CONTENTS
Friday, February 14, 1997
Bill C-41. Motion for second reading of and concurrencein Senate amendments 8121
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8127
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8133
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8133
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8133
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8134
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8134
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8136
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8136
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8137
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8137
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8139
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8139
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8140
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8140
Bill C-82. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8144
Motion for concurrence in 55th report 8144
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8144
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8145
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments 8146
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8146
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8148
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments 8149
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8149
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8149
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8149
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time andconcurred in.) 8153
Bill C-81. Motion for second reading 8153
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 8158
Bill C-249. Motion for second reading 8158
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 8164
8121
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 14, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved the second reading of, and
concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-41, an
act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements
Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and
Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I am before the House to discuss Bill C-41.
The bill is before us again to approve the amendments made by the
Senate. The bill received third reading in the House of Commons
on November 18, 1996 with your support, and I ask all of you in
this House to voice your support again today so we may begin
working on implementing this legislation-
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary
that when he uses the word you it is to refer to the Chair rather than
to all of his colleagues.
Mr. Kirkby: I ask the House through the Speaker to voice its
support again today so that we can begin working on implementing
this legislation which will modernize our child support system and
protect the needs of children after divorce.
This legislation confirms our promise to put children first, a
promise we made when we announced the child support strategy.
This strategy was announced in last year's budget by the finance
minister. It includes child support guidelines, a change in the tax
treatment of child support and the redirecting of all revenues that
are generated from such change to poor children. It also improves
the enforcement measures. All of these changes are expected to
come into force on May 1, 1997.
The child support reforms are a product of six years of
collaboration with the provinces and territories through the
federal, provincial and territorial family law committee. For six
years the provinces and the federal government worked closely
together to pool research efforts and moneys to develop a child
support formula suited to the Canadian context and based on solid
economic research of family expenditures on children.
Bill C-41 is also the product of extensive consultation with all
stakeholder groups. At least three separate series of consultations
were conducted and hundreds of submissions were received and
reviewed. Over 8,000 copies of the federal, provincial and
territorial family law committee's original report have been
distributed across the country.
All governments and groups have had a significant impact in
some way on the guidelines. The result is that no one group is
completely satisfied. Each group would have done a number of
things differently had it had sole control of the project. However,
most of them have put aside their own preferences in favour of the
goal of national consistency and co-ordination.
There is a clear recognition that these guidelines are a great
improvement over the current system, and it is recognized by the
courts and family law practitioners who are already-
An hon. member: A quorum count, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is correct. There are not 20
members in the House. Call in the members.
(1010 )
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair sees 20 members now.
Mr. Flis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It does not fall within
the standing orders or the House rules for a member of the Reform
Party to stick his head in, call quorum and sneak out when there is
not one Reform member sitting in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The member will know, as well as the
Chair, that we are not supposed to comment on the absence of
members of any party from the House for longstanding reasons.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about the absence of
members from the House but I will address my comments to the
members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party present.
8122
Most of the stakeholders have put aside their own preferences
in favour of the goal of national consistency and co-ordination.
There is a clear recognition that the guidelines that have been put
in place are a great improvement over the current system. That
is recognized by the courts and family law practitioners who are
already using the draft guidelines on an advisory basis.
Most provinces are now expected to implement these guidelines,
learn from the experience and work together to improve them. The
province of Quebec is the only province that has already passed
legislation to introduce its own guidelines through regulatory
process in order to coincide with the May 1 date.
Bill C-41 will allow these guidelines to also apply to orders
made under the Divorce Act. Without Bill C-41 there would be in
Quebec two different systems for determining child support orders,
one for separation and common law relationships and one for
divorce.
This bill is about children. It is about ensuring that their needs
are met now and in the future. This bill will help parents come to an
agreement more quickly on the issue of child support and thereby
reduce conflict.
Finally, Bill C-41 also recognizes that some governments need
to continue to focus on enforcement of support orders. New
measures are introduced to assist the provinces and territories in
this regard.
We have also heard that there are issues other than child support
on the minds of many Canadians. Custody and access were raised
repeatedly throughout the study of the bill by both Houses. We are
not ignoring this issue. We are simply completing the task started
six years ago by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The long awaited child support reforms, custody and access, was
the subject of public consultation prepared by the department in
1993. The officials of the justice department have already started to
work on this issue through the federal, provincial and territorial law
committee.
To reaffirm our commitment to addressing this issue, the
Minister of Justice has agreed to move that the government
establish a joint House and Senate parliamentary review of custody
and access. It is my hope that interested Canadians and
stakeholders will take the opportunity to voice their concerns to the
parliamentary committee.
We will be making an important first step in finding solutions if
we all work together. As you know, Mr. Speaker, two amendments
were made to Bill C-41 by the standing Senate committee on social
affairs, science and technology. That is why we have the bill before
the House again today. I would like to comment on the impact of
these amendments to the Divorce Act.
First, some committee members had expressed concerns about
the definition of child of the marriage in Bill C-41 which was
introduced for the first time in explicit reference to the pursuits of
reasonable education-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver North.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I ask for a quorum
count, please.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is one of the joys of the
Speaker's job.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: There now appears to be a quorum. The
hon. parliamentary secretary.
(1015 )
Mr. Kirkby: Our intention in adding these words was to codify
the existing case law which currently allows for child support to be
ordered where children are over the age of majority, pursuing
post-secondary education and where the parents have the ability to
support them.
However there were some concerns expressed by the senators
that the addition of these new words could have been interpreted
more broadly than the current case law. This was not acceptable to
some people. As a compromise, the Minister of Justice agreed to
remove the words ``pursuit of reasonable education'' so that the
current case law will continue to apply. Through the words ``or
other cause'' the courts will continue to have the discretion to
award support for post-secondary education where the children
have reached the age of majority and where parents have the
financial ability.
Second, Bill C-41 through the introduction of child support
guidelines reaffirms the objective that both parents have a joint
financial obligation to support their children. However the minister
understood the concerns raised by some members of the committee
that this objective was no longer apparent since it was removed
from the act along with the other provisions which were part of the
concept of broad discretion which is currently used in the
determination of child support. This broad discretion concept
defeated the objectives of the guidelines and as such we needed to
remove it from the act.
The minister has always supported the objective that both
parents are financially responsible for the needs of their children.
This obligation is included in the guidelines but to give it more
importance the minister agreed that it be reintegrated in the act to
ensure that any guidelines will respect that principle.
The child support guidelines are not in this bill but will be
introduced through the regulatory process. The provision on shared
custody drew some attention of some senate committee members.
They were concerned that it only applied to situations where both
parents equally shared the custody of their children. Committee
members suggested that the courts should be able to depart from
8123
the table of awards where both parents shared custody of children
for 40 per cent of the time.
It should be noted that this was the family law committee's
original recommendation which had been changed at the request of
many legal organizations across the country who were concerned
that this would increase litigation on the more difficult issue of
custody and access. We agreed to introduce the provision in the
guidelines but we will monitor it closely as with any other
provision in the guidelines.
This legislation calls for a review by the Department of Justice to
be placed before each House of Parliament within five years. Until
then the Department of Justice will closely monitor the
implementation of every provision with the provinces and
territories through the implementation task force. It will also be
seconded by an advisory committee which will provide specialized
advice on issues as they arise. If changes to the guidelines are
required, we will be able to bring them through relatively quickly
given that the guidelines will be introduced through the regulatory
process.
We are still aiming to have this bill in effect by May 1, 1997 to
coincide with the tax change. I urge all members of this House to
again support this bill which will bring such improvement to the
area of family law. For over 50 years the current system has been in
place and it is time for a change. Six years of study and extensive
review by the provinces and by all stakeholders working within the
family law system have brought about the proposals that are being
brought forward by the minister today.
I wish to thank all of those who have been involved in improving
this legislation and making it what it is. That being said, as was
indicated, there will be a chance as the changes are implemented to
review the bill on a continuous basis so that changes where
appropriate can be made. But this is one step forward and another
bit of progress by the Minister of Justice. We thank him for his
efforts and we thank all those who have participated in this process.
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to speak to Bill C-41, an opportunity we have had
several times before. We are having a debate this morning because
the Senate or should I say the other place, in parliamentary terms,
wanted to introduce amendments. This means discussing the bill
again.
For the benefit of the public, I may recall that we went through
the usual procedure: first reading, second reading, referral to the
justice committee which considered the bill, and then third reading.
Now once again, the other place wants to put in its two cents' worth
and thus delay the proceedings.
As a result, the Minister of Justice was obliged to suggest a
compromise. Why? Because he hopes to see this entirely legitimate
bill, which is basically sound and pursues entirely valid objectives,
passed and implemented before the next election.
This again raises the question of the usefulness and relevance of
the other place. As we know, it is always one step behind. These
people are not elected but appointed by the government when
vacancies occur. Often at the beginning of a government's
mandate, we have a situation where the former government's party
has a majority in the other place. In this case, a few months ago the
Conservative Party had a majority. And since the other place
pursued the interests of the Conservative Party, this tended to delay
the parliamentary process.
It has been like this since the beginning of Confederation. When
government is replaced, the party that was in power before is still
able to delay implementation of legislation by resorting to all kinds
of stratagems in the other place.
Mind you, these people are not elected. In my riding, I always
ask people the same question: ``Do you know the senator who
represents you in Ottawa?'' I know who it is now. I do not think we
can mention names, but she is getting to be known.
Some hon. members: Yes we can.
Mr. Dubé: We can? I am referring to Mrs. Bacon. She does not
live in the riding, but she bought a piece of property in the riding of
Lévis to be eligible for an appointment to the Senate. Does anyone
ever hear about this senator? This is par for the course in the other
place.
Even since the Bloc Quebecois came here, we have said that
reforms are necessary. It just does not make sense. First, it costs a
lot of money, more than $40 million annually, and second, it is
increasingly obvious that this institution tries to delay the
legislative process. Occasionally, but such cases are few and far
between, we get some new legislation from the other place. But
more often, as in this case, people who are opposed to a bill use the
other place to delay its implementation, although because of the
usual majority in Parliament, the bill is passed in any case, so the
delay is only temporary.
So duplication is at work here. I say that right away, because the
compromise proposal is to have a joint committee of senators and
members of the House of Commons consider the bill's provisions
on child custody and visiting rights. I have nothing against the
principle. But it is not, in our view, sufficient reason to vote against
this bill. Members of the official opposition were among those who
supported the bill because of its objectives. One of the main
provisions of the bill is to exempt support payments from existing
tax provisions.
8124
(1025)
As we know, this led to a war of almost historical proportions.
The spouse who received the support payments was required to pay
tax, while the one who made them did not. Often the children were
the victims of this war of court orders and legal wranglings.
I would like to call to mind a situation known to everyone, that
Canada now has more poor children than when the Liberals came to
power, and the numbers are still rising. One child in five is living
under the poverty line. In 80 per cent or more of cases, the children
living in extreme poverty are in single parent families. In most
cases-and this must be said, though as a man I do not want to start
a war of the sexes over this-women are the single parents who
have to provide for their children. More and more often,
unfortunately, these women have to do so under extremely difficult
conditions. This is something that cannot be repeated too often.
This bill makes it possible to avoid crises when taxation time
comes around, but it does create some rather special situations. The
bill is not entirely perfect because, under the Constitution, divorce
comes under federal jurisdiction while, under the civil code,
marriage in Quebec is a provincial matter under the Napoleonic
code. That is one of the dimensions of the distinct society no one
wants to recognize.
So, people get married under provincial law and divorced under
federal. This is a strange situation, a sort of complicated maze. In
today's society, many couples decide not to marry but to live
together as common-law couples, and there are various laws
recognizing this situation. This is a very good thing, except that, in
such cases, the matter of divorce and the guidelines suggested by
the bill are under federal jurisdiction. If we take the case of
individuals who are living common-law and have children, when
problems involving separation arise, application of the guidelines
is a purely provincial matter. You can see how things get very
complicated at that point.
I have just described the situations of two couples with children,
one a married couple for whom the guidelines on support payments
apply, the other a case of separation after the divorce, where the
federal guidelines apply. In the case of a break up of a common law
relationship where children are involved, support is exclusively a
provincial matter, in the case of Quebec.
