to take.
We therefore see that there is a risk that the federal government
will create agencies in order not to have to provide the public with
the information it has a responsibility to provide and which it must
provide when there is no delegation of authority to an intermediate
agency, which, under the label of private service, may decline to
give out information that, in this case, one is entitled to expect from
an agency providing a service to the public.
The point is that the ADM precedent is an indication that we
should be very wary that Nav Canada does not become a
convenient screen that the government can use to shirk certain of
its obligations. In this case, the obligations that we want to be sure
Nav Canada assumes concern the distribution of notices in the
cases provided for in the bill in the manner and according to the
terms regarding the media that we have mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to the motions being put forward by members of the Bloc.
Talk about latitude. I do not know how we got on to the issue of the
ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal.
I want to remind members of this place and the hon. member
opposite that ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal, is the body which
looks after the operations of Mirabel and Dorval airports.
(1710 )
It has been charged with responsibilities that are no longer under
federal jurisdiction. It is the working group that will manage the
two airports in that area. The government's intent is to split off the
business of running business away from the federal government
and let the communities take control of their destinies. It is the
communities, on many levels, municipal, provincial, et cetera, that
are represented on this local airport authority called ADM and are
charged with these responsibilities.
It is a measure that has been put forward by the government
which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by Canadians from coast
to coast to coast. It is producing very dramatic, very appreciable
and well supported, far reaching opportunities for all the airports,
including my airport in Hamilton, Ontario.
I must respond to and strongly disagree with the concerns
outlined by the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and others in the Bloc who
allege that the regions are not fully represented on the Nav Canada
board.
On the subject of the request by Bloc members in their motions
for representation for large and small carriers on the board of
directors of Nav Canada, this request is entirely unnecessary. This
request was debated in committee. I am not sure how a lot of these
motions got put in at report stage. Exactly the same motions were
dealt with in committee, but that is a matter for another day.
Why is it completely unnecessary? This matter is already taken
care of by the bylaws of the corporation. Four directors are
appointed by ATAC, which is the Air Transport Association of
Canada. It is the largest trade association, representing carriers of
all sizes and from all regions of the country.
ATAC membership includes major national and international
carriers, regional air carriers, and I stress the word regional, local
service carriers and even flying clubs.
On the specific issue of regional representation, Nav Canada's
bylaws require the corporation to consult with bona fide regional
trade associations in the appointment of its directors. It is worth
noting that one of the four directors appointed by ATAC is the
former president and chief executive officer of a regional air
carrier.
Organizations representing smaller air carriers also have an
opportunity to influence Nav Canada's decision making process
through an advisory committee provided for in the Nav Canada
bylaws.
At Nav Canada's first annual general meeting held last April 10,
15 individuals were elected to the advisory committee. Among
these individuals were representatives of several regional
associations, typically consisting of smaller commercial operators
such as the British Columbia Aviation Council and Mr. Jenner at
the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. Therefore,
the representation is there and the Bloc's concerns that the regions
are not represented are entirely unfounded.
Moving to the next group and in response to the hon. member's
motions, particularly Motion No. 4, can anyone imagine the
impracticality of giving notice in every newspaper serving the
regions to be affected by a proposal, whether in respect of changes
in services or changes in charges?
If one carries that logic to the logical extension, in the case of an
en route charge where one is taking it right across the country, that
would impose a requirement on the new not for profit corporation
called Nav Canada to publish in every newspaper across the entire
country. Can you just imagine the fees and charges that would
entail in making notice on a change in charges, for example?
2834
(1715 )
Incidentally, the motion also contains an error. Clause 15 deals
with changes in services and facilities, not charges. The
notification requirement established in clause 15(3) already
ensures that all interested persons will know about a Nav Canada
proposal. It is there.
In addition, the Nav Canada bylaws require that notice be given
in the two largest national circulation newspapers in each of the
official languages of our country.
In Motion No. 5 presented by the Bloc members, the
requirement to send by mail and electronic means would clearly
represent an unproductive duplication of effort. The Bloc motion
refers to mail and electronic means.
What if an individual, organization or group was not equipped to
receive a notice by electronic means? There must be a few of them
in Canada. Nav Canada could be in breach of its obligation to
provide notice if it did not send a notice electronically to such a
person or a group because, and I remind the hon. member opposite,
the motion refers to mail and electronic means. Nav Canada should
be allowed to use either mail or electronic means, which makes the
most sense in terms of the specific interested individual.
On Motion No. 6, Bill C-20 identifies only one group of persons
specifically, that is, the users. This does not mean that only users
have a role. Everyone else is covered by the expression ``other
person''. The reference to ``other person'' is in Bill C-20. To single
out, as the Bloc requests to do in this motion, band councils from
all other interested persons seems rather inappropriate.
The association of commercial pilots which appeared before the
Standing Committee on Transport would be one group that might
expect explicit recognition. Airport operators would be another
group that might feel this way.
The expression ``representative organization of users'' seems
pretty clear. It is clear enough that a change to ``organizations
representing users'' is entirely unnecessary.
On Motion No. 7, the reference is incorrect. It should be clause
18, not clause 15. It would be impractical to give notice in every
newspaper primarily serving the regions to be affected by a
proposal, whether we are talking about changes in northern or
remote services or changes in charges. In the case of an en route
service where one is taking it right across the country, this proposal
could impose a requirement on Nav Canada to publish in every
newspaper in outlying regions of the entire country. This is not very
practical.
Motion No. 8 contains a reference which appears to be incorrect.
It should be clause 18 and not clause 15. The requirement to send
by mail and electronic means would represent that unproductive
duplication of effort we spoke about earlier.
Motion No. 9 contains an incorrect reference. It should be clause
18, not clause 15. I repeat that Bill C-20 identifies only one group
of persons specifically, that is, the users. That does not mean that
only users have a role. Of course everyone else is covered by the
expression ``other persons''.
The remaining Motions Nos. 10 to 12 and Motions Nos. 16 to 24
are amendments which repeat all the impracticalities put forward
by the Bloc. They are impractical and unproductive amendments
which I addressed in the first nine motions of this group.
In the closing remarks of the last group the Bloc raised its
concerns about safety. I cannot stress enough to hon. members
opposite that Transport Canada prides itself, whether it is the
Minister of Transport, members on this side of the House or all the
men and women who work for Transport Canada, on the safety
record in transportation in this country. Transportation safety is
always priority one in that department.
(1720)
When the hon. members speak I dare say politically on the issue
of safety and their concerns, I recognize they have concerns.
However I want to remind them and I must remind them that where
safety is concerned, the supremacy of safety in Bill C-20 is clearly
established through references to the Aeronautics Act within the
body of Bill C-20 and regulations made pursuant to the act.
We cannot do a better job putting those requirements or
preambles to motions within the body of Bill C-20. We cannot do a
better job than referring to the Aeronautics Act. It is the best
instrument to address safety, better than anything the Bloc might
want to move motions on.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to deal with a couple of little housekeeping
items first. Both the Bloc member and the parliamentary secretary
mentioned a couple of areas.
Bloc members were concerned that the Quebec transport
association was not getting a proper voice. For the record, Mr.
Jenner of that organization was offered a seat on the board of
directors and turned it down. He acknowledged this right in
committee. I am not quite sure where the Bloc is coming from on
that. He was offered exactly what they say he should have got and
he turned it down.
Also Bloc members talked about ADM. As the parliamentary
secretary said, I do not know how that found its way into this
discussion. I have one point for clarification. What they are asking
for is the Montreal authority be ruled by the federal government.
2835
If Bloc members are saying that rather than having local
authorities in Quebec rule on things, they want the federal
government to rule on it instead, they had better re-evaluate their
entire mandate as separatists. What they want is to come away
from the federal government and take control but when they have
it, they are saying they want the federal government to take it back.
They should clarify why they are really here in the first place.
With regard to the variety of motions in Group No. 2 dealing
with information and the process of advertising that information, I
talked with the Bloc members on this in committee where it had
been brought up by them. I did not support them at the committee
level because while they had a good concept, it went too far. It was
far too onerous.