Under an imperfect system like federalism, responsibilities are
rather haphazardly distributed. I am not saying this because I am a
sovereignist. It is a fact. The Quebec Civil Code governs questions
of separation outside marriage.
We could talk at length on this, but an analogy is called for. This
is not the only case where this sort of situation prevails. The federal
government has the annoying tendency to use the system's
ambiguity whenever it can to impose its guidelines in all sorts of
areas on the provinces.
(1030)
By way of example, and only to illustrate the case and not to talk
about it, let us consider the bill on tobacco. This bill concerns
health, a provincial matter, but the federal government justifies its
intervention in the field by pointing to infractions and sentences,
which come under the Criminal Code.
Bill C-41 concerns support, family law and other related matters.
There is good reason the bill was introduced by the Minister of
Justice. Once again the federal government is using the Criminal
Code to justify its intervention. The Criminal Code is federal, but
the Civil Code is provincial.
It is a bit strange. We must admit that we should never have
legislated in the area of support, separation or divorce. Ideally, in a
society, there should be no need to legislate people into paying
support. They should be able to do so themselves, because, if their
children are involved, it is their responsibility.
I will always find it, I would not say abnormal, but strange that,
after living a period of time together-years-a couple breaks up
and turns to the law to resolve their problems, because they are
incapable of doing so themselves. It is too bad, really. It is a real
shame to end up in this sort of situation. The ideal would be to have
people recognize their responsibilities toward their children.
It is sad for me to see people, mostly women but men also, walk
into my riding office and complain about having been treated
unfairly by the justice system on suppport issues. Sometimes they
cannot afford to pay. It is a shame when, as is often the case, there
is hatred where there used to be love and people seek revenge. I
always find this unfortunate. The children who are brought into this
world did not ask for it, but once there are here, we should provide
for them.
While we support the bill, I take this opportunity to deplore how
little compassion this government has shown so far for the poor in
our society. It is unfortunate that, this week again, the federal
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister commented on how
good things are in Canada.
No doubt, on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will repeat again
and again that his government successfully exceeded its federal
deficit reduction targets. It has done so at the expense of the
disadvantaged and the unemployed, and by cutting transfer
payments to the provinces.
When cuts are made in transfer payments, one has to know what
that means. The cuts occur mainly in services to the children,
8125
because they reduce transfers for social assistance, health and
postsecondary education. In so doing, they are attacking our future.
The Standing Committee on Health spent several weeks this fall
reviewing the whole issue of children's health. Experts told us
repeatedly that the first three years of a child's life are crucial to the
child's mental and physical development. Some even contended
with great conviction that, often, juvenile delinquency problems
encountered later in life stem from trouble at home in early
childhood. Insecurity causes tension which promotes
aggressiveness in these young people whose feeling of revolt is
often expressed in aggressive ways. So, this is very important.
(1035)
Repeated cuts in social programs will lead to a grim future. In
spite of our concerns about Bill C-41, in spite of the federal
government's paternalistic attitude in interfering in areas that
should be under the authority of the provinces, in spite of the fact
that guidelines were imposed that should normally be under
provincial jurisdiction, and because this bill deals with the health
of children and bettering their lives, children being the future of
Quebec and Canada, this bill is an important bill. For these reasons,
we from the Bloc, being the responsible members that we are, will
be voting for this helpful bill, as imperfect as it may be.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the changes to the Divorce Act particularly as they impact
the care and nurturing of children are important parts of a piece of
legislation that affects all of society.
Even if we as individuals are not touched directly by the terrible
stresses and strains caused in a relationship by divorce, we in the
greater society are affected profoundly by it. We are affected if
people who have children do not look after their responsibilities as
parents. We are affected because we as the greater society then
have to step in to look after and nurture those children.
We are affected by the consequences of divorce even if we are
not involved in divorce ourselves because we know statistically
that children who are nurtured in a two-parent home do better. That
does not necessarily mean that single parents cannot nurture
children, but the ideal is a two-parent home where the children are
nurtured in an environment that is conducive to love, respect, a
sense of family and a sense of community responsibility.
That is not to say that there are not circumstances in which
people will be raised in a single parent home where single parents,
female or male, are heroic in their responsibilities and in their
ability to raise children to become citizens of the first order.
Having said that, we know statistically that children who are
reared in a two-parent home have far less propensity to get
involved in crime and do better in school.
Our legislation should speak to two particular objectives. It
should speak to what we can do as a society to encourage families
to stay together. Then, if in the unfortunate circumstance we find
ourselves, myself included, in the throes of divorce, how can we
make divorce least disruptive? How can we keep as many lawyers
as possible out of it? How can we ensure that both parents, even
though they have divorced, do not divorce the kids? How can we
make the best of a bad situation?
The first objective is what we can do as a society to ensure the
problems do not happen in the first place. We know that many
divorces result from family distress brought on by financial
problems. Obviously there are other reasons but we all know that a
family under financial stress is far more likely to have other
problems crop up than a family not under financial stress. What can
we do as a government to address this problem? The first we can do
is nurture families. We can make it possible for families to look
after and nurture their own children. The way we can do that is to
provide tax relief to families initially. We can say as a society that
our future is encompassed in our children, our grandchildren and
their children. Everything we do as legislators should be focused to
that end.
(1040)
We will be talking about the seniors benefit later today. I am
absolutely amazed that as a nation we have decided to have a
guaranteed annual income for seniors. That is what the seniors
benefit is all about. All seniors will have tax free annual income
after the year 2000 of $11,430 whether or not they need it. Then it
will be taxed back very quickly for those who do not need it. That is
another story.
If we as a society can afford to have a guaranteed annual income
for seniors, why can we not have a guaranteed annual income or a
negative income tax for children? Children are the future of the
country. We as a society will get a far better bang for the buck and a
return on our investment if we do everything we possibly can to
nurture children. That means we should do what we can to take the
financial load off families and to keep the stresses in families to an
absolute minimum to make it possible for them to nurture their
children.
We know that is the ideal and we know that is not the
circumstance. We know families take in a whole spectrum of
different models. Whether or not one person likes it does not have
anything to do with it. As a society we must firmly focus our
interests on children.
How do we go about protecting children in the case of divorce
and the circumstances that lead up to divorce? We say in our
legislation that when a couple decides to divorce it might be in
society's best interest to get involved in conflict resolution right off
8126
the bat. Rather than each party going to their lawyers and having a
couple of barracudas working at it to see who is going to get more
from the other, we could have some conflict resolution. They have
made the decision to split up and on how they can best achieve this
with the least possible damage to the children. The part of the
legislation that envisions this is highly laudable and highly
supportable.
We appreciate there are cases that involve spousal abuse. There
is no reason whatsoever for a spouse who is being abused to stick
around for a split second. This raises a whole new set of questions.
Why is it always the female and the children, the abused, who have
to leave the domicile and go to a shelter? It does not make any
sense to me.
The reason is that we have to protect the rights of the abuser.
Again the victims are being penalized and the abuser is not. We
cannot just haul the abuser off to jail, keep him there and tell him
that he cannot go anywhere near those people or abuse them. We
usually have to take the mother and the children and put them in a
safe spot, hopefully.
We are now in a situation where we as legislators have
determined that we will do everything we can to prevent the
break-up from happening in the first place. We know this is the
ideal. We know it will not happen in every circumstance but we
should be working toward the ideal.
That means we have to take financial pressure off families
through tax relief focused directly at them. How on earth can we be
concerned about tax relief and subsidizing Bombardier and other
major corporations when we do not subsidize and nurture our
children and make it possible for them to have a future? It does not
make any sense. It is so completely wrongheaded that it defies
reality.
Now we come to the point where families are splitting up come
hell or high water; it is going to happen. This is not a holier than
thou speech. I have been in the middle of it. I know about what I
speak. Whose responsibility is it to look after the children who are
involved? Is it the state's responsibility or is it the parents'
responsibility?
When any of us decide to have children those children become
our responsibility, our family responsibility, period. The only time
the state should be involved is when the parents are unable to look
after their responsibilities.
(1045)
How do we go about making it easier or palatable for families to
look after their responsibilities? First, we do not say that one
person is right and the other is wrong. We do not say that either the
male is 100 per cent wrong or the female is 100 per cent wrong and
we will put one or the other into debtor's prison. We will make it
impossible for one or the other ever to have another life.
It seems to me that we should go right into a position of joint
custody and joint responsibility. We know there are situations
where we will not have that. We know there are situations where
one partner, usually it is men, flee from whatever the
responsibilities are.
Again, we are addressing this legislation to the ideal. Our society
has inculcated a culture where people intuitively know and
automatically understand that, when they get married, when
divorce or separation is envisioned down the road, their further
responsibility is to nurture, protect and look after their children in a
manner that is harmonious as it can possibly be. They know they
should put marital problems behind them so that their children do
not suffer further.
In my experience the number one problem that people have
brought to me relates to access to children. It is not paying
maintenance. It is paying maintenance and not having access to the
children. That is what drives people crazy. It is kind of the chicken
or egg situation.
Fathers or mothers who are non-custodial should have access to
their children in a default co-parenting situation even if they split
up. It cannot be said that maintenance and access are not
inextricably linked because they are. If I or anyone else has a
commitment to make a maintenance payment to his ex and does not
do it, then obviously the ex will be enraged. The ex will be figuring
out how to can get back at me.
The only way to get back is through the children. Situations
come up where maintenance payments are made, but for whatever
reason, the custodial spouse makes it impossible for the
non-custodial spouse to have his or her regular visitation. It breaks
the link with those children. Somehow we need to ensure that,
when maintenance payments are to be made, they are made but it
does not exacerbate the already difficult situation caused by the
divorce.
It can be done in many ways. However, if the state has an
involvement, it seems to me that when a custody or maintenance
payment is made, it could be put into the general revenue and come
back from the federal treasury to the individual who will receive it.
If it can be done for GST rebates, why can it not be done for other
things?
The whole idea is to somehow mitigate or lower the potential
avenues for distress, for disharmony and fighting between the two.
Remember, our eye is on nurturing the children. It is not getting
even.
If we could, as a society, somehow inculcate the sense of
responsibility so that people intuitively say: ``I know we have
broken up, but having broken up, we will be both responsible for
nurturing our children''. It is really none of the state's business why
a marriage breaks up but having broken up, the default position on
maintenance is 50:50.
8127
That means the cost of raising and nurturing the children is
50:50. The tax circumstance is 50:50. I do not know why it has
to go all one way or all the other. Why is it not possible, in a
maintenance payment, for the person making the payment to pay
50 per cent of the tax and the person who is getting it pays 50
per cent of the tax. They are partners. It took both of them to create
those children. It took both of them to get married in the first place
and it took both of them to break up the marriage in the second
place. Why can they not just go further and automatically have
it that the default position is a joint responsibility?
(1050)
I know that is the ideal. I know there are all kinds of
circumstances where that is not necessarily going to happen.
However, it does not have to mean that legislation cannot be
framed for the ideal and the other problems cannot be dealt with as
they arise.
I would like to address one more issue in this debate and that is
the role of the Senate. In particular, I would like to recognize the
role of Senator Anne Cools in this debate. When this legislation
first went through the House Reform members were saying
essentially what we are saying now, that the legislation is well
intentioned but it certainly has some huge problems and these are
of such major consequence that the bill should be changed.
It is government legislation so there are winners and losers. This
is legislation that speaks to the future of our country and how we
raise and nurture our children and how we accept responsibility for
our children.
We were not able to change a comma, a period. As hon. members
know, if the government is set on what it is going to do, the
opposition has absolutely no role in it. As a matter of fact, I will
take it one step further. If the cabinet or the Prime Minister or
persons surrounding the Prime Minister want to go in a particular
direction, that is way we are going to go. There will be no changes
whatsoever.
This is not a democracy. This is really an place where, if you are
lucky, you may have some influence and might be able to change
something.
When Senator Anne Cools saw the legislation, she was able to do
in the Senate, because of the precarious position of its majority,
what we could not do in the House of Commons and that was to
force the government to make some modifications which will
greatly enhance this bill.
It is incumbent on the official opposition, ourselves and other
people in opposition to recognize the courage that Senator Anne
Cools has shown in standing up to the government machine. It
means that she becomes the person in the room from which there
emanates a faint odour. It is not a very comfortable position to be
in.