I said that they should come down with something simple. They
were telling me they wanted better notification for changes in
services or deletion of services particularly in northern areas where
there may not be good information dissemination. I said I could
support that if they could word it in such a way that they did not get
into all those other areas. That is still a great concept, to have a
better type of advertisement in some of the more remote and hard
to reach areas. However instead of simplifying their motion, if
anything, they have made it more complex.
The parliamentary secretary correctly pointed out that if a
general change were made in the fee structure, which obviously
will happen from time to time-God knows I would love it if I
were still paying the same for food, a haircut or gasoline that I paid
in 1970 but that is not the case. And it is not going to happen with
Nav Canada neither. From time to time its fees are going to change.
The way it reads for most of the motions is that every time Nav
Canada changes its fee structure, as it will do, it must advertise in
every newspaper in this country. That is so onerous and makes it
absolutely impossible.
It seems ironic that the government, correctly though it may
have been, speaking against better dissemination of information
mainly because it was too onerous should turn around in another
area and try to promote the dissemination of information that
probably should not be going out.
At committee we dealt with a motion by Reform which actually
added to the bill a requirement that Nav Canada meet the same
parameters of the Privacy Act as was done when it was a
government organization. It follows exactly the same format the
government used for the official languages bill. In fact, it was a
subclause to that same section of the bill. This is not something
which the privacy commissioner, who has the responsibility for
this, spoke against. In fact, he came to committee to see if we
would please put it in. Nav Canada did not have any objection and
was basically going to do this anyway.
(1725)
It put in an assurance to the users that it was going to be taken
care of and it passed. Reform, who put it in, voted for it. The Bloc,
who had a similar amendment, voted for it as did some Liberals.
As the parliamentary secretary is fond of saying, a committee is
master of its own destiny. If we ignore what the committee does
and overrule it by Liberals only, then why bother even having the
committee? If the Liberals are going to pass only the things they
like and overrule things that get passed in spite of them, then why
do we bother having these committees in the first place? The
government might as well write out its four year agenda, pass it and
that is the end of it.
I am very shocked and disappointed to see the Liberals trying to
take out a clause that their own Liberal dominated committee
passed. It is astounding.
Reform will not be supporting the motions brought forward by
the Bloc in Group No. 2. The only area we support are some
technical motions that are going to be discussed later in Group No.
3 brought forward by the Liberal Party. We do not have a problem
with that. Because of what I would have to say is a rather deceitful
motion by the government, we will probably also support the Bloc
motion to try to put it back in, even though it is by a somewhat
convoluted method.
It is a good bill. It is unfortunate that we get into these debates on
various types of changes, some of which are political. The bill has
been drawn up out of eight possibilities that were looked at early on
which were quickly narrowed down to two and soon focused in on
one. The users, the employees, the service providers are all
working together to provide a not for profit organization so that
somebody is not going to try to get rich from this.
Could the bill have been better? I doubt there is a bill that is ever
passed that could not perhaps be slightly better. Maybe we will find
some improvements to make on it as we watch it unfold. We may
find there are some corrections we could make.
On the whole it has the support of the industry, albeit some
people are a little nervous because it is new and change is always a
little scary for a lot of people. It has the support of the users. It has
the support of the people who work in the industry. It will have the
support of the Reform Party as well.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the
chair, if we have completed debate on this group, maybe we could
call for the question and move on to the next group.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure the hon.
parliamentary secretary is being very co-operative but unless I am
2836
mistaken I think there are members from other parties who still
want to speak to these motions in Group No. 2.
My hesitation was more on the basis of the clock. I do not know
of too many members who would seek the floor to speak for 30
seconds or one minute. However, that is not a subject of concern to
any of us any more.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2836
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-243, an act
to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election
expenses), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(reimbursement of election expenses), as amended, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. McClelland: moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank members in the House and in
particular in the committee that dealt with the bill for their
assistance. I also thank the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and
Elections Canada for their assistance in putting the bill together.
The idea behind the bill was that election expenses, money paid
by the government, by the taxpayers of Canada, to registered
political parties is done so for good reason. There are some who say
there should be none paid and there are others who say it should be
paid differently. Today the country reimburses political parties and
candidates a certain amount of the expenses they incur in their
political activities.
In the case of individuals running for political office federally
there must be a hurdle to be met. That hurdle is that in addition to
whatever else one does one must get 15 per cent of the total votes
cast in one's constituency in order to qualify for reimbursement of
election expenses, which amounts to 22.5 per cent of whatever
qualifies.
The case with registered political parties federally was that all
that was required was that a minimum threshold be met in
spending. It seemed reasonable that if members had to receive a
minimum amount of popular support in their constituencies,
registered political parties should also receive some popular
support.
When the bill was examined in committee the question was
raised of what the threshold should be. There were those among us
who said the threshold should be fairly high and there were those
who said it should be fairly low.
The compromise of a 5 per cent threshold of a political party's
having to garner either 2 per cent of the votes nationally or 5 per
cent of the votes in the constituencies in which a political party
fielded candidates was a compromise between those who wanted a
lower number, say 2 per cent, and those who wanted a higher
number, say 8 per cent or 9 per cent.
In committee we determined that 5 per cent was a compromise
and that is how we arrived at 2 per cent of the total votes cast
nationally or 5 per cent of the votes in the constituencies in which a
political party ran candidates.
I want very much to thank all of the members who participated in
committee who helped give consideration to the bill. It does not
have a particularly large effect in the scheme of things on the
pocket book of the nation, although it is over $1 million we are
talking about, and that is not small change in anybody's lexicon.
(1735 )
Most important, it brings into the body politic the necessity to be
accountable for what we do as citizens and how we spend the
nation's treasury.
I welcome the debate that will follow and I thank everyone for
their participation and consideration of the bill. I thank Elections
Canada and affirm to everyone in the Chamber today this measure
fits exactly with the report of the Chief Electoral Officer submitted
to Parliament in February.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-243, sponsored
by the member for Edmonton Southwest.
Bill C-243 is a short bill which proposes amendments to only
one subsection of the Canada Elections Act. However, it touches on
the important issue of financial controls for the electoral process. I
believe this is fundamental to representative democracy.
We on this side of the House support Bill C-243. We do so for
three main reasons. Bill C-243 would promote both fiscal restraint
and fairness in the electoral system. With respect to fiscal restraint
there is a need to ensure that the scarce tax dollars are not directed
to electoral activities that receive marginal or trivial voter support.
With respect to fairness, there is a need to ensure the system for
financing electoral campaigns does not unduly restrict the electoral
choices of Canadians.
2837
The bill, we believe, represents a good balance between these
often conflicting goals. Let me explain this balance in greater
detail.
A registered political party is required to field candidates in at
least 50 electoral districts in order to obtain and maintain its
registration. Section 322(1) of the Canada Elections Act sets out
the conditions that allow registered political parties to receive 22.5
per cent reimbursement of eligible electoral expenses. In order to
claim reimbursement a registered political party must spend more
than 10 per cent of its election expenses limit as determined under
section 39(1) of the act.
Registered political parties become entitled to the
reimbursement no matter how few or how many votes they receive.
This reimbursement is tied in part to the political party's ability to
spend.
There has been criticism of this reimbursement regime. It
follows no logical except perhaps to reward the ability to spend,
which no electoral system should encourage.
We are familiar with the abuses of the last general election. We
noted in the House in May last year the platform of certain political
parties whose ideas did not seem to follow the national debate; the
Rhinoceros Party and the Yogic Flyers are two that come to mind.
Many Canadians perceived their campaigns perhaps as a humorous
interlude in the midst of a very serious electoral event. Others we
not amused.
We also noted at that time that although most of these registered
organizations received marginal public support, less than 1 per cent
of the total votes cast, Canadian taxpayers, as my hon. colleague
has already pointed out, were required to spend in excess of $1
million in eligible reimbursements. That did not sit well with many
Canadians. Questions were asked and Canadians wanted to know
why their government handed over such sums to subsidize
organizations whose objective did not appear to be one of a
political party.
I am not saying these organizations should not exist or that they
should not have the right to speak out or to field candidates in any
electoral event. That is their right. That is any Canadian's right.
(1740)
Rather, this debate focuses on the need to apply some fiscal
restraint. Moreover, this restraint should be applied in a logical and
fair manner.
We believe and agree with our hon. colleague that Bill C-243
would drop the current requirement that a political party spend at
least 10 per cent of its allowable election expenses to be eligible for
reimbursement. That makes sense.
The basis for reimbursement should not be a political party's
ability to spend. Instead, eligibility for reimbursement would be
limited to registered political parties which receive either 2 per
cent or more of the number of valid votes cast at the election or 5
per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts
in which the registered party endorsed a candidate. In other words,
reimbursement would be voter based. Political parties would be
rewarded for their efforts in convincing the electorate of the
validity of their principles and their overall platform. That makes
sense. The bill also ensures the deck is not stacked against the
establishment of new national or regionally based parties.
The royal commission on electoral reform and party financing
noted Canadians wanted a broader choice in the selection of their
electoral representatives. The bill is in keeping with that viewpoint.
In doing so it also supports the fundamental charter right of
freedom of expression.
The bill in our opinion is also in keeping with the red book
commitments of electoral financing. That is the second reason we
as Liberals rise in support of the bill. The red book noted the need
to limit the role of special interest groups in campaigns, the need to
impose tougher spending limits and the need to close certain
loopholes in election spending. Bill C-243 makes an important
contribution toward these objectives.
The third and final reason for our support concerns the
comprehensive manner in which the bill was developed. The
Canada Elections Act is a complex piece of legislation. In general
its provisions must not be considered independently from one
another. Piecemeal amendments to the act are usually discouraged.
However, in this case we can all point to the in depth review
conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs last fall.
The original proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest was amended, with his concurrence and support, to take
into account the concerns of all committee members. There was a
consensus that the bill, as amended, was worthwhile and would not
impact inadvertently on the other provisions of the act. It shows
what can be accomplished when members work together.
The government's support of the bill today is tangible proof of
its belief in the importance and the relevance of private members'
bills.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am a
bit out of breath, having rushed here from a meeting of the national
security committee, where we would have greatly appreciated the
presence of the hon. member for Scarborough West. Oh well,
maybe next time.
I took part in the examination of the bill known during the first
session of this Parliament as C-319, and now with reprinting and
Motion No. 1 it has become Bill C-243. As the hon. member for
Fundy-Royal has said, this is a compromise, reached after many
2838
efforts on all sides by all of the parties represented on the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest, if I may, for all the energy he has devoted to this entire
process, first of all, in having managed to get his bill into the
works, then in having defended it before the Sub-committee on
Private Members' Business, and then in having defended it
brilliantly before the procedure and House affairs committee.
My congratulations, not just to the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest, but also to the colleagues who contributed to this
compromise: the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, of
course, who chaired the committee, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who shared his experience with us, and the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who, as usual,
helped us draw up a better bill.
(1745)
As has been mentioned, but I will take the liberty of repeating it,
we focused on one thing: avoiding having public funds, the public
purse, used to support marginal groups, which, through sometimes
contorted interpretations of the law, manage to register as political
parties and, by spending an amount of money, manage to recover
certain amounts.
The aim was simply to eliminate the flakey. In no way did we
question the political programs or options of any party. That was
far from our intention. We set minimum criteria that enable parties
with some popular support to develop in a democracy. It was
certainly not our idea to limit access to Parliament, in practical
terms, to existing parties or to parties that had existed in the past.
The criterion we chose was that a party, to obtain reimbursement
from the public purse, had to have 2 per cent of national votes or 5
per cent of votes in ridings where they ran a candidate. With the
elections act requiring a party to have at least 50 candidates in
order to register, we felt this standard was high enough to eliminate
the completely flakey organizations while allowing the
development of political parties that failed to gather 30 or 35 per
cent of votes in an initial election.
It is a tricky balance to strike, but it was feasible with everyone's
patience and co-operation. Credit here must be given to the
member for Edmonton Southwest for endlessly contributing, with
constructive suggestions, to the improvement of the bill and
successfully creating a consensus on the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
Of course we have to come back to the funding of political
parties by looking at other aspects of the question. This does not
end the debate. An important point has been reached, however, and
unanimously I assume. But, we must not stop here. One day we
have to deal with the funding of political parties. In this case, we
are only dealing with reimbursement. But how are parties funded?
We had proposed in a motion which was voted down by this
House by only a few votes-members of both opposition parties
had overwhelmingly voted in favour of it-that contributions to
political party election funds at the federal level be subject to the
same rules as in Quebec. Contributions to political parties
registered in Quebec can only be made by individual voters and
cannot exceed $3,000 per party, a reasonable limit in a free and
democratic country.
This House came very close to passing such a measure and
having a bill to this effect. If I remember right, motion M-150
moved by the member for Richelieu dealt with this issue. We will
have to resurrect it some day because Canadians have the right to
know who is funding political parties in this country.
The rule is simple: ``Tell me who is funding you and I will tell
you whom you are serving''. The Bloc Quebecois has nothing to
hide, we are entirely funded by our own members. We went way
beyond the Canada Elections Act by choosing to accept
contributions only from our members who could vote and by
limiting contributions to $5,000. I must say that this maximum is
rarely reached, contributions are often more modest.
As most Canadians know, in Quebec, we raise money for our
party through all kinds of events, giving us the opportunity to have
a good time while holding more in-depth political debates, and
ensuring grassroot funding. By using this form of funding, the Bloc
Quebecois makes sure it is its own creature.
(1750)
We are only accountable to those who elected us. If a contributor
were to insist too much, it would be easy to say: ``Listen, I will
write you a cheque-in this case it would be an Air Canada
passenger coupon more than a cheque-I will write you a cheque,
here is your refund''. But there are no such situations.
If I had received $50,000 or $60,000 from the Royal Bank, I
could perhaps write the first cheque, but as things stand, I am not
sure my bank or caisse populaire would honour it. I would have a
hard time paying it back.
That is the problem they have on the other side. I hope the
problem has not yet reached the Reform Party, because they seem
unable to define their position on this.
Our friends on the other side have a problem: they get their funds
from large corporations, big business, and they are first and
foremost accountable to those who provide those funds. Tell me
who pays your way, I will tell you who you serve.
Of course, the president of a large corporation who contributed
to an election fund to the tune of a five or six-figure amount will
2839
probably get some private telephone numbers or cellular phone
numbers that will give him access to influential people.
In our party, it is very easy, our numbers are in the phone book.
All voters are welcome, whatever their political colours, blue, red,
multicolored or any other colour you want. Reformers are a bit on
the green side, I would say, but they are welcome too. When we are
elected, we are, as yourselves, here to represent everyone. We are
here to serve not only Bloc party members, but also Liberals,
former Conservatives and NDP members who need our support.
In conclusion, it is with this in mind that I send this message, so
we can debate the financing of political parties in the near future.
This would be a major reform, one of the great reforms of Canadian
parliamentary process, as it was in Quebec.
If we had to choose the most important piece of legislation in
Quebec in the past 50 years, the first prize would go to the political
party financing legislation, which only allows persons qualified to
vote, ordinary citizens, to finance political parties, not unions,
corporations or body corporates. This measure has revolutionized
parliamentary customs.
And if we were to adopt it here, of course, it is more difficult to
build up campaign funds with $20, $50 or $100 here and there,
although tax provisions allow for a generous refund of up to 75 per
cent on the first hundred dollars, which may help sometimes.
So, it is not so difficult, but we have to take the trouble to do it.