I think democracy is made better when it is tested. Leadership is
made better when it is tested. On this and other legislation Senator
Anne Cools has shown the resolve and the fortitude to test the
government when it needed to be tested and when it was impossible
because of the way this House works for the opposition to be able
to test it. It has had to come through one of its own members in the
Senate who has the strength of character to stand up against the
government machine.
This legislation will come back. The deal is done. It will be
debated here. It will become law in its somewhat redefined and
changed form. It is better than it was but it still does not recognize
the primary problem in family law and that is that family law
should not be of an adversarial nature. The family court should be
unified. It is not the same as criminal law. It should not be
adversarial. We should be going into conflict resolution and doing
everything we possibly can to nurture the children of the future in
as harmonious a circumstance as we can.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to direct some comments to the my hon.
colleague's brief remarks on such important legislation.
(1055 )
Having met with a lot of parents who have gone through a
divorce where children were involved, I have often equated that
unfortunate development in people's lives to the loss of a child.
However, our court system today promotes a very adversarial
environment and it affects the children of divorce. I believe the
hon. member said that the primary focus has to be on the
well-being of the children, the unintended victims of marriage
breakdown and divorce.
I have endeavoured to address this issue and the greater issue of
co-parenting and access to children. It is assumed that while a
marriage is intact that both parents are good parents. That is the
assumption of society. It is the assumption that both parents are
worthy of raising their children. However, on the breakdown of a
marriage somehow that assumption is thrown out the window.
I have introduced private member's Bill C-242 which calls on
the government to introduce a system of joint custody in all cases,
except where it can be shown that it is not in the best interests of the
child or in the case of documented evidence of abuse or neglect
which would preclude joint custody. I believe this would go a long
way toward removing the adversarial approach in our court system.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.
The Deputy Speaker: The member may finish after statements
by members.
8128
8128
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that today I congratulate the 52
members of the Canadian forces who were recently honoured by
the Governor General of Canada with the Order of Military Merit.
This order was established in 1972 to recognize the exceptional
service of men and women in both the regular and the reserve
forces.
I believe these 52 honoured members of the Canadian forces are
truly representative of the kind of people who make up our
Canadian forces today. These individuals demonstrate the
dedication, honour and courage of the Canadian forces.
They serve Canada in many ways, from providing services to
Canadians at home to representing Canada abroad with pride and in
often difficult circumstances. They come from all parts of Canada,
including my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and from
my home community of Petawawa.
We salute them for their outstanding contributions to the
Canadian forces and to Canada over the years.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on January 8,
1997, Reverend James Browning of Drumheller, Alberta lost his
dear and lifelong friend Lynn Larose of Kingston, Ontario. Miss
Larose died suddenly and brutally at the hands of a woman with a
murderous past.
I would like to repeat the words of Reverend Browning:
``Another headline, another murder, another statistic, another
victim but this time it is different, very, very different. This time
the victim is an old friend, she was like an adopted sister, not
another faceless victim-No, it's true you won't remember Lynn
Larose's name among the mighty honour roll of this world's
powerful and popular icons like John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy,
Martin Luther King or John Lennon, but she did have something in
common with them. She too was brutally murdered. God bless and
keep you `Short stuff'. This world is poorer without your presence.
I remain your friend''.
Lynn Larose died at the hands of a person who had murdered
before. Our justice system must change for the sake of us all.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the next world
school championships will take place from March 2 to March 7, in
Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Fifty per cent of the Canadian
delegation will made up of ten young students registered in the
studies-sport-excellence program of the Thérèse-Martin secondary
comprehensive school, in my riding of Joliette.
The team will compete in a cross country ski race with the best
school athletes of 12 other participating countries. These young
teenagers are primarily motivated by the pursuit of excellence,
through intensive physical and intellectual development.
They will be led by one of their teachers who is also their coach,
Jean-Pierre Sansregret, and who, for some 20 years now, has been
constantly urging young people to meet academic and athletic
challenges.
(1100)
Their common determination deserves our admiration. Their
personal commitment is an excellent example to help fight the
problem of school dropouts as well as other problems that our
young people currently face.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
thousands of corporations like Bombardier receive huge federal
handouts and families like the Bronfmans receive unbelievable tax
holidays, somebody has to pay for all of this. Today the Liberals
will announce who that will be. It will be future seniors, the
disabled, widows and the working poor. This is nothing short of
outrageous.
In a cruel and mean act, the Liberals will cut pension benefits to
widows and the disabled. Pension exemptions will no longer be
fully indexed, which will hit low income workers. The poor will
pay more yet receive fewer pension benefits.
One can tell a great deal about a society as to how it provides for
its elderly, its poor and its disabled. To introduce this regressive
legislation that victimizes these individuals in our society says that
Canada has turned its back on those most in need.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is now working hard in its commitment to young
people in this country with the youth employment strategy
announced Wednesday by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
8129
The youth employment strategy is the result of consultations
with youth, educators, parents and the private sector to determine
how best to serve the needs of Canada's young people in today's
newer and new economy. Each of us recognizes that youth
unemployment is unacceptably high and that there is nothing as
frustrating as wasted potential.
The strategy consolidates over $2 billion in new and existing
funding for programs and services that young people need to make
the transition from education to our workplace. One of the
strategy's highlights is the new internship programs that will
provide work experience to young people in the crucial areas of
science and technology, the environment, international trade and
development.
I call upon those concerned to work together to accomplish what
we need, a society that is good for all Canadians starting with our
youth.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
banks continue to contribute greatly to the Canadian economy.
In 1996 alone, banks paid $4.9 billion in taxes and levies to
government and paid over $2.3 billion to their shareholders, the
people of Canada. Unions, businesses and the general public own
over 90 per cent of bank shares. Since most bank shares are owned
by the people, when banks make a profit, the people profit.
Banks have recently introduced initiatives such as implementing
a code of conduct, offering alternative dispute resolution and
appointing both internal and national ombudsmen.
Banks in my community have contributed to university funds,
have supported charities such as the Snowsuit Fund and have
helped many youth organizations to name a few.
As you can see, banks are not all bad.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday, February 15 is National Flag of Canada Day. The
tradition of celebrating our national flag began last February and
was promoted throughout the year by the Canadian Heritage One in
a Million Flag Challenge.
I have also taken an interest in acknowledging this newfound
tradition as I am searching for a song to commemorate the pride
and glory of our Canadian flag. Over the last few months I have
issued a challenge to students and artists in my constituency to
compose new lyrics to the ``Maple Leaf Forever'' that reflect the
significance of our Canadian symbol.
On the occasion of this year's flag day celebration, I would like
to issue the same challenge to all Canadians to come up with a song
that will capture true Canadian sentiment.
We have been represented by the red and white maple leaf since
1965. I feel the best way to honour this symbol would be to
accompany it with a musical tribute.
It is my wish that as Canadians don their million flags with
pride, they also have a song to commemorate the celebration of
national unity.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today this House will once again be looking at
Bill C-41. Maybe this time government members will actually
listen to the Reform Party's concerns.
Earlier this week I had the occasion to hear a number of
government members talking about how they were unaware of the
full consequences of Bill C-41. One suggested that they should just
acknowledge their mistakes and accept the amendments.
This is quite typical of how the Liberals have managed this
Parliament. They just accept the notion that their cabinet ministers
create perfect legislation so they put their brains in neutral.
Independent thought is not welcome in the Liberal caucus.
I encourage members opposite to actually think for themselves
and listen to the Reform Party's amendments in this House rather
than rely on the patronage appointed hacks from the other place.
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
sixth consecutive year, the Quebec Department of Education, in
co-operation with the provincial ministry of culture and
communications, is organizing the Quebec arts week, which began
on February 9 and will end on the 16.
In order to mark this unique event, the whole Quebec school
system was invited to organize activities under the theme ``Sans
mots pour le dire''. This means that over one million Quebec
students at the elementary and secondary levels are currently
exploring the various facets of an artistic project or creation
process that includes dance, music, plastic arts, communications
and performing arts.
8130
While some may claim, wrongly, that Quebec never spent a
penny on its culture, it is not by spending millions of dollars on
flags that we will make our young people aware of arts and
culture, or that we will give them an opportunity to develop their
creativity and their imagination.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, seven
national associations in the post-secondary education sector jointly
proposed the student assistance reform initiative which, if enacted,
would make higher education more accessible. I urge all members
to study the proposal. As an active member of the caucus
committee on post-secondary education, I applaud the groups
involved in preparing and releasing this document.
Right now Canada's student loans can be a problem, not only for
those trying to pay them off but also for those charged with trying
to collect on defaulted loans. We can address this situation and
acknowledge the realities faced by graduating students by
establishing an income contingent loan repayment plan. This is
especially relevant to those in the early stages of their careers after
graduation.
Education is of vital national interest to Canada. When we invest
in Canadians we strengthen our economy and improve our
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the LanSer company of Westmount, Quebec, was on
the last trade mission led by our Prime Minister, and came back
from Thailand with very good news for the future.
This company, which specializes in wireless communication
equipment research and development, signed a letter of
understanding with a view to setting up a joint enterprise with a
Bangkok company.
LanSer already has a staff of 75. Thanks to this letter of
understanding, it could soon be starting to market a wireless credit
card payment system to meet the demand from financial
institutions, merchants and consumers in Thailand. This bold
project is estimated at $52 million.
This is another example of the extraordinary benefits and fallout
for business and the economy in Quebec and in Canada resulting
from the Team Canada missions.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last Wednesday, the Quebec Superior Court handed down
an important decision prohibiting the transfer of international
flights to Dorval. Forty-eight hours later, the Minister of Transport
still did not wish to comment on the decision. Instability continues.
As a result, the economy of Montreal and the Lower Laurentians
has suffered, is suffering and will go on suffering.
But it would not have come to this if the federal government had
listened to the Bloc Quebecois. A year ago, we asked the
government to conduct public consultations quickly and make
public all the studies done on this transfer.
The federal government, which got us into this mess, cannot now
try to sidestep the issue and hide behind ADM. The decision
brought to light the government's true colours. Instead of sitting
back while the train, or should I say the plane, passes it by, it should
be moving quickly to resolve this problem, which is largely of its
own making.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to pay tribute to a constituent in my riding of Kitchener, Mr.
Edward James.
Yesterday, Mr. James had the honour of receiving the Prime
Minister's award for teaching excellence in science, technology
and mathematics. His dedication and enduring commitment to the
teaching profession is truly admirable.
Mr. James was recognized for his particular attention devoted to
the challenges facing young women interested in science. Among
his many accomplishments, he organized a math and science
program for young women at Eastwood Collegiate and helped
prepared learning materials for the women inventors project.
His work to introduce more young women to science and
encourage them along the way stretches back 10 years. This
commitment has resulted in a significant number of women
graduating with backgrounds in mathematics and science.
I wish to congratulate Mr. James for this special award. He is
truly a leader in his community.
8131
(1110 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister overrode 15 Liberal
associations to appoint pet candidates. This year the Prime
Minister is again sanctioning pet candidates.
In Nepean the retiring MP has expressed her disgust. In
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke the Liberal Party banned Hec
Cloutier from the party for five years in 1993 because he ran as an
independent against the Liberal appointee. In Edmonton North
national Liberal officials twisted the rules so that the PM's
anointed candidate would be unchallenged. An executive has been
excommunicated for their continued support for the incumbent
ousted Liberal MP.
This should be no surprise. The Prime Minister ensured his own
election victory in 1972 and 1974 by setting up a patsy as his PC
opponent.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are in the midst of the ``Canada-Take it to Heart'' program, a
week long celebration of our Canadian citizenship, symbols and
heritage.
Tomorrow, February 15, we celebrate Canada flag day to remind
us of the symbol of our national soul and to rededicate ourselves to
the ideals that define our country. Let us take pride that the
Canadian flag is respected and loved throughout the world.
On Monday, February 17, I will have the honour to participate in
a Winnipeg celebration of the historic Fort Gary-Fort Edmonton
Trail, a living reminder of the settlement of the three prairie
provinces.
These commemorations are an opportunity to show pride in our
country and to think about the things that make us unique: our
symbols, our values and our heritage.
The better we know our country's past, the better we can
envision the future with confidence.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Post mandate review completed last fall made a number of
specific recommendations regarding the operation of Canada Post.
Upon release of the review the public works minister stated that
Canada Post must operate with fairness, transparency, openness
and accountability. Yet the minister still refuses to open the books
of Canada Post, a crown corporation, to public scrutiny.
The minister promised she would table a report with proposals
for Canada Post after the financial review was completed in
January. That timeline has passed, yet Canadians have heard
nothing from the minister.
The mandate review stated that the corporation is currently
beyond any effective control by the government. None of the
authorities entrusted with supervising Canada Post currently have
the resources to provide the strong ongoing supervision needed to
safeguard the public interest. Unfair competition and abusive
practices continue unchecked every day.
Canada Post is a corporation in chaos. It is time for the minister
to do her job, take responsibility for Canada Post and hold it
accountable.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, nomination meetings were held in three ridings, namely
my own, that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
that of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.
[English]
Yesterday the three of us celebrated the second anniversary of
our 1995 byelection victories. On the same day two years later, we
were chosen by the members of our respective associations to run
in the next election as Liberal candidates.
I wish both my colleagues the best of luck in the upcoming
election. I congratulate them on a job well done in the first two
years as members of the Parliament of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we get
closer to budget day I again call on the ministers involved to
reconsider CAPC funding. The program is funded under the
Minister of Health and funds family resource centres. It has proven
to be very successful in terms of assisting families and individuals.
These family resource centres, seven of which are on Prince
Edward Island, are a great success and are in great demand by
many parents on Prince Edward Island. I believe they decrease
dependency on government services and government personnel and
set up a system where individuals support each other within a
community of communities.
I call on the minister to reconsider funding.
The Deputy Speaker: Before proceeding to oral questions, the
hon. Minister of National Defence has a brief point of order.
8132
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
question period I referred to a document. My understanding was
that I was not allowed to table it during question period. I am
certainly more than pleased to table it now for the benefit of
members of the House.
_____________________________________________
8132
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there will be no objections to the tabling of a document
from National Defence. For once, something is forthcoming and
we are extremely pleased. One down, at least.
Today, in Quebec City, Montreal, Rimouski, Chicoutimi,
Sept-Iles, Matane and Moncton, CBC audiences and staff are
demonstrating to remind the government of its promise to provide
the CBC with stable funding.
Another coalition, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, has
pointed out that the government's $10 million to CBC radio fulfils
only 3 per cent of its promises, while laying the CBC's
independence open to question.
My question is to the government as a whole. How can the
government explain that it has imposed cuts $14 million higher
than what the Reform Party proposed in their taxpayers' budget?
How can the government claim to be defending culture, when it has
pulled $414 million from CBC and found millions for publicity
schemes of all kinds, from kites to flags to who knows what?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada is committed, as the minister said again
last week, to long term funding for the CBC. All departments of our
government have undergone cuts, and the CBC is no exception.
The hon. member across the way knows very well that the CBC
will be the only government agency to be exempt from cuts for the
next five years, so its funding will be stable in the long term.
What is more, the CBC will receive some $900 million annually
from the public purse. That is nothing to sneeze at. It is a
considerable amount and one that is ensured for the long term, of
course.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that I heard that already sometime in 1993,
regarding 1993-94. That is a recycled promise.
The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting; the mayor of Quebec
City, Jean-Paul Lallier; Tony Manera, who resigned from the
presidency of the CBC because of this government's policies;
Pierre Juneau, another former CBC president; Margaret Atwood;
Pierre Berton; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, and many others
question the government's true intentions toward the CBC.
Why has the government opted to weaken an independent
institution, and to transfer funds into agencies which are not
answerable to government, such as the cable production fund?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the hon. member claims that this fund is not answerable to
government, he is surely aware that part of this fund will go to the
CBC. He cannot be unaware of this. I believe that his accusation is
totally off the mark.
Second, he is also surely aware that the government is
committed, I repeat, to long term funding for the CBC, to the tune
of some $900 million annually-$800 million in special credits,
plus part of the fund-as I have just indicated.
Finally, the government has again just recently announced
additional funding, over and above the amounts I have just referred
to, for Radio Canada International.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that is an old ruse, taking everything away and then giving
a little bit back. Then they can say: ``See how generous we are.
Look at what we have just given you''.
They have played the same game with transfer payments. They
cut something like $1.3 billion, and then they come along with
$215 million. This is a government that is an expert at giving out
trifling amounts.
Is the government aware that the recycling of old promises from
the dead book, to which the Prime Minister does not even refer any
more, is just the old shell game, for this same government has,
since 1993, chopped the CBC budget like no other government has
ever dared do?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe the Bloc Quebecois and their friends in Quebec are in a
very poor position to give any sermons on this matter.
Radio-Québec has also cut its staff by close to 50 per cent.
8133
(1120)
Let us also keep in mind the words of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. On March 16, 1995, she said, and I
quote: ``If any cuts are needed, there are big ones to be made at
CBC''.
No such big cuts were made, and we have ensured that there is
long term funding, after making some cuts, of course, which were
required. But, contrary to the Bloc Quebecois, we have not made,
nor do we intend to make, big ones.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
should remember that the cuts the hon. member suggested were to
be made at headquarters, not in the lower echelons. The
government understood the message perfectly. It cut $414 million
and 4,000 jobs. That is what happened.
My question is directed to the government, to anyone who can
answer. After the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we now have the
Minister of Foreign Affairs on the national unity bandwagon. With
his new rules for awarding grants, from now on the minister will
only fund projects that will promote Canadian unity abroad.
Mr. Young: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): The Minister of National
Defence says hear, hear, but what he is saying is ``get out'' to
Quebec culture and Quebec artists. That is what it means.
Since this funding policy is discriminatory and antidemocratic,
will the minister, so as to refrain from all political interference,
remove this criterion from the objectives of the foreign affairs
cultural relations program?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how typical of a member of the Bloc to think that promoting
Canada abroad is undemocratic. That is what the hon. member
opposite said.
I would urge him to think about what he said. I am sure the hon.
member knows perfectly well, as we all do, that promoting
Canadian culture includes promoting Quebec culture and, of
course, this is also a cause all Canadians, I believe, should fully
support.
If the reverse occurred, I am sure all members and taxpayers in
this country would see this as totally inappropriate. The role of the
Government of Canada is to promote Canada. That is clear.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
may remind the minister that is not what they said on the Canadian
heritage committee to, for instance, Marie Laberge and our Quebec
film makers when they accused them of making anti-Canadian
films.
The government should set its sights a little higher and allocate
money for promoting culture abroad on the basis of the quality of
the works and projects submitted by the artists and not in terms of
the political propaganda sought by this government.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member did not ask a question. However, I would like to
comment on what he said.
The hon. member is apparently suggesting to the members of
this House that it is totally correct and appropriate, in his view, for
the government to subsidize or otherwise advance money to artists
who are sending messages that do not support Canadian unity and
that proposals supporting Canadian unity would be unacceptable to
him. I have trouble understanding the hon. member's logic.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the defence
minister is trying to rewrite history in the Somalia scandal.
Yesterday he said:
There is no one in Canada who believes that there was or there is today a cover-up
of a murder.
The minister's arrogance knows no bounds. Does he think that
documents shredded themselves? Why does he think the Somalia
inquiry wanted to hear from Bob Fowler, Kim Campbell and John
Anderson?
How can the minister possibly claim that no one tried to cover up
the beating, torture and murder of Shidane Arone?
(1125)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been
a number of results where people have paid a significant price as a
result of judicial processes arising out of the shootings and the
beating of Somalian citizens.
What I said yesterday and what I am sure the hon. member
knows I said is that Canadians who are interested in this matter
know what happened on the ground in Somalia when these
incidents occurred that resulted in the death of Somalian citizens.
I also went on to say-and the hon. member does not make
reference to it-what happened subsequent to that. Not just the
courts martial and the fact that individuals who were directly
involved in the killings and the torture were dealt with, but it was
totally unacceptable how the institution and the organization
reacted subsequent to those incidents.
8134
That is why we are taking very dramatic action to try to develop
systems and procedures to ensure that when any intolerable or
unacceptable incident occurs there is a proper and appropriate
response by the Department of National Defence and by the
Canadian forces.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what the minister
does not say is that he is shutting down the inquiry, thus covering
up what happened at the top. That is what Canadians are saying the
problem is.
We know the documents were hidden, shredded or altered.
Military police were misled and senior officers and bureaucrats
tried to intimidate cabinet ministers and keep the Canadian public
in the dark.
If that was not an attempt to cover up a murder I do not know
what was. There was a murder. There was a cover-up and this
government is trying to cover up that cover-up by shutting down
the inquiry.
Why is the government so afraid of the truth? Why will it not let
the Somalia inquiry get to the bottom of the murder cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing
with an extremely serious and complex situation.
If the hon. member is suggesting the incidents that occurred on
the ground are unknown or were covered up, he should know, as do
most Canadians who are interested in the matter, exactly what
happened. It has been written about in books. It has been reported
in news coverage. It has been discussed at the Somalia inquiry.
Somalian citizens were shot. A Somalian citizen was tortured to
death. Murders occurred. Action was taken through the military
justice system to deal with those issues. That is well known.
It is totally unacceptable to Canadians and we must at some
point come to grips with it. The government is prepared to ensure
that what happened subsequent to the murders and the torture not
ever be repeated in the Department of National Defence or in the
Canadian forces.
The hon. gentleman refers to a number of allegations of
shredding and of attempts to disguise what had taken place and to
cover up, to use his term. That is what happened after the murders
were very much made aware of, when the murderers or the people
involved in the act that resulted in the death of Somalian citizens
were dealt with.
We have always said-and I continue to assure my hon.
friend-that the government is absolutely committed to cleaning
up a system that did not respond appropriately to the murders and
the torture that occurred in Somalia.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister only
goes so far. As soon as we start moving up the ladder we shut it
down. That is the point and he is missing that point.
When the defence minister said yesterday that there is no one in
Canada who believes there was a cover-up, did he actually expect
Canadians to believe that? Does he not understand the gravity of
what is happening or that he will never get the military reformed if
he does not deal with the whole situation at this point?
In my office we are hearing from Canadians. They are concerned
about the cover-up and now the whitewash of the cover-up. Will the
minister stop blustering, come clean with the Canadian people and
let the inquiry get to the truth?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we also are
getting calls. I received a call at my office from a gentleman in
Smiths Falls who said that he supports what we are doing in
bringing the Somalia inquiry to a conclusion.
(1130)
He also said that he had been talking to some people in the hon.
member's party who said there should be an inquiry into why the
Somalia inquiry was closed. If an inquiry was not appointed to do
that, there should be another one appointed into why there was not
a second commission appointed, because apparently Reformers are
into inquiries these days.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In response to a decision throwing out the transfer of flights from
Mirabel to Dorval, the Minister of Transport once again insisted
that ADM, a local administration, was responsible for managing
the Montreal airports and not the federal Department of Transport.
For almost a year now, the federal government has been hiding
behind ADM to avoid public consultation and to avoid committing
itself in this matter where its record for the past 30 years has been
pitiful.
Is the minister aware today that his inaction and irresponsibility
are leading us once again to a standoff in the matter of the Montreal
airports?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the policy on the
airports gives local authorities the opportunity to reach important
8135
decisions regarding airports specifically and the regions where they
are located.
Yesterday, the Minister of Transport said, in response to a
question, that the intent of his policy was to enable local authorities
to make these decisions. The court expressed a different opinion,
and the authority is the one before the courts.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the minister that the federal government is
the tenant in this contract, and that the judge himself appealed to
the federal government to act and to assume its responsibilities.
Are we to understand that the minister is saying he still does not
want to resolve a problem the federal government created through
its own inaction?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that even the hon. member understands there is a
problem in a number of airports in Canada. Does he think a central
government should make all these decisions? Or can a local
authority resolve the problems of a given region? Is it not better
placed to make these decisions?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of National Defence recently quoted from a document. I would ask
that he table that document in the House.
Yesterday the defence minister stated in the House that there was
no cover-up of the murder in Somalia. Let me remind him that his
department shredded documents, intimidated witnesses, withheld
truthful information from the military police and withheld
evidence.
This points to a cover-up but we will never know the truth
because the government is covering up the cover-up by shutting
down the inquiry.