Of course, it is always easier to make a phone call and receive a big
cheque, but we stay in touch with the grassroots when we go from
town to town in our ridings, to see our constituents and ask them
for a contribution to a fund raising campaign. They are able to give
us the message, to tell us what they want us to do in the House of
Commons and which issues they want us to deal with first. This is a
wonderful way for us to keep in mind we are accountable first and
foremost to those who have given us, for a limited time, the seats
we are sitting in so that we can rise from time to time and make
some interventions such as this one, which is coming to an end.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in reference to the comments of the member for Bellechasse, in my
case and I hope in the case of every other member of this House, we
are here to serve our constituents no matter what their political
stripes may be. Whether they are NDP, Bloc, Liberal, Conservative
or Reform, I feel it is my obligation to serve my constituents to the
best of my ability. I am sure other members of the House feel
likewise.
I want to be on record as saying that given my druthers I would
advocate doing away with all taxpayer financial support to political
election campaigns. I would put the onus on political parties or
individual politicians to convince their constituents that their
political viewpoints or the capability of a specific candidate are
such that citizens would be willing to provide financial backing to
put forward those views or to support that candidate.
Because this view does not now seem to be accepted by the
current Canadian political establishment and because it is a step in
the right direction, I am pleased to address at third reading Bill
C-243 which will amend the Canada Elections Act and clamp down
on federal election refunds to fringe parties.
(1755 )
In 1974, section 322 of the Canada Elections Act was adopted,
establishing an expense related system that allowed any registered
party to receive a 22.5 per cent refund if it spent at least 10 per cent
of its eligible expenses on its election campaign. At the same time,
the new law imposed election campaign spending limits on parties
and qualified candidates who received at least 15 per cent of the
votes in their electoral district to receive a 50 per cent rebate on
their actual campaign expenses.
These reforms were important because they enabled greater
public scrutiny and assisted in restoring public confidence in the
political and electoral system.
At that time, the face of the Canadian multi-party system was
quite different than it is today. Those legislators did not foresee the
emergence of multiple fringe parties that have very limited public
support, but because of the money they spend during their
campaign have under current regulations become eligible for a
taxpayer subsidy.
Last fall, as a new member of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, I took part in the study of Bill C-319
which has been reintroduced in the new session of Parliament as
Bill C-243. During that study, modifications were adopted to
ensure that this amendment to the Canada Elections Act will not
impede the democratic process nor the ability of concerned citizens
to organize and put forward candidates to run on any set platform.
The goal of the amendment is to eliminate federal subsidies to
fringe groups that have little or no significant degree of public
support. Not only a matter of principle, it is in the interest of
effecting greater fiscal responsibility for the taxpayer.
I wish to reaffirm that Reform remains committed to the
elimination of all political subsidies. Our party, on forming a
government, will eliminate those political subsidies in keeping
with our commitment to party policies and principles born through
consultation with Canadians.
For more than 20 years now, Canadian taxpayers have paid large
election expense reimbursements and tax credits, thus directly
2840
supporting election campaigns and indirectly topping up political
war chests between election periods.
Canadian taxpayers object to being forced to finance and thus
support political parties they do not wish to support. This is
particularly true at a time when it is increasingly obvious that
political parties are able to raise the money required to run
campaigns.
Would they still be able to raise these funds, particularly the
fringe parties, if there were no political contribution income tax
deduction available? After the 1993 election, candidates eligible
for the Elections Canada reimbursement held an average surplus of
$1,518 in their accounts, without the federal subsidy.
Again, in 1993 the top five political parties reported a total
income of $63 million in campaign contributions but only actually
spent $31 million on the campaign. From these figures, it is evident
that the taxpayer could easily have been spared more than $7
million in reimbursements to the top five parties.
Further, knowing a 22.5 per cent reward will be paid based solely
on their election expenses, there is little incentive for registered
parties to be fiscally responsible in their campaign spending.
Initially, the purpose of the national campaign refund was to
ensure national or regional parties were kept alive and well
between elections. With new fund raising techniques, these seed
funds are no longer necessary. Current statistics indicate all parties
could well function without them. The grants are simply not
required to obtain voter support.
While it is undoubtedly difficult for political parties to give up
what has become a crutch, if the voter support is there the money
will follow. Campaigns can be run with less glitz and still be
effective.
Clearly, the total elimination of election reimbursements would
prove to be the most effective means to level the election playing
field. Moving back to the issue at hand, the official registration of
an organized political party gives it the right to issue tax receipts
for donations and affords that privilege at rates well in excess of
those granted to charitable organizations. I think it is
unconscionable that contributions to a political party should exceed
those given to an organization that is in direct support of people
who need that help.
The participation of fringe parties during the last two federal
elections has prompted a growing public concern that some groups
have used election campaigns as springboards for causes or issues
that are largely dismissed by the general population as irrelevant to
the political debate.
(1800)
In proposing the bill, the member for Edmonton Southwest is
attempting to gain the consensus of the House in agreeing to take
one small step toward an important electoral reform, a reform
which will not deny the ability of individuals to form new parties
and run candidates in even a relatively small number of ridings but
will put an end to one of the identified flagrant abuses of the public
purse.
The bill will amend section 322 of the Canada Elections Act by
imposing a minimum level of voter support as a condition to
receive a refund for election expenses. This will be achieved by
eliminating election refunds for registered regional parties which
fail to receive at least 5 per cent of the valid votes in the electoral
districts in which they run candidates, or authorizing refunds only
for registered national parties which receive a minimum of 2 per
cent of the total number of valid votes cast in that election. All
reimbursement requirements will remain the same.
The bill is of importance to all Canadians and of interest to
parties of all political stripes. It will save taxpayers an unnecessary
expense. Had it been law in the last general election, about $1
million in election refunds would have been saved. It will not
adversely effect regional parties geared to expressing the concerns
and representing the interests of that region. It will allow a smaller
faction to form a party, field candidates and promote a platform
specific to that constituency.
Politicians of all stripes must have the courage to lead by
example. This bill represents only a small step in the right
direction, but it is an important step because it is clear there is
substantial support for the concept of eliminating election
subsidies to political fringe groups.
It is my hope, and I have been given reassurance, that the House
will today give unanimous support to this important private
member's initiative. I am pleased to congratulate hon. members on
their sensible reaction to it.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act
(profit from authorship respecting a crime), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all listening to imagine a
country in which serial killers, child rapists, murderers and violent
criminals can, from their jail cells, write stories of their crimes, sell
the books to the citizens of the country within which they wreaked
such havoc and bank the money anywhere in the world.
Imagine a country in which these same heinous criminals can
collaborate with movie producers, sell the stories of their crimes,
be technical advisors to the creation of movies of their infamous
activities and bank their ill gotten profits anywhere in the world.
2841
Many Canadians would be shocked to know that country is
Canada. This is despite the fact that the common law of the
country has held for centuries that a criminal may not profit from
his or her crime. That is why a person who murders their spouse
cannot collect the victim's life insurance even as the named
beneficiary.
(1805)
Should the murderer write a book about their crime, about how
they plotted to kill their spouse in order to get the insurance
proceeds, and thereby make a profit from the sale of that book,
surely that is as much profiting from the crime as collecting the
insurance. Yet there is no prohibition of this in Canadian law.
A few might argue these miscreants have a right under our
charter to sell their stories in whatever form and pocket the profits.
The vast majority of Canadians, I included, do not share this view.
How can we prevent such a perversion of the most fundamental
principles of crime and punishment, indeed of justice? My private
member's Bill C-205 is an attempt to insure that no criminal may
profit from writing about or selling the story of their sordid
activities.
The idea for the bill was born in the summer of 1993 when I read
a news report that Karla Homolka was reported to be considering
selling her story for a profit. There may be some who do not
remember the name Karla Homolka. Let it simply be said she
pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the murder of two young girls in
southern Ontario, together with her spouse who was charged with
first degree murder, Paul Bernardo, who was subsequently
convicted.
In July 1993 I read a newspaper article. I quote two paragraphs
from it. I am sure most Canadians would not believe what they
were reading. The title of the article is ``Teale Free to Profit on
Story''. The House may remember that Bernardo and his wife
changed their name to Teale at one point: ``Karla Teale is free to get
rich by selling the story of her guilt in the sex slayings of two
teenaged girls, federal legal experts say. Officials in both the
justice ministry and corrections Canada said yesterday there is no
law barring Teale from selling her tale to the U.S. media networks
or to book publishers''. That is a shock to most Canadians.
At the time there was a publication ban on the case because
Bernardo had not yet been brought to trial. That publication ban is
now over. We know all the sordid details of the case. Yet she is by
the admission of the justice department and by the admission of
corrections Canada free to pander her story to whomever will buy
it, to take that money, put it in the bank and use it for her own
purposes, whatever they may be. There has to be something wrong
with a country and with a system of justice that would allow that.
That simply does not make sense.
How do we do something about it? Let us ask a rhetorical
question. If Karla Homolka is free to write a book or to sell her
story and collaborate on a screenplay, free to open up a Swiss bank
account, free to make whatever deals she wishes to make with
whatever producer is wanting to make some money from her story,
then why not Paul Bernardo? Why not Clifford Olson or Denis
Lortie or any of the other heinous criminals we can think of,
including the torturer murderers of Toronto shoe shine boy
Emmanuel Jacques, which shocked my community a few years
back?
In the summer of 1993 when I read this article I could not believe
it. Being a lawyer, the first thing I did was realize I must never
believe what is in the media without checking it. I looked in the
Criminal Code. Sure enough, there is no prohibition in the Criminal
Code. There is no prohibition anywhere for criminals selling their
stories. That was then.
(1810 )
Since then Ontario has passed a bill to prevent this kind of thing.
However, this is an extremely piecemeal approach, which I will
talk about later, because what we are basically saying is that if a
criminal happens to be housed for a period of time in Ontario they
cannot do something, but the minute they are housed in another
institution in another province they can do it.
The Criminal Code applies all across Canada. We are not the
United States with 50 separate Criminal Codes. Canada has only
one Criminal Code. Surely we should be able to tell criminals they
must not profit from telling the story of what they did. If they want
to clear their conscience by writing about it, fine. This bill does not
prevent anybody from telling their story or writing a book about
their story, but it does try to prevent them from selling their story
and making money on it.
I then consulted with colleagues of mine in the legal community
in Ottawa, in particular general lawyers. I thank in particularMr. Frank Brown. I also consulted copyright lawyers. I thank Mr.
John Macera from the Copyright Bar of Ontario for helping me and
working with me in formulating this bill.
I reiterate very clearly what this bill is and what it is not and on
what principles it is based. It is based really on two principles.
First, no criminal should ever profit from telling the story of their
crimes. Second, criminals need not be prevented from telling their
stories provided they do not profit from the telling.
This bill is a nutshell bill as it has only three sections. It is very
simple. It includes in the Criminal Code definition of proceeds of
crime any profit or benefit gained by a person or his family from
the creation of a work based on the indictable offence for which the
person was convicted.
2842
Thus we would be able to seize such profits under the current
Criminal Code provisions dealing with proceeds of crime. This
is clearly criminal law jurisdiction under our Constitution.
I underscore there is no difference in my view, as I said earlier,
with a criminal killing their spouse and then trying to collect the
proceeds of the insurance. The insurance has nothing to do with the
crime. The insurance is a private contract made under provincial
laws between the insured and the insurance company. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the actual crime. The insurance
policy may have been taken out 10 or 15 years earlier when the
couple were on their honeymoon perhaps. Therefore there is no
direct relationship between the insurance policy and the proceeds
of the insurance policy and the crime.
However, it is obvious no civilized society can convict someone
for the murder of their spouse, put them in jail and then force an
insurance company to pay a million dollar policy to the person who
killed his spouse. Even though the insurance policy is not directly
related to the actual murder, common law has always stated one
cannot profit from one's crime.
The same analysis can be made to either writing a book or selling
one's story. Obviously it is not directly related to the crime because
it clearly must occur after the crime. The crime has to be
committed first, otherwise there is nothing to write a book about or
sell the story. However, it is just as related in terms of the principle
of profiting from one's crime as an insurance policy is.
It does not make any sense to permit Paul Bernardo to sell a
screenplay of what he did to some American producer and then
have that money banked in Switzerland and used for whatever
purposes he wants. There has to be a way of dealing with this. For
reasons I will expand on in a moment, this bill will enable us to
deal with virtually the entire civilized world and not just Canada.
(1815)
The Criminal Code provision would be changed to include in the
definition of proceeds of crime a work created by someone who has
committed a crime. This alone would not help us if the story or
book were sold outside Canada. It would only help us inside
Canada. I will take members through the sentencing procedures in
a moment.
We still want to be able to go extraterritorially to prevent a
Bernardo or Olson from making a deal outside Canada and banking
the money outside Canada. How can that be achieved? We could
look to the Copyright Act, which again is federal jurisdiction.
There can be no question or debate about that.
The bill amends the Copyright Act to provide, first, that the
sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order
that any work based on the offence is subject to a new section in
the Copyright Act, which is in Bill C-205 and, second, to provide in
the new section that in such a work the copyright that would
otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the
property of the crown forever.
This would permit Canada to bring legal action in any country
that is a signatory to the Berne convention on copyright to enforce
its rights of copyright, including seizure of funds paid to the
criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos, et
cetera.
In three little sections of a bill criminals would be prevented
from profiting from their crimes and would vest the copyright of
any such story in the Government of Canada which could then
enforce its rights to prevent the sale in any country to which the
Berne convention applies, which is approximately 180 countries.
Let me use someone like Paul Bernardo as an example. What
would happen if this bill was in place? In addition to being
sentenced to life in prison, on conviction there would be a new
section in the Criminal Code which would automatically deem as
part of his sentence ``an order that the convicted person and any
work related to the offence be subject to section 12.1 of the
Copyright Act''.
Section 12.1 of the Copyright Act, which is also part of this bill,
provides that any work which is principally based on an offence or
the circumstances of its commission-the copyright of that work
which would otherwise belong to the offender-would belong to
Canada and would never revert to the offender. The work is a very
technical legal question defined in the Copyright Act.
If Mr. Bernardo wrote a book or screen play or collaborated on a
book or a screen play and was paid for so doing, he would be
unable to earn any money. He would have no copyright to sell
because the only copyright available is in the Government of
Canada which, of course, would seize the funds. That is how the
bill would work.
I want to stress how important it is that this be done on a national
level. It is ludicrous to suggest that this be done on a patchwork or
provincial basis. Ten different laws would be required. Even if
there were 12 different laws, one for each province and a law for
each of the territories, that were all identical and covered the
prisoner in Canada, it would not stop the prisoner from selling the
story anywhere else in the world, including the United States, and
putting the money in a Swiss bank account to use for any purpose.
(1820 )
It is not an answer, with great respect, to say it should be done by
the provinces. That is patchwork at best. If nothing else, it
guarantees that the story would be sold in the United States, West
Germany, Great Britain or wherever there is someone who is
2843
prepared to pay for the story in order to make money from it. We
all know that there have been some pretty gruesome movies made.
The bill would not stop criminals from writing a story and asking
that the crown send the profits to the victims. It would not stop
criminals from writing a story simply to purge their conscience.
The bill asks only one thing and that is to ensure criminals do not
receive money for telling their story.
I would like to advise the House that the bill has the endorsement
of the following organizations: the Canadian Police Association,
the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Families
Against Crime Today Society, End Violence Against Children,
Citizens United for Safety and Justice, Victims for Justice,
Emotional Support for Victims of Violence and their Family,
Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its
Termination, known as CAVEAT, Victims for Justice, and
Canadians Taking Action Against Violence.
I would like to read a few quotations from some of the
organizations that support the bill. I will begin with the Canadian
Police Association, which stated:
The Canadian Police Association is pleased to announce its support forMr. Tom Wappel in his efforts to prevent criminals from profiting from their
crimes. Mr. Wappel's Private Member's Bill will ensure that convicted criminals
will not be permitted to profit financially through writing a book or selling their
story. This bill will provide much needed protection for victims of crime, and
ensure that their pain and suffering is not exploited.