When the defence minister says that there is no cover-up, how
does he know? Does he have evidence or facts to base that on? Or,
is he just politically interfering with the inquiry once again?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously we
would not want to interfere in the work of this inquiry. The hon.
member knows we are very conscious of our responsibility of not
interfering in any judicial or quasi-judicial process.
The government has decisions to make. I want to say to my hon.
friend it is true that yesterday I referred to a document during
question period. I have subsequently tabled that document with the
Chair prior to the commencement of question period.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Today's letter.
Mr. Young: I hear the other member saying there are other
letters or today's letter. Just to make sure there is no
misunderstanding, that is one letter among several sent by the
commissioners of the inquiry to the government asking for
extension of time.
To be fair and rather than to quote from the documents and add to
more confusion in the hon. member's mind, I would prefer when it
is appropriate to also table the three other letters that were sent
from the commission to the government requesting extensions of
time and explaining how they function. I will be happy to do that
for the edification of the member and his colleagues.
(1135)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister may table the
documents during question period with a page.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
referring to the letter he quoted from today. I asked him if he would
table that document.
The minister stated in the House yesterday that there was no
cover-up of the murder. Does he wish to withdraw that statement?
He is drawing conclusions about events before the commission
even produces its report. This is political interference with a
judicial inquiry. Either the minister has evidence that he has not
made public or he is interfering with the inquiry. Which is it? Is the
minister interfering or hiding evidence?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as to the first
part of the question I would like to be able to comply with my hon.
friend's request that I table a phone call but it is tough to do that. I
made it clear that I had received a phone call this morning and I
simply indicated to the hon. member what the conversation was
about.
Going to the second part of his question and discussing the
specific issue of whether or not Canadians understand what
happened on the ground in Somalia, the Somalia commission of
inquiry has been going on now for nearly two years. It has heard
over 100 witnesses. There have been hundreds of thousands of
documents presented to the commission for its review.
There have been courts martial. There have been appeals of
those courts martial. There are people who are and who have been
clearly identified as having been involved in the specific incidents
that occurred on the ground in Somalia.
What I have said and what I repeat is that Canadians who are
interested in knowing what happened in those incidents are fully
aware of what took place with respect to the murders by shooting or
by torture.
8136
What I have also tried to explain-and I will continue to try
to do this-is that subsequent to those incidents occurring many,
many things took place which were unacceptable, which are
intolerable and which cannot be allowed to be repeated.
We are moving to try to correct those problems and those kinds
of approaches. The hon. member and his party would like to have it
go on until 1998, 1999 or maybe the year 2000. He can accuse us of
many things but he will not be able to make it stick that we are
going to procrastinate on as important an issue as what we are
facing in this particular situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National
Defence.
The former director of the military police testified before the
Somalia inquiry that, on three separate occasions, the current Chief
of Defence Staff, who was the third top ranking officer of the
armed forces at the time of the events in Somalia, refused to have
the military police investigate the suspicious death of a Somali, on
March 4, 1993, in attempt to cover up the circumstances.
In light of the troubling and contradictory testimony of the Chief
of Defence Staff and the former director of military police, could
the minister tell us if he continues to support the current Chief of
Defence Staff in spite of the fact that he was at the heart of the
Somalia scandal?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always have
been bery careful not to comment on testimony heard by the
inquiry.
The hon. member referred to evidence given by a person who
appeared before the inquiry. I will let the inquiry draw the
appropriate conclusions after it has heard not only the person the
hon. member referred to, but also Admiral Murray, who is the
Acting Chief of Defence Staff at this time.
Of course, with all we have managed to accomplish since my
appointment to National Defence, it is essential that those who hold
positions in the Canadian Forces have the support of the Minister
of National Defence, and that is the case for Admiral Murray.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the exact same thing was said
about General Boyle. History is repeating itself.
Since, when he appointed Vice-Admiral Murray as Chief of
Defence Staff, the minister knew about his involvement in the
events in Somalia and since he made sure the inquiry will not be
able to determine whether or not there was a cover-up, how can
Quebecers and Canadians be sure of the vice-admiral's integrity?
(1140)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral
Murray has testified before the inquiry. He gave evidence for
several days.
I have no doubt that, at some point between now and June 30, the
inquiry will be able to table a report based on all the evidence and
information before it. This is one of the reasons the government
saw fit, after granting three extensions, to ask the inquiry to wrap
up its hearings by June 30, so that we can obtain its findings and
recommendations on a number of matters that have been under
investigation for almost two years now, two years during which
more than 100 witnesses were heard.
No decision will be made on the evidence given by one witness
or another until the inquiry has presented its findings.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the defence minister tried to blame the murder
cover-up on the Somalia commission by quoting very selectively
from a letter that he tabled only this morning.
What the minister did not tell the House is how the letter proves
that the minister knew his decision to shut down the inquiry would
hide the truth and protect Liberal friends like Bob Fowler.
Canadians want to know who the minister is protecting and why
he is afraid of the truth.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to
allege that someone is afraid of the truth. It is another thing to
demonstrate that one is less than familiar with the facts.
The gentleman to whom my hon. friend alludes, the current
ambassador for Canada to the United Nations, was appointed to the
position of deputy minister at the Department of National Defence
during the previous administration's term of office. That individual
retained the confidence of that government after the minister of
national defence who was in office at the time of these incidents
occurring became the Prime Minister of Canada.
The hon. member should be a little bit more careful with how he
describes friendships of individuals and with whom they were, at
least at one time, passing acquaintances if not friends.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Liberal government is guilty of political interference
in its own judicial inquiry, an inquiry that is supposed to be
independent.
The Liberals have broken their own promises to find the truth.
They have betrayed the trust of the commissioners they appointed
and they have betrayed the trust of the men and women of the
Canadian Armed Forces who expect justice to be done at the top,
not just at the bottom. The minister knew his decision would bury
8137
the truth but Canadians will not let him. Again, why is he afraid of
the truth coming out?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
mid-September the hon. leader of the Reform Party asked the
Prime Minister of Canada to ensure, to guarantee-to use the exact
word-that the results of the Somalia inquiry be made available
before a federal election. He did not talk about the truth. He did not
talk about friends of the government. He did not talk about getting
to the bottom of everything. He simply said ``to guarantee that the
commission respond and report before the election''.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we should be telling the
commissioners of the inquiry who they should call? That would be
political interference. They have had an agenda for two years to
call whatever roster of witnesses they wish. They had an
opportunity to set their work plan in whatever manner they wish.
Now after two years and $25 million the government decided it was
time, after three extensions of their mandate, to make sure that it
had a report by June 30.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Acting Prime Minister or any other minister who may
wish to reply. There are so few of them here this morning.
(1145)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is well
aware that we cannot comment on the absence of members or
ministers.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, we can say that there are
ministers here. The Hyundai plant in Bromont has been shut down
for a few years. Business leaders and stakeholders, including the
Société de développement régional, the SODER, still do not know
about the company's plans regarding this important plant which
employed over 800 people. In January, the Prime Minister visited
South Korea, where Hyundai's head office is located.
Could someone tell me if, during Team Canada's trip, the Prime
Minister asked Hyundai's top executives about their intentions
regarding the disused plant in Bromont?
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, it seems that all the Bloc members who are here will ask
questions. As regards the Hyundai plant, the hon. member knows
full well that we co-operated with other levels of government to
find a way to revive this plant.
Hyundai decided to close that plant. The company repaid the
money that had been invested by the governments, pursuant to the
agreement signed by the government and Hyundai. As for us, and I
believe it is also the case for the Quebec government, these
amounts were paid back under the bilateral agreement between the
federal and Quebec governments.
We will try, together, to find a way to bring jobs back to
Bromont.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unless I am
mistaken, the Prime Minister did not meet anyone regarding this
issue, during his trip.
Since the member for Brome-Missisquoi, who is responsible
for Bromont, does not look after the concerns of his constituents,
will the Prime Minister, or the minister who answered my first
question, since he has some authority, pledge to ask Hyundai's
executives about the future of the Bromont plant, through Canada's
trade commission in South Korea?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hear a lot more about Bromont from the member for
Brome-Missisquoi than I do from Bloc members.
An hon. member: He is a very good member.
Mr. Manley: He is indeed a very good member. He understands
something Bloc members do not understand. It is not Hyundai that
will save the plant it used to operate. Hyundai has made its
decision.
There may be other possibilities for that plant, but the solution
will not come from Hyundai.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
According to a recent report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, the private sector does a better job of hiring and
promoting minorities than the federal government.
Considering that the employment equity program has been in
place for 10 years, what is the reason for this shortfall and what is
the government doing to correct it?
8138
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Public Service of Canada agrees that it must reflect the
composition of the public it serves. I regret that it may not be the
same in all the governments in Canada but the Public Service of
Canada does want to reflect the composition of the population.
In doing this, in the last few years we have increased by 50 per
cent the relative representation of visible minority groups.
Treasury Board has even put together a program called the special
measures initiatives program. This program has been supporting a
series of innovative activities to assist visible minorities, including
recruitment programs, initiatives to upgrade skills and promote
marketability, and career development training to prepare
individuals for senior positions. In this area the Public Service of
Canada has clearly been doing its job.
* * *
(1150)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
defence minister said clearly in this House that there was no
cover-up of the murder in Somalia.
I would like to give the defence minister the opportunity of
either withdrawing that statement or telling the House and the
Canadian people how he knows there was no cover-up of the
murder in Somalia.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume that
we are speaking about the incidents in Somalia that occurred in
early 1993 for which individuals have been charged and for which
individuals have been found responsible. The names of the Somalia
citizens who were killed are known to Canadians and to the hon.
gentleman if he is interested in finding out. The incidents have
been described, reviewed, investigated and the subject of judicial
proceedings.
What I said yesterday, and what I believe the Canadian people
understand very well, is that what happened in Somalia was
absolutely unacceptable. Two years later Canadians know that what
happened subsequent to those incidents in Somalia, how the
military justice system responded, how the military investigative
capability was not up to snuff, was also intolerable.
We believe that Canadians expect us to do something about it
and that is what we are going to do.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the defence
minister has not answered the question. He made a clear statement
of fact yesterday that there was no cover-up of the murder of the
teenager in Somalia and yet that is the very reason that the inquiry
was called in the first place.
I ask the minister one more time: Is he prepared to tell the House
the facts on which he based the statement that there was no
cover-up of the murder in Somalia or is he going to leave us with
the conclusion that he is making an erroneous statement in the
House?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want
the hon. member to spend a sleepless weekend worrying about
whether or not I understand, and that Canadians understand, what
happened with respect to the murders in Somalia.
What I said yesterday is that every Canadian who really wants to
get a clear understanding of what took place in Somalia knows who
pulled the trigger. Everybody in Canada knows exactly what
happened on the ground in Somalia to the extent that it can be
determined after two years of work by the commission, military
investigations, the courts martial and everything else that took
place.
The hon. member cannot distinguish between the problems that
occurred, the incidents that resulted in death and the difficulties
that the system had and the inappropriate responses that took place
subsequent to those events. I think he should give Canadians more
credit for understanding this than he has so far. Canadians know-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
If the CRTC gives in to Bell Canada's demands, business
customers in small communities will pay between $44 and $54 a
month for telephone service, while in larger centres the bill will be
about $10 less.
What action does the Minister of Industry intend to take to
ensure that telecommunications and telephone services essential to
the competitiveness of businesses are just as affordable for SMBs
in rural areas as for those in urban settings.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the member knows that the CRTC is in the
process of examining issues related to the affordability of
telephone services.
I think this is a very important question. One of the objectives of
our information highway policy was that all Canadians should have
affordable access to telephone services. But I think the member
also knows that some very important changes are taking place in
the telecommunications sector. There are new services, using
advanced technology, and all Canadians would like to receive
them.
(1155)
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are well
aware that the CRTC is presently studying the whole question of
telecommunications and telephone rates, but I have put my
question to the minister, not to the CRTC.
8139
In its red book, the Liberal Party said that it would do what was
necessary to promote job creation. With the proposal now on the
table, SMBs could see their telecommunications and telephone bill
shoot up by 41 to 77 per cent.
How can the minister reconcile these huge increases with
promises of increased productivity and job creation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the member is confusing the government's
responsibility with that of the CRTC.