The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime stated:
The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is pleased to announce
our support for Mr. Tom Wappel's Private Member's Bill concerning the
proceeds of crime. If successful, this Bill would prevent criminals from
profiting from their crimes if, for example, they write a book detailing their
criminal activities.
This kind of legislation has been a long time coming, and will go a long way
in ensuring that crime does not pay. That principle is a longstanding value
entrenched in the Canadian justice system and Canadian society.
The letter from CAVEAT reads:
We would like to thank you for this Private Member's Bill which addresses
the spectre of convicted offenders who stand to profit by exploiting their
crimes-
Public confidence in a just and safe society depends on societal values being
reflected by the Justice System. Canadian society views violent offences, in
particular, with revulsion and distaste. Criminals and their families should
never be allowed to accrue rich rewards for their offences anywhere, anytime,
any place.
To that I say amen.
In closing, I want to, in advance, thank any and all members and
parties that choose to support this bill. I know there have been
discussions, but I do not wish to presume anything. I want to
remind members that we are at second reading. When this bill is
voted on we will be asked to approve the principle behind the bill.
It can then to go the justice and legal affairs committee. The
experts can look at it, fix whatever needs fixing and strengthen it by
perhaps putting in a section directing that the money must go to the
victims, for example. I am open to any reasonable proposal which
would strengthen the bill and which would meet its fundamental
principle, which is that no criminal should make a dime for
committing a crime.
(1825)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-205. The purpose of
this bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for
Scarborough West, is to prevent a convicted offender from
benefiting from his crime by creating a work, a book or a video for
example, describing part or all of the crime. This bill amends both
the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.
According to the popular saying, crime does not pay. Yet, an
individual convicted of an offence could now benefit from his
crime. I agree, for several reasons, with the hon. member for
Scarborough West that it is unacceptable and immoral for anyone
to profit from his or her crime.
First of all, profiting from one's crime in this case is no more
acceptable than letting a thief keep the money it has stolen or a
drug dealer keep the proceeds of his trafficking. Under this new
measure, conviction for an indictable offence, that is to say a major
crime, will automatically entail the forfeiture of the intellectual
proceeds of crime, namely royalties on the story.
Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime is ordered by the courts as a
matter of normal practice. This bill merely extends the power to
seize in order to prevent a person who has committed a crime to get
rich as a result. Not only would the offender be deprived of any
profit gained from the creation of a work based on the offence, but
so would a member of his family or a person dependent on him.
Otherwise, the offender might be tempted to create a work that
would benefit the members of his family.
The term ``family'' should be defined so as to include the father,
the mother, the children, the brothers and sisters, the current
spouse, and the spouse at the time the offence was committed, even
in case of a divorce. However, the term ``family'' should exclude
the victim of the criminal act, even if that person is a member of the
family of the offender.
Why should the victim, even if a member of the family, not be
allowed to tell what he or she went through and gain from it?
Publishing a book can be a legitimate means of expressing oneself
and sharing one's experience with the public.
2844
It would be too bad to punish victims, when we are taking all
sorts of steps to encourage them to speak out against crime and
to testify in the courts. It could be of benefit to everyone to hear
what they have been through.
Everyone remembers the Lortie affair, the corporal in the
Canadian army who fired a gun within the Quebec National
Assembly. His ex-wife has just put out a book about the events
surrounding the slaughter committed by her then husband.
The bill before us does not apply to this situation, becauseMrs. Lortie is publishing her book without the participation of her
ex-husband. The French text of the bill, for once, is an
improvement on the English and reveals clearly the intentions of
the member for Scarborough West.
The English text would gain in clarity if the words ``from him''
were added after ``collaboration or cooperation'', in order to
clearly indicate that the copyright would be confiscated only if the
author of the crime either wrote or contributed to the work.
Therefore, family members would be to benefit from the work
based on the offence if the author of the crime is not involved in the
creation of the work. I therefore support this bill, first of all to
prevent the author of a crime or the members of his family from
gaining any advantage from it, but also because the proposed
measure constitutes a measure of additional protection for the
victims. This is an excellent measure for ensuring that victims or
witnesses may testify against the author of a crime without losing
anonymity.
Why do so many people not speak out? Very often, they fear
publicity, fear having their names and what they experienced made
public. Without the amendment proposed today, all other sections
of the Criminal Code aimed at facilitating the laying of charges and
testimony by victims and witnesses during a criminal trial are
pointless. If the author of the crime can reveal victims' and
witnesses' names, relate in detail what he did to them and how they
reacted, do the victims and witnesses have any protection? They
have been tricked.
(1830)
They co-operated with the police, they testified in court. They
were led to believe their anonymity was protected by hearings in
camera or by a ban on publication. Then, once a conviction has
been obtained, the author of the crime writes a book and reveals all.
This is how they become victims a second time. We can assume the
private life of victims is totally unprotected without this measure.
This bill is in keeping with provisions already made and with
others under consideration, all with the aim of encouraging victims
of criminal acts to identify their aggressors and helping them
testify in court.
The Reform Party introduced a motion in this House on April 29
to have a Canadian declaration of victims' rights proclaimed. We
held that it was a provincial matter, but that the federal government
could, secondarily, legislate victims' rights under the Criminal
Code. The measure proposed today is such an example. We hope it
will receive the support of the House.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-205. I commend
the member from Scarborough for an excellent presentation of his
bill.
As legislators there are often times when we find there are
loopholes or something missing in our judicial system.
Unfortunately it is brought to our attention by the criminal
elements in our society. In the past couple of years there have been
two such cases which come to mind.
Back in March of this year we were informed that in an
agreement with a former warden Clifford Olson had produced a
dozen videotapes in prison modestly titled ``Motivational Sexual
Homicide Patterns of Serial Killer Clifford Robert Olson'',
recorded by a willing prison staff person. The purpose of the videos
was apparently to provide insight into Olson's motives for
committing 11 sex murders of children in B.C. before his arrest in
1981. He also agreed to provide new information about unsolved
murders.
Then Mr. Olson registered for a copyright on the series of
videotapes. This I might add is usually done for material with
commercial potential. The fact that Olson would receive copyright
protection of these videos was appalling at the time of discovery
and it remains so today.
Before the videotapes were exposed however, last fall my hon.
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley received a
letter from Olson who claimed to be writing a book for an
American publisher. He wanted a picture of her and permission to
use documents prepared by her office in his book.
In addition to the tapes and this letter, Mr. Olson registered a
copyright in 1989 on a book entitled Profile of a Serial Killer: The
Clifford Olson Case. He registered a second copyright in 1992 on a
volume entitled Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer: A Profile. Later
in August 1993 it was revealed in Saturday Night magazine that
Mr. Olson had access to a reporter for 18 months of regular
meetings, hundreds of hours of telephone conversations and active
correspondence with him. He revealed that he had already made 35
cassette tapes of his autobiography.
As the House can see, Mr. Olson has produced a number of
pieces of work with the potential for him to profit from them. In the
case of the videotapes, they are the property of Correctional
Services Canada and not Olson. He will therefore not profit, not
2845
this time. However we have to prepare for the next time. The threat
of him being able to profit from any such material always exists.
Olson has already manipulated the system for personal profit on
one occasion. This was back in 1981 when the RCMP made a
contract with him which allowed him to benefit financially from
the deaths of the children he murdered. In 1982 the parents of
Olson's victims sued Olson in civil court to have the money taken
away from Olson and his family. The case was taken to the supreme
court but unlike the American system, there were no laws in
Canada to prevent him from profiting from these crimes. Beyond
these frustrations is the fact that it has forced the families of
Olson's victims to relive their tragedies again. These families
feared all along that Olson would profit from the deaths of their
children.
(1835)
On March 17, 1996 I received a letter from Gary Rosenfeldt, one
of the founders of Victims of Violence. He expressed fear that
Olson or his lawyer might try to sell the videotapes to an American
tabloid television program. It is clear that in the past couple of
years he has produced enough work that has the potential to gain
profit. This is why it is so important for Bill C-205 to be passed
immediately into law.
This issue was once again revived in the wake of the
manslaughter conviction of Karla Homolka who was sentenced to
12 years in prison for her part in the killings of teenagers Kristen
French and Leslie Mahaffy. There was speculation that Homolka
could be offered a television or book deal. Once again we are faced
with the situation where there is no law barring Homolka from
selling her story to the U.S. media networks or book publishers.
According to the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, the sensationalism
began with a book called Lethal Marriage. Since that time there
have been many articles published and the knowledge that at least
three more books, a movie contract, magazine specials, TV
specials and talk show offers have given Mrs. Mahaffy no comfort,
only apprehension as to whether Homolka or Bernardo will
collaborate in any of these productions.
Beyond these two cases we have had two others where the people
have profited from their crimes. Roger Caron, a former bank
robber, would not have been able to collect royalties on his
Governor General's award winning book Go-boy which he wrote
while still in prison. In the case of Lawrencia Bembenek, she would
have had to forgo payment for her book Woman on Trial published
in 1993. In this case she used the proceeds to help pay Canadian
lawyers for the work they did on her case. She probably would not
have written the story otherwise.
In all of these cases, Bill C-205 would deny these individuals the
opportunity to profit from their crimes. This is a much needed step
in the right direction. In today's society there is a tendency to make
criminals celebrities with no regard to the moral questions
involved. Today we have criminals collaborating on movie deals,
becoming technical advisers in the creation of their movies and
simply banking the profits.
Sensationalism is at the forefront of most major news stories.
The more sensational the story, the more profit there is to be made.
It is bad enough when people want to profit from someone else's
tragedy but the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from
the crimes is outrageous. It is simply hard to believe that Canada
would allow serial killers, child rapists, murderers and violent
criminals to write their stories of crime and be able to bank the
money anywhere in the world.
Criminal acts are now held in such heroic stature that the
escalation of these horrible crimes may never be deterred. Now is
the time for action and this piece of legislation is the kind of law we
need. We have to send a message that crime does not pay.
My hon. colleague for Scarborough West has sought to rectify
these situations in his Private Member's Bill C-205. He has
attempted to ensure that no criminals will profit from writing about
or selling the story of their criminal activities.
Many of the victims of crime have been pushing for this
legislation for a long time. The suffering these families endure on a
good day is overwhelming, but as Leslie Mahaffy's mother states:
``We cannot afford not to stop the sale of violence, profit from
crime, especially murder which is obscene. Murder, violence,
degradation, dehumanization, pornography are currently being
marketed in novels, electronic games, slasher movies, videos and
this must be stopped''.
All in all, this legislation will ensure that victims and their
families are not further victimized by criminals. We must do more
for victims of crime and ensure that their rights and freedoms are
respected as well. It is only right that the proceeds from such
crimes should revert to the crown in order to reimburse society for
some of the costs for ensuring safety in our society. Once and for
all, the victims of crime must be considered before the criminals
themselves.
(1840)
With these thoughts in mind, I intend to move an amendment in
the future which will allow the victims of crime to benefit directly.
This is based on a model developed in the province of Ontario. In
1994 legislation was adopted that empowered the Attorney General
of Ontario to seize all proceeds earned by criminals selling their
stories. Under Bill 85, all money made by criminals would be sent
to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which would directly
help the families of the victims of crime. If this is possible
provincially, there is no reason it could not work federally.
2846
Therefore, I will be working toward this amendment which will be
presented to the justice committee in the weeks to come.
Once again, my congratulations to the member for Scarborough
West. May this bill become law.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-205 which
was introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. I
commend the hon. member for all the hard work and detailed
research he has done with respect to this bill, as he has done in
other cases.
The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code and to the
Copyright Act. I will take a few minutes to review and comment on
the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.
The bill amends part XII.2 of the Criminal Code so as to include
in the definition of proceeds of crime, any profit, benefit or
advantage gained by a person convicted of an indictable offence or
by any member of his or her family from the creation of a work
based on the offence. This amendment would extend to such
profits, benefits and advantages the existing provisions of the
Criminal Code respecting the search, seizure and restraint of
proceeds of crime, as well as the provisions concerning
confiscation.
The bill also provides that a sentence for an indictable offence is
deemed to include an order that any work based on an offence is
subject to a new section which this bill proposes to the Copyright
Act. The amendment to the Copyright Act would have the effect of
vesting in Her Majesty any copyright in a work that would
otherwise belong to the convicted person which is based on the
offence for which he or she was convicted.
I would like to state at the outset that I am extremely
sympathetic to the motives which lie behind my distinguished
colleague's efforts to amend the law in this area and to those who
have spoken in favour of this change. The phenomenon of
criminals writing or threatening to write accounts of their crimes in
exchange for money or for other benefits is a relatively new thing
in Canada.
The very idea that a criminal who has committed a violent act or
a series of violent acts, such as in the Bernardo case, could actually
benefit financially from the recounting of his or her criminal acts is
extremely offensive to many. If the victims of those crimes are
made to be subject to those accounts, are they not being victimized
again?
It is therefore something which I believe should be addressed
and I commend my colleague for attempting to do so through this
bill. The real question that remains is how to achieve that goal
without unduly limiting the expression of ideas in a free and
democratic society.
The bill we have before us, and more particularly the
amendments which my distinguished colleague proposes to the
Criminal Code, contain certain fundamental difficulties. As I
mentioned earlier, this bill would amend part XII.2 of the Criminal
Code of Canada which deals with the proceeds of crime. It should
be noted that part XII.2 of the Criminal Code contains a
comprehensive and complex legal regime designed to seize,
restrain and ultimately confiscate proceeds from the commission of
enterprised crime offences or designated drug offences.
(1845 )
However, the moneys sought to be regulated by my colleague's
bill are not derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a
crime. On the contrary, they would be derived from a totally
legitimate activity, writing a book or some other similarly
legitimate activity. The simple act of writing a book is not in and of
itself a criminal offence even if that book is a recounting of
criminal activities for which the author has been convicted.
On the other hand, part XII.2 is meant to be engaged only when
the proceeds are derived from the commission of a crime, which is
simply not the case with the writing and publication of a book or
selling the rights for a movie.
The proposed amendments to part XII.2 of the Criminal Code
would subvert the purpose of this part of the code by enabling the
use of the provisions of this part of the code to confiscate moneys
earned from a non-criminal act. Even if one were to attempt to
characterize moneys derived from the publication of a book written
by a convicted person as the proceeds of crime, it would be almost
impossible to justify trying to deprive moneys earned by a member
of the convicted person's family who has not been convicted of
anything and who has written a book about the convicted person's
criminal activities.
Any regulation imposed on income earned by an individual from
materials such as books, videos, movies or other activities relating
to his or her criminal activities raises constitutional concerns, most
notably concerns relating to the charter. Section 2(b) of the charter
guarantees to all Canadians the freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression, including freedom of the press and other media
communication.
It has been suggested this bill's amendment to the Criminal Code
does not infringe or restrict freedom of expression. It is argued that
the regulation of moneys earned from materials relating to an
individual's criminal activity does not impair freedom of
expression in any way. The person is always at liberty to publish
accounts of his or her crimes, but any money earned from the
publication would go to the government.
If this line of argument were followed, regulation of the financial
exploitation of criminality would not offend section 2(b) of the
charter. However, there is another approach which results in a
different conclusion. This approach to the characterization of this
2847
legislative initiative would result in the finding of a prima facie
breach of section 2(b) of the charter.
The approach holds that any attempt to regulate the moneys paid
to a convicted person for publishing an account of his or her crimes
amounts to a content based restriction on freedom of expression.
The logic behind this approach rests on the fact that the only basis
for depriving an author of any financial benefit from such an
account of his or her crime is the content of the publication or
expression itself. Typically the courts have found that content
based limitations violate section 2(b) of the charter.