I would point out that the basic issue here is that we have put in
place a system of competition that has already resulted in a
substantial reduction in long distance rates, thus benefiting all
SMBs. This system has made it possible to set up competitive
services not just for Canadian businesses, but also with respect to
American businesses. Here in Canada, we will receive modern and
different services, and prices will be-
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
Anyone who has signed a paycheque understands that payroll
taxes are a disincentive to hiring. Employment insurance, workers'
compensation and the proposed new Canada pension plan premium
of nearly 10 per cent means payroll taxes will be almost 20 per cent
of earnings. Then the victim pays income tax and then the GST. No
wonder Canadians are tax poor.
How can the government create an economic climate conducive
to job growth, particularly for first time job applicants, when
payroll taxes make it more cost effective to pay overtime or to
utilize part time contract employees?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member ought to know that as a result of the actions of the
government, employment insurance premiums will be down by
$1.7 billion. That is money which will be put back into the hands of
Canadians.
I want to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to
elaborate on this. He said there should be incentives for first time
hiring. The hon. member may have forgotten that in the last budget
we brought in a measure that forgave employment insurance
premiums for all small and medium sized businesses. Some
900,000 businesses across the country will be able to employ
young Canadians without having to pay the premiums.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians understand intuitively when a finance minister
rises to speak that his hand goes into their pockets at the same time.
Employment insurance premiums currently take in over $5
billion more than is paid out in benefits. It is nothing more than a
federal payroll surtax. Canada pension plan premiums will be
increased 69 per cent because the plan is seriously flawed.
To limit job killing regressive payroll taxes, will the government
limit increases in Canada pension plan premiums to a
corresponding reduction in employment insurance premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member did not notice that my hand went into my
own pocket.
Reform is advocating a $3.5 billion cut in the CHST. It is
advocating cuts in equalization. It is saying that it wants to
withdraw moneys currently given to Canadians, in particular
middle income Canadians. It wants to take it away from them. Our
goal is to maintain the services that Canadians require for their
livelihood.
(1200)
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: With my apologies to those members
who were not able to ask their questions, this concludes oral
question period.
[English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the
House to ask one question of the government.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow the
hon. member to ask a question of the government?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I heard a no.
8140
8140
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am tabling draft legislation to establish the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and to amend the Canada pension plan, the Old
Age Security Act, and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today it is my privilege to table draft legislation that secures the
future of the Canada pension plan. These measures are the result of
the review of the Canada pension plan which the federal and
provincial governments have conducted over the past year.
As joint stewards with the provinces, we are obliged to do all we
can to make sure that the plan is there for Canadians, those who
retire and those workers who become disabled during their careers.
We believe that Canadians should be able to count on Canada
pension plan benefits and that is why we have worked so hard to
make sure that they can.
[Translation]
The problems facing the CPP are fundamental. The chief actuary
of the plan has shown that, without changes, the CPP fund will run
out of money in less than 20 years. Without changes, contribution
rates would have to increase from under 6 per cent today to over 14
per cent to cover escalating costs.
In other words, younger generations would have to pay more
than twice as much as now-and get no more for it. This is not fair.
This is not affordable.
[English]
The problem, quite simply, is that the Canada pension plan, as it
is now, is not sustainable in the longer term at costs which are fair
to future generations of Canadians. This has led some to say that
we should dismantle the CPP.
Let me say unequivocally that neither the federal government
nor the provinces believe that anyone would be well served by that.
Nor do Canadians. They told us during the public consultations that
we and the provinces held across the country last spring that they
want the Canada pension plan preserved.
Canadians asked their government: first, to preserve it; second,
to strengthen its financing; third, to improve the fund's investment
practices and reduce its costs. In other words, they said not tinker
with the CPP. Make sure it is there for us. That is exactly what we
have done.
The options we have considered in the course of our review
required difficult choices, but we have come up with a strong and
balanced package that will ensure the Canada pension plan is there
when Canadians need it. We have done this in a way that has
preserved a number of important features Canadians asked us
specifically to protect.
(1205 )
All retired pensioners or anyone over the age of 65 as of
December 31, 1997 are not affected by the proposed changes.
Anyone currently receiving disability benefits, survivor benefits or
combined benefits is also not affected. All benefits under the
Canada pension plan will remain fully indexed to inflation. The
ages of retirement, early, normal or late, remain unchanged.
Let me outline what has been done. The agreement makes a
fundamental change in the financing of the plan. It would move
from pay as you go to fuller funding to build a much larger reserve.
The fund now is equivalent in value to about two years of benefits
and is declining. With fuller funding, it will grow to about five
years of benefits. It will be invested in a diversified portfolio of
securities to earn higher returns and to help pay for benefits as
Canada's population ages.
[Translation]
Canadians also told us to stop giving governments exclusive
access to CPP funds. We have done that. Governments have agreed
to limit their access and to pay interest at market rates. Canadians
told us we should not allow contribution rates to go over 10 per
cent. We heard them.
[English]
Contribution rates will rise over the next six years to 9.9 per cent
and remain steady thereafter. This is far less than the projected rate
of over 14 per cent that the chief actuary said would have been
required if these changes had not been made.
Several measures have made it possible to keep contribution
rates to 9.9 per cent. Let me mention a number of them. The year's
basic exemption, the first $3,500 of earnings on which no CPP
contributions are paid, will remain at the current level. Retirement
pensions will be calculated on the five year average of the year's
maximum pensionable earnings at the time of retirement instead of
the three year average. The administration of disability benefits is
being improved to ensure that benefits go only to those who are
eligible under the legislation.
Retirement pensions for disability beneficiaries will be based on
maximum pensionable earnings at the time of disablement and then
indexed to age 65 by prices instead of wages.
8141
[Translation]
New rules will be used to calculate combined pensions for
people receiving both disability and survivor benefits, or
retirement and survivor benefits. The death benefit will provide 6
months of retirement pension to a maximum of $2,500.
A stronger labour force attachment text will be required to obtain
disability coverage-contributions will be required in 4 out of the
last 6 years prior to claiming benefits.
[English]
These proposed changes are moderate and balanced. They will
slow the growth of escalating costs. However, Canadians told us to
go easy on changes to benefits and we have.
Finally, Canadians told us to treat them like members of a
pension plan. We are going to do that. Public accountability will be
strengthened. Canadians will receive annual reports on their CPP
accounts as soon as possible and federal-provincial reviews will be
required every three years rather than every five years.
With the exception of a small additional increase in the
contribution rate for 1997, these proposed changes will come into
effect in 1998 once legislation is passed.
(1210)
[Translation]
The changes to secure the CPP are supported by the federal
government and the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and
Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
[English]
We regret that we were unable to get unanimous support, and
that two provinces felt they were unable to join the agreement.
However, the requirement to achieve the support of two-thirds of
the provinces with two-thirds of the population has been met.
It is fair to say that all the options to secure the CPP had a fair
hearing. Some were introduced, however, after the public
consultations were over. The door is open to those ideas, along with
several important issues that were beyond the scope of this review.
Let me emphasize, our first goal was to assure the fundamental
security of the Canada pension plan and we have done that. This is
something with which governments have failed to come to grips for
over a decade.
We are now in a position to begin discussing other issues and we
will do so as soon as possible. They include adding mandatory
credit splitting during marriage, reviewing survivor benefits to
make sure that they reflect changing realities in today's families,
looking at the work to retirement transition, including the
possibility of providing partial CPP pensions during that period.
We will look at British Columbia's proposal to expand CPP
coverage up the income scale.
Canada's retirement income system is not alone in facing
challenges from an aging population and increasing longevity.
However, almost no other industrialized country in the world has
done as much as Canada has to come to grips with these problems.
The government promised to make the retirement income
system secure for Canadians. We are well on the way to doing it.
[Translation]
The CPP is one of the three pillars of our retirement income
system. Old age security and the guaranteed income supplement
also provide public pensions for seniors. We have taken action to
make these programs secure and sustainable as well.
[English]
The new seniors benefit announced in the 1996 budget will
consolidate the OAS and the GIS into one benefit, beginning in the
year 2001. This new benefit is designed to help those most in need
and will protect low and modest income Canadians.
The third pillar is tax assisted savings for retirement such as
registered pension plans or registered retirement savings plans. We
will continue to provide generous incentives for Canadians to save
for their own retirement years.
In summary, all three pillars of Canada's retirement income
system are being placed on a secure and a sustainable footing.
Canadians can rest assured that the pension system, as they know
it, can be counted on by them and by generations to come.
I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this file.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, speaking on behalf of my colleagues
and the Bloc Quebecois, to respond today to the draft legislation to
amend the Canada pension plan that was just introduced by the
minister.
On the whole,, we welcome this announcement although, as
usual, there are some aspects that give us cause for concern. We are
very much aware, as the chief actuary of the plan has said, that the
problems facing the CPP are fundamental and that without
changes, the CPP fund will run out of money in less than 20 years.
Without changes, contribution rates would have to increase from 6
per cent to 14 per cent.
I would like to go over briefly most of the measures contained in
this draft legislation and comment accordingly.
8142
One of the measures being proposed, the first one, is that anyone
currently receiving survivor, disability or combined benefits and
anyone over the age of 65 as of December 31 is not affected by
the proposed changes. This is, of course, a pre-election measure,
and we realize the minister does not want to give anyone the
impression they will be affected immediately. However, those in
the plan later on will be affected.
(1215)
The second measure is that all benefits under the CPP will
remain fully indexed to inflation. This is very good news. In this
respect, the federal government is following Quebec's example. In
fact, Quebec agrees with the federal government on this score.
Only two provinces do not.
Every time Quebec has managed to defend its interests
satisfactorily-we saw this in the harmonization of the GST, and
we see it again today in this draft legislation-Quebec has always
been among the first to agree with measures that support the
interests of our citizens.
Measure number three is that the ages of retirement-normal,
early or late-remain unchanged. There is no problem here, of
course. The fund now is equivalent in value to about two years of
benefits. With fuller funding, it will grow to about five years of
benefits, and we agree with the minister that this will guarantee the
system's viability.
Contribution rates will rise over the next six years to 9.9 per cent
in 2003 and remain steady thereafter. This is another measure
which, we believe, guarantees the system's viability in the long
term. The basic exemption, the first $3,500 of earnings on which no
CPP contributions are paid, will remain at the current level. There
is no problem here either.
Retirement pensions will be calculated on the five-year average
of the year's maximum pensionable earnings instead of the
three-year average. Some criticism here. This represents a small
loss for beneficiaries, since the five-year average will usually be
slightly less than the three-year average.
Another measure is the improvement of the administration of
disability benefits. In a recent report, the auditor general was
critical of the way these benefits were administered and pointed to
Quebec as an example of what should be done. Quebec was right
again. We applaud the decision of the Minister of Finance to do
things the right way. However, we will have to wait and see how
this works out in the bill.
Another measure is that disability benefits will be indexed by
prices instead of wages. Here again, we have a complaint. This
penalizes beneficiaries to some extent, because prices tend not to
change as quickly as wages.
New rules will be used to calculate combined pensions for
people receiving both disability and survivor benefits or retirement
and survivor benefits. This is very bad news.
Let us take the example of a woman receiving benefits after the
death of her husband and who then becomes disabled. She is
therefore entitled to disability benefits. Under the current plan, she
receives both benefits. Under the new rules, there will be a limit on
the amount she can receive. In real terms, it could mean she would
receive $800 a month instead of $1,200. It seems unfair to penalize
people who are in such unfortunate situations this way.
Death benefits will be equivalent to six months of pension or
$2,500, whichever is less. At first glance, that does not seem to
pose a problem.
More active participation will also be required. Eligibility for
disability benefits will require a person to have contributed during
four of the six years preceding an application for benefits. Another
downer. We will have to see what the witnesses before the Standing
Committee on Finance have to say about the consequences of this
measure. At first glance, it looks like a good number of
contributors will be dropped from the plan and will thus have paid
for naught.
Canadians will also be receiving an annual statement from the
Canada Pension Plan. This of course is a good idea. Canadians and
Quebecers should always be given a statement of what happens in
their files.
A federal-provincial examination will be conducted every three
years instead of every five. We also agree with this measure.
As the minister pointed out, there are three pillars to the
Canadian retirement income system: the Canada Pension Plan, the
Old Age Security together with the Guaranteed Income
Supplement, and the tax incentives for retirement savings, namely
RRSPs.
Where the rub lies is with the second pillar. The Bloc Quebecois
will vigorously oppose the proposal to replace these two benefits
with a single benefit for seniors in 2001.