This initiative may also raise constitutional division of powers
concerns. I mention this because the division of legislative powers
established by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867
assigns responsibility over certain activities to the federal
government and other activities to provincial jurisdictions. Section
91(27) gives federal Parliament the exclusive power to enact
criminal laws and laws relating to criminal procedure. Sections
92(13) and 92(16) permit provincial legislatures to enact laws
affecting civil rights in matters of a private nature.
(1850)
In the Queen v. Zelinski a bare majority of the supreme court
held that an accused person could be ordered to compensate
victims of crime provided that such an order was an element of the
sentencing process in criminal proceedings. This case dates back to
1978. Subsequent jurisprudence suggests the creation of a civil
right of action for breach of the criminal law is very likely ultra
vires of Parliament. That is, outside the jurisdiction of Parliament.
It has been suggested the laws seeking to attach money earned
from publishing accounts of criminal activity do not fit
comfortably within section 91(27) of the Constitution Act of 1867,
within the federal powers.
Part XXI.2 of the Criminal Code already contains a legal regime
designed to assist in confiscating proceeds obtained as a
consequence of the commission of certain designated crimes.
However, the moneys sought to be regulated here have only the
most tenuous relationship to the crimes of which the individual has
been convicted.
Numerous publications have made significant literary, historical,
criminological, sociological and psychological contributions to
society. One such book, Go Boy by Roger Caron, which depicts a
number of bank robberies the author committed, resulted in the
author's receiving the governor general's award for literacy.
The act of writing a book, producing a movie, even when based
on a crime, is not criminal. The moneys earned directly from those
acts are sought to be taken away from the author. Simply put, it is
difficult to characterize these as fruits or proceeds of crime.
Rather, the financial exploitation of crime is more accurately
characterized as the regulation of contractual rights, that is, within
the legislative power of the province. This has been enacted in one
province and certainly options are open for other provinces to to
follow the lead of Ontario.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
correctly, he is saying that if the federal government were to
proceed with this bill, some aspects of it would be contrary to the
charter.
Yet he is making the recommendation that the provinces have the
authority to do this and that they would not be enacting a piece of
legislation contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. I see an
inconsistency in this that is a justification for the government not to
support the bill.
In other words, if Ontario's Bill 84 is constitutionally sound, I
am sure a similar bill passed by the government at the federal level
would be constitutionally sound as well. Therefore I do not
understand the argument of my colleague across the way.
I rise in support of this bill. It would prohibit a criminal from
profiting by selling, authorizing or offering the story of their
crimes. I commend the member for Scarborough West for putting
forward this bill.
It is unfortunate but not surprising the government he represents
does not see fit to initiate a bill of this nature, one which reaffirms
the rights of victims, the right not to be revictimized.
We need this bill because no criminal should ever profit from the
exploitation of their crime.
(1855)
During the heart wrenching testimony of the grandmother of
murder victim Sylvain Leduc in front of the justice standing
committee, we heard the horrible graphic details about that heinous
crime.
We heard about Sylvain. We heard how he was taken from his
home in the middle of the night, how he was tortured and beaten
until he died. We learned about the sadistic mutilation of the two
young women who were also held hostage during this night of
terror.
We watched as the tears rolled down the cheeks of Sylvain's
mother and welled up in the eyes of those in attendance as this
horror story was related.
We watched the sadness and the rage surface within Sylvain's
grandmother as she relived the nightmare of her grandson's brutal
murder. We can only imagine the pain and suffering Sylvain's
family has endured and continues to endure.
Hopefully we will never know this kind of anguish. To allow that
anguish to keep festering, to allow the wound to be opened and
reopened is wrong. If this bill does not pass, if we do not stop
thieves, sexual offenders and murderers like those who took the life
of Sylvain Leduc from receiving money for telling their story in
2848
any form we will simply be adding to those horrendous crimes and
to the suffering of those who have been victimized.
In the absence of this bill not only would victims and victims'
families have to endure reading or watching the horrific events they
lived, they would be watching knowing their sexual attacker or
their son or daughter's killer was profiting financially. Criminals
and their families should never be allowed to accrue rewards for
their criminal offences anywhere, any time or any place.
How a civilized country like ours could and would allow
criminals like Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka or Clifford Olson to
reap any kind of reward for their sordid activities is
incomprehensible.
The bill from the member for Scarborough West will not prevent
a criminal from creating a work or collaborating on a work based
on their offence, which many argue is within their charter rights.
However, it will prevent those convicted of an indictable offence
from profiting from their offence. I am sure it will eliminate the
monetary motive for proceeding in the first place.
I support CAVEAT's proposal with regard to this bill that any
proceeds from the exploitation of crimes should revert to the crown
for restitution to the victims of crime and to recompense society for
the enormous financial costs of enforcing the law.
The media reported very accurately and graphically the murder
of Sylvain Leduc and the gang torturing of his female cousins. The
press also adequately portrayed the shock, rage and sadness of the
family, friends and the community. However, what it failed to
reveal was the less sensational part of this horror story, the part of
the story regarding money. We do not hear much about the
financial cost of crimes.
Unbeknownst to the Canadian public which read daily about this
crime, Sylvain's single mother on welfare did not have enough
money to bury her son. Although Sylvain's mother Carol applied to
victims of compensation and qualified for emergency help, she was
told it would be years before she receives any money.
Fortunately for her enough money was collected from families
and friends to assist her. If this was not bad enough, I would like to
mention the wonderful treatment Carol received from our
bureaucrats.
Sylvain was killed on October 25. Three days later, October 28,
Carol was called by the welfare office to tell her that since her son
had died her cheque for the month of November would be reduced.
Bill C-205 is about victims. It is about the rights of victims,
rights that are being denied in this country in favour of criminal
rights. I have to stop here for a moment and touch on those
individuals who may oppose the bill on the basis that this kind of
activity would somehow have a rehabilitative effect on the
offenders, that somehow the writing of these stories, the
participation in videos or movies is somehow a rehabilitative
procedure. I am sure we will hear that if this bill goes before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I cannot help but
recall those witnesses that have appeared before the standing
committee on a number of bills who have cried out for greater
rights for those who have been convicted and are serving time in
institutions.
(1900)
I remember reading the report of Madam Louise Arbour on the
riot in the Kingston prison for women. She made an enormous
effort to support the rights of the inmates who had rioted, had
assaulted and had completely disregarded the rights of the guards
whom they attacked and the responsibility of the authorities to
maintain security and order.
The author of that report even criticized the correctional facility
for not ensuring that the six inmates, after they had continued to
riot for three or four days before being placed into segregation, had
one hour of recreational activity during the period of rioting. It was
a shock to me to read that report. It should be mandatory reading
for every member of the House.
I would like to read from a letter which Sylvain's grandmother
wrote to the Minister of Justice and which she read to the justice
committee. If this testimony does not move all members of the
House to support Bill C-205 I do not know what will. The letter
reads:
The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies
naked and cold in a morgue-
My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death; I could
not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I couldn't stand it until I knew that
he had clothes on him.
My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a
special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this
``Intestinal Fortitude''-I call it my soul. It is there that love, hope, hate,
courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God
dwell-The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At
times it is numb, other days it is like Jello. It has lost its desire for living. It
doesn't care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its desire for food,
sex, enjoyment, travel, books, etc. There is an emptiness there, a hole that will
never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it-
Horror and fear live there also. Sylvain's murderers have done this to
me-When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and
horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull
these horrible pictures-
2849
I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past
tense. It takes so much energy to get there. I find it all so hopeless. I feel like a
dead flower that's been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.
Once again I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West
for helping to put a stop to the pain and suffering of Sylvain's
family, Kristen French's family and Leslie Mahaffy's family and
all the families of victims of violent crimes. I support this private
member's bill, as I believe the vast majority of Canadians do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I take notice that the hon.
member for Cumberland-Colchester has been in the House for
this full hour of debate. Possibly she might lead the next hour of
debate on Bill C-205 when it returns to the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 7.04 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)