(1220)
The finance minister's proposal discourages saving by
penalizing Quebecers and Canadians who have put money away for
their old age, because the benefit will be reduced by an amount
proportionate to their retirement income.
The Bloc Quebecois promised to battle the federal government
on this every inch of the way, provided of course that Quebec is
still part of Canada in 2002.
The Bloc Quebecois' position on the third pillar, RRSPs, is
outlined in the analysis of personal tax expenditures released by the
Bloc in early February. We think it is not fair to Quebecers and
Canadians for a $1,000 investment in an RRSP to generate $313 in
8143
federal tax savings for those who earn more than $100,000, while
the same $1,000 investment in an RRSP will only generate a $175
tax saving for someone earning $30,000 or less.
As an alternative to the RRSP tax deduction, we have proposed a
$268 across-the-board tax credit; this is the only fair and equitable
way to encourage all taxpayers to save for their retirement.
This pretty well sums up for now our reaction to the tabling of
this draft bill. Naturally, we will follow it as it goes through all the
different stages and will gladly offer comments along the way.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canadians from coast to coast must be feeling a
terrible chill as the shadow of the most regressive tax increase ever
to hit our country has just been announced by the Minister of
Finance.
Today the government announced the fact that it is going to be
increasing the current Canada pension plan payroll tax from 5.85
per cent of earnings to 9.9 per cent. This is a huge increase in
personal taxes, taxes that come out at the payroll, taxes that come
out before income taxes are paid, taxes that come out even before
Canadians get a chance to pay the GST. No matter how we slice it,
this is a tax increase to Canadians.
If this were a pension plan, as people understand or contemplate
pension plans, it may not be that bad, people providing for their
future, but that is not what it is. For example, today if you pay 5.8
per cent of your salary in order to get a pension of $8,724.90 which
is the maximum Canada pension plan, you would get $8,724.96 in
pension. After the changes are made, you and your employer will
have the opportunity to pay $3,193.36 to get the same $8,000. You
are paying $3,200 a year to get approximately $9,000 in pension.
Does that make any sense? This is RRSP season. If the
government were selling mutual funds, and the government said to
each individual taxpayer: ``We have this great new plan. This new
plan means that you and your employer will get to pay $3,200 a
year in premiums and for that you will receive about $9,000 a
year'', the taxpayer would laugh because it does not make any
sense at all. That is the basic problem with this plan. It does not
give to the person who owns the plan and puts the money into the
plan, the individual Canadian, a balanced, decent and honest return
on their invested money.
The government has said it is conscious of the negative impact
that payroll taxes have on jobs. This is a historical fact. It is on
record. The government has said and has evidenced that in
recognition of that, it will reduce the employment insurance
premiums by the magnificent sum of 10 cents per $100 of earned
income.
(1225 )
To put the increase into context, this increase in payroll taxes is
$4.10 per $100 of income. So the government giveth and the
government taketh away. When the government taketh away, is it
balanced? I think not. And there again is the problem. Canadians
are taxed to death. We cannot look at any individual tax alone. We
have to look at the cumulative effect on our economy. The tax grab
is an anchor that sucks the lifeblood out of our economy.
When the payroll taxes go up for the individual and for the
employer-as they will in this circumstance, after six years the tax
will go up to $651.90 each-where does that money come from?
The employer says: ``We have been contributing $1,889.56 per
employee annually but now we have to contribute $3,193.36.
Where are we going to get that money? Can we raise our prices? No
we cannot''. We live in a competitive world. It shrinks profit. The
shrunk profit means there is less money to reinvest in our economy.
What does that mean? It means fewer jobs.
If we want to see what is going to happen to our economy as a
direct result of this tax grab because of the fact that we have
mismanaged the pension funds over the last 36 years, just watch the
unemployment rate rise after this kicks in. What is going to
happen? Businesses are going to do the only thing they can do in
order to get by. They are going to lay off staff because there is no
other way to get money. How can businesses survive when a
government thinks of them as a bottomless pit of resources? It just
does not happen.
The hon. member opposite used to be a highly placed member of
the Toronto Dominion Bank. The Toronto Dominion Bank is going
to look at all of those businesses and say: ``Gosh, you have 100
employees. Do you realize you are going to have to come up with
some $90,000 a year more just to cover the Canada pension plan
premiums? Where are you going to get that money? More money
will have to be injected into your business''.
They businesses are going to say: ``But wait a minute. We cannot
automatically assume that business is going to increase so the only
thing we can do is lay people off or not hire them''. That is the
problem with this. We must inculcuate a sense of fiscal
responsibility within all governments.
When the government says to someone that it is investing this
money on his behalf, I ask hon. members and I ask Canadians, what
person in their right mind would ask a government that is $600
billion in debt to be his investment adviser? Only a government
that is $600 billion in debt could say with a straight face to
Canadians: ``Give us $3,200 of your money each year and we will
invest it for you. For that, after your retirement, you will get almost
$9,000 a year''. Give me a break.
8144
Anybody investing in even the most moderate RRSP would
know that a privately managed investment plan would return more
than double the same amount over the same period of time. How
can the government possibly look Canadians in the face and say
that this is a good deal? It is not a good deal. It is a tragedy.
It is a tragedy for all Canadians because once again the
government instead of facing reality is saying: ``We can get
ourselves out of this problem by increasing taxes''. Every time you
increase taxes, you poke another hole in the lifeboat of the
economy. It makes it harder to keep our national finances in shape.
(1230)
We as a government and governments all over the country have
fiduciary responsibility to our children and to their children to live
within our means. That does not mean sucking money out of the
country by means of a payroll surtax to lend to other governments
at below market rates and make ourselves look better today at the
expense of future generations.
The government has no reason to be pleased about this tax
increase which will negatively influence employment. It will be
terribly detrimental to the employment of young Canadians,
especially the most vulnerable young Canadians, those trying to get
into the workforce for the first time.
There is no excuse for the fiscal mismanagement of our country,
our pension plans and our money which has brought us to the
situation we are in today.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to return to
the tabling of documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
1995 annual report of the Lower Churchill Development
Corporation Limited.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in
both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe
Parliamentary Association on the meeting of the Standing
Committee on the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE held in
Vienna, Austria, January 16 and 17, 1997.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 55th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 55th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating
to financial institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Dartmouth, that the 55th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a petition
signed by 44 constituents. This petition is timely, since the budget
will be delivered in a few days and also because the Minister of
Finance happened to be with us when it was signed. This petition
points to the level of taxes on gasoline. The petitioners ask
Parliament and the Minister of Finance not to raise the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the upcoming federal budget.
I do hope this government gets my constituents' message.
(1235)
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table a petition signed by 273 people in my riding, who are asking
Parliament to pass a law that would impose a ceiling on the interest
8145
rates paid on credit cards issued to consumers by banks and major
retailers, based on the Bank of Canada rate.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of submitting two petitions.
The first one is signed by 50 people in my riding, who are asking
the government and the Minister of Finance not to increase the
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also have a
second petition signed by 25 people in my riding.
The petitioners ask Parliament to put pressure on the federal
government, so that it will join provincial governments and make it
possible to improve our national highway system.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions praying that Parliament
urges the federal government to join with the provincial
government to make the national highway system upgrading
possible beginning in 1997.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding
urging Parliament to dedicate significantly more resources for the
support and development of scientific research through programs
such as the MRC and NSERC.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present to the House today a petition signed by 200 of
my constituents who strongly support the community action
program for children.
The petitioners stress that health promotion preventive programs
like CAPC are a cost effective way to spend health dollars. They
also point out that local and regional evaluation studies of P.E.I.
CAPC projects indicate a high level of success.
With this in mind these petitioners call upon government to
maintain the CAPC with its present mandate and with its present
resources.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
duty to present a petition on behalf of constituents in both Ottawa
South and Ottawa Centre. They call on Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention that will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is very appropriate and
my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of the citizens of
Prince George-Peace River who have signed it because today Bill
C-41 is back in the House.
Specifically the petitioners, among other things, call upon
Parliament to decrease litigation in places where joint custody has
been awarded automatically. Statistics show that in situations with
greater access to the children there is an increase in compliance
with support orders. The highest compliances are in cases where
there is joint custody.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to protect the rights of children to be loved and parented
by both parents, ensuring equitable enforcement programs and
ensuring custodial arrangements are at least similar to the
arrangements prior to separation.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present two petitions
on behalf of the member for Edmonton East.
In the first petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge
the federal government to join with the provincial governments to
make the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are requesting
that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health commit to a
renewal of the national AIDS strategy prior to its expiry on March
31, 1998 at least at its current level of funding so that Canada can
continue its programs in the areas of AIDS prevention, education,
support and research.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8146
8146
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1240)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement
Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Because of the ministerial statement and
the responses the business of the day will be extended by 30
minutes.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just before we broke for question period I had directed a question to
one of my colleagues who is not in the Chamber at the moment.
Therefore I guess the proper procedure would be to continue with
debate on the Senate amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for indicating
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill
C-41, which, as was mentioned earlier, has been sent back to us by
the Upper Chamber, the Senate, where it was amended, after
having been passed by the House of Commons a few months ago.
We therefore find ourselves once again in the situation that has
arisen on several occasions during this Parliament of having to go
back over debates we have already had because senators, more
often than not for lack of enough to keep them busy, decide to
review a bill and make amendments to it.
In this case, three amendments were proposed by members of the
Upper Chamber and I will come back to them during my speech.
I would like to take a few minutes to deplore the state of affairs I
have just described. The House of Commons is made up of
representatives from throughout Canada, who have been elected by
their respective constituents to represent them in this House and to
introduce and pass bills meeting the needs and aspirations of the
public.
The nature of our parliamentary system is such that another
Chamber, the Upper Chamber, or the Senate, whose members are
not elected, may, for all sorts of reasons, more often than not
partisan, hold up the legislative process by intervening to amend
bills, thus delaying their implementation, often with unfortunate
and even disastrous consequences for many members of the public.
We must speak out against this meddling by representatives of
the Senate who are, I repeat, not elected. They have been appointed
by various governments. We know how senators get to the Upper
Chamber. In the great majority of cases, they were selected for
purely partisan reasons. There are exceptions, of course, and most
senators are men and women who have served the Liberal or
Conservative parties at some time in the past-
Mr. Crête: Or both.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): -and
which continue to serve one or the other of these parties, or as my
colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has just pointed
out, both, more often than not. These people, who totally lack the
legitimacy of having been elected, hinder things at every turn.
(1245)
I referred to the comment my hon. colleague for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup made earlier, and I will take this
opportunity to call attention to his efforts regarding the
uselessness, not the usefulness, of the Upper House. My colleague
was the spark behind a petition tabled in this House after doing the
rounds of Quebec. You will recall that in excess of 30,000 of our
fellow citizens called for total abolition of the Senate.
In the years since 1993, every chance it gets, the Bloc Quebecois
has initiated this debate, or taken part in debates calling for the
abolition of the Upper Chamber. In reference to the very option of
the Bloc Quebecois and the reason for its existence, that is Quebec
sovereignty, we feel that the Upper Chamber is not the only thing
that is superfluous. So is our presence here in the House of
Commons
We therefore hope that, as soon as possible, a new country will
appear on the North American scene, a country to be called
Quebec, which will be able to establish good relationships with its
neighbours, not just to the south, but to the east and west as well.
Then, we will be able to concentrate on debates focussed on finding
solutions, instead of wasting time discussing the uselessness of the
Upper Chamber and, more often than not, having to do as we are
today, pick up again on something that they have decided to
demolish.
Since we are talking about the Senate and its purpose in life,
although more often than not, what it does in the legislative sphere
is pretty useless, the Senate does have a purpose. As I said, it is a
kind of Club Med for former Liberal and Conservative party
organizers which allows them to travel all over the world at
government and taxpayers' expense.
It also allows organizers with the Liberal Party or the
Conservative Party to work full time on organizing and fundraising
for their respective parties. In the case of the Conservative Party, if
it had not been for the presence of Conservative senators in the
other place during the past three years, not much would have
happened on the political or organizing side in the party, since here
in the House, it has only two members, including the hon. member
for
8147
Sherbrooke, whose salary is largely paid by the taxpayers of
Sherbrooke so he can act as director general of the Conservative
Party.
And more often than not, the hon. member is not in the House,
because he is too busy rebuilding a party which in any case will
disappear in the next election. And the same applies to a large
number of senators whom I will not identify, since everyone knows
who I mean.
The fact remains that Bill C-41 is extremely important for all
families with children which, for various reasons, have to separate.
These children do not only suffer the emotional shock of separation
but also suffer economically as a result of a decision made without
their consent and often without consulting them. I repeat, they
suffer the impact of such decisions, justified though they may be.
(1250)
Bill C-41 is an attempt to deal with a problem that has been
severely criticized by many people across Canada and especially in
Quebec. The government wanted to deal with a problem that came
before the Supreme Court with the Thibaudeau case, and the
court's decision is well known, because as a result, support
payments paid by a spouse are still deducted from that person's
taxable income and added to the income of the person receiving
them on behalf of the children, an important point.
I do not have the statistics before me, but from memory I would
say that over 90 per cent of the time women are the ones receiving
support for children in their care and the ones obliged to add this
support to their income.
Their former husband, who has often faded into the woodwork or
is hard to locate, often fails in his responsibility. When he does
fulfil his responsibility, he gets a tax deduction, whereas his former
wife, who has custody of the children, has an increase in her
income and is obliged to pay tax on much of the child support.
This is unfair. Bill C-41 wants to put an end to this. When the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke in the
House, he repeated what the representatives of the Liberal
government had said, and what had been said of course by the
members of the Bloc Quebecois. In Quebec, we have been aware of
this situation for a number of years and, as we have in many areas,
come up with solutions that are not only original but fulfil the
needs and expectations of those concerned. I am speaking
obviously of the guidelines that will be given to accommodate the
establishment of the support payment.
In Quebec, we have already set a number of criteria. The federal
government can do the same. The bill provides that the
government may order that provincial criteria apply. This would
avoid a double standard in the distribution and calculation of
support payments.
My colleague from Lévis mentioned this earlier. In the case of
divorce, federal law obviously applies, because divorce is under
federal jurisdiction. In the case of separation, the Civil Code will
apply as it does to marriage. As we have said on many occasions,
the situation is a bit of a paradox, but nevertheless not unlike the
constitutional issue. Whereas marriage, or union, comes under
Quebec law, divorce or the break-up of the union is under federal
jurisdiction.
This is the very thing we have been trying to explain to our
colleagues across the way for decades, and we seem to be having a
bit of a problem getting the message across.
(1255)
Coming back to the bill per se, Bill C-41 provides an opportunity
to include the criteria established by the provinces. The Bloc
Quebecois spoke out publicly against this. It is not that we
disagree, on the contrary; we insisted that the criteria established
by Quebec or any other province should take precedence over those
established by the federal government. We feel there is no need for
the kind of paternalistic attitude the federal government displays
more often than not in different areas in the name of imposing
national standards.
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the Senate made
three amendments. The first one provides for the establishment of a
joint committee of the House and the Senate on child custody and
access. The Bloc is opposed to this amendment for a very logical
reason. We believe the Senate should not interfere in any way with
the preparation or consideration of this bill. There is no need for a
committee on child custody and access.
For this provision to make its way into the bill, it has to have
been approved by the government through its justice minister. The
Bloc Quebecois will make sure to sit on this committee to defend
the views of our party of course, but also those of the people of
Quebec.
Another Senate amendment would lift the legal obligation to pay
for the children's education until they turn 25 and let the courts
decide instead. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with this amendment.
In Quebec, this issue was settled by jurisprudence following an
interpretation of the civil code. For us, it is a matter of fact. We
certainly have no objection to the inclusion of this provision in the
bill.
Finally, the third amendment made by the Upper House would
have both parents provide for the child instead of just the parent
paying alimony. Again, the official opposition agrees with this
amendment. The problem was raised in committee by Bloc
members. Furthermore, in its own guidelines, the Government of
Quebec looks at the income of both parents.
8148
That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the Senate
amendments. I will conclude my remarks by saying a few words
about the need, in this kind of debate, to focus on those we are
most concerned about, and I am talking about children of course.
It was with our children in mind that we wanted to settle this
matter.
It is important to point out that the child support we are talking
about in discussing the determination of the amount and the need
for it to be fair and equitable is the support paid to ensure what I
would call the optimal development of the children, and not to
support the spouse.
(1300)
As I said at the beginning of my speech, children have no
business paying for the decisions made by their parents, even if
these decisions are warranted to ensure the well-being of the
children as well as the adults.
In other words, we must make sure every precaution is taken not
to penalize the children, who already have to deal with the
emotional trauma of separation.
I do hope that, this time, the House will pass this bill, with
amendments, so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order for clarification.
I want to explain a matter very briefly. Often in this House,
whether in question period or in debate, we can totally and
unintentionally provide information or give a response that is not
entirely accurate.
As I was leaving the House I was reminded by members of the
press that today in question period I had referred to incidents in
Somalia, to which I have referred many times, as shootings, as
killings and as murder, as has been suggested by questions and
responses.
I want to apologize to the House and to my colleagues if in any
way I mislead anyone by linking the two incidents in Somalia in the
sense that I said ``that Canadians are fully aware of what took place
with respect to the murders by shooting or by torture''. The torture
death obviously is a totally separate incident from the shootings of
the two Somali citizens and that shooting resulted in the death of
one of them.
As I recall to the best of my information, on two instances in
question period today I spoke of murders, in the plural. Obviously
there is one incident that can be described appropriately as a
murder. The shooting that resulted in the killing of a Somali citizen
is another matter. I did not want under any circumstances to leave
that kind of impression with my colleagues or with anyone else
who is following this matter.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: If it is to make a comment on what has
just been said I will hear the hon. member. However, I do not think
that is normally what is expected when somebody gets up and
makes a statement such as the one just made.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if it
is permissible I would ask for a further point of clarification from
the hon. minister. Is he telling the House that the death of the two
civilians, which has been described in some accounts as execution
style, were not murders? Is this what he is telling the House?
The Deputy Speaker: This is debate. It is not a question and
answer period. However, in these very serious circumstances if the
minister wishes to say something further I will be happy to hear it.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House very much
for your indulgence. I think it is a question that needs to be
addressed.
The reason that I came back at the very first opportunity to
clarify this is because I do not believe that any of us can draw
conclusions with respect to the nature of the incident. What the
judicial proceedings have demonstrated is that in one instance there
was a death that has been described and was determined as murder.
The other incident which involved a shooting and killing of a
Somali citizen is still a question that needs to be resolved. That is
why I want to make sure that I was not speaking of murders, in the
plural, but making sure that I was as accurate as possible for the
benefit of the House and for all of my colleagues.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Deputy Speaker: We are not going to turn this into a
question and answer period. This can be done better in question
period. Is it a separate point of order or more on the same point of
order?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point of order but it
would be for clarification purposes.
(1305 )
In question period he made a comment which he now feels needs
to be clarified. He has clarified it and I understand his clarification.
However, why can we not have further clarification of what he has
now said and submitted to the House because there is a difference.
8149
In one case he knows it was murder. In the other case he is
unsure, but yet he has invoked closure on the hearings. Why has
he invoked closure on the hearings when he does not have all the
answers?
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members are trying to develop a
new procedure where we have questions and answers after anyone
comes in to clarify something they said during question period. I do
not think we have anything in our standing orders to cover this.
We will return to the order of business which is before the
House.
_____________________________________________
8149
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement
Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief because I see that one of my colleagues
would also like to direct a comment or a question to the hon.
member from the Bloc who just spoke.
I am a bit puzzled by comments he made during his presentation.
Near the end he spoke about the three amendments which the
Senate put forward with respect to this legislation. He indicated the
Bloc will be opposing what he listed as the first amendment which
is the promise to strike a joint committee to look at the whole issue
of custody, access and visitation rights.
All of us know that the debate on Bill C-41 has been somewhat
lengthy. A lot of people have spoken about its flaws and its
ineffectiveness in addressing certain issues of parenting which are
so vitally important to the majority of Canadians.
I wonder why the Bloc, other than perhaps animosity toward the
other place, would oppose a joint committee to look at such a
critical area pertaining to parenting.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thought I had answered that question, but I thank the
hon. member for asking me to clarify my point. It is very simple:
we are opposed to the Senate getting involved in this matter. We do
not object to the fact that a committee should follow up on these
issues.
On the contrary, I pointed out that, while we do not think the
proposed formula, that is the establishment of a joint committee of
the House and the Senate, is the appropriate solution, we certainly
intend to take part in the work of that committee and to state our
point of view, in the best interests of our fellow citizens.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the member has now said the Bloc is willing to talk
about the joint committee.
I want to question the member about the abolition of the upper
House. He seemed very bitter about the upper House, when in fact
it is one of the few occasions when it is actually doing its job,
which is to look at legislation that has passed here with a sober
second thought to find out if it is really fair.
Thank goodness there is a very close balance between Tories and
Liberals in that House right now because it has enabled some
common sense to come out of it. They sent the legislation back here
so that we could have a better look at it.
Instead of scrapping the Senate and the whole country being held
hostage to this place, does he not think it would be better to have an
elected Senate which would have equal representation from each
province? In that way we could have a truly representative House
of sober second thought.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, again, it seems to me I answered that question. First, I
want to express my surprise at hearing the Reform Party member
rave about the Conservative and Liberal representation in the
Senate. It seems to me he should hope instead that some Reform
senators would be present, as was the case previously.
(1310)
We, Bloc Quebecois members, say that the Senate is a
completely useless institution in our parliamentary process.
Moreover, in my speech I made reference to our party's political
option, which is known throughout Quebec, since we were elected
by discussing it openly. Once Quebec achieves sovereignty, the
issue of whether the Senate is useful or not will become moot. The
Senate will simply disappear.
Once this happens, our Canadian friends can certainly choose
whatever institutions they wish to have, through whatever process
they select. If they want an elected Senate because it would better
meet their concerns and expectations, we will certainly not object.
We will take note of that, and we will watch the implementation of
such a measure. We, Bloc Quebecois members, have absolutely no
use for the Senate, now or in the future.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the Senate amendments
to Bill C-41, which amends the Divorce Act.
8150
This bill has received a certain amount of notoriety and
attention in the media over the last week or two because of the
work of one senator in particular. As my colleague from North
Vancouver just said, the Senate became a House of sober, second
thought. The impression seems to have been left that this House
did not adequately debate and take a good look at the bill. That
is simply not true.
Although that seems to be the perception of the public, and
perpetuated by the media, in reality this bill was before the House
on a number of occasions. I spoke to it twice, at second reading and
at report stage, when both opposition parties brought forward a
number of amendments which would have improved the bill.
It is a bit ironic that Senator Anne Cools picked up on this when
the bill came before the Senate. She also brought forward
amendments, which people in the other place are entitled to do. We
applaud their efforts to try to better the legislation that comes
before them. After all, that is why the Senate is there.
As my hon. colleague from North Vancouver just stated, this is
one example that clearly demonstrates that the Senate can actually
accomplish a lot, especially in the present situation with such a
close balance of power existing in the upper chamber between the
Conservatives and the Liberals. This is an example where the
Senate can actually accomplish a lot, where it has a lot of power to
force change to a piece of legislation.
It is also ironic that while this could be used as an example of the
power of the upper chamber, conversely it also indicates the
powerlessness of this Chamber. The amendments that eventually
came from the Senate that we are debating today are essentially the
same amendments that were brought in by the Reform Party of
Canada and the Bloc Quebecois when the House dealt with this
legislation.
As I indicated, I had the privilege to speak to this bill twice, once
on October 3, 1996 and again quite extensively on November 4,
1996 when the bill was in this Chamber for report stage.
(1315 )
We brought forward four amendments. The first would have
established an order of priority so that the court would look first at
the needs of the child and the non-custodial parent's ability to pay
and then at the applicable guidelines for child support. As the bill is
written and still exists, the court only looks to the guidelines. We
see that as a real flaw in the bill and one that has not been addressed
by the Senate amendments.
The second amendment we brought forward is that the
guidelines established under the bill should take into consideration
the needs of the child and the ability of the parent to pay.
The third amendment would extend the period from 30 to 50
days for a non-custodial spouse to react to the receipt of notice that
his or her passport may be suspended or federal licence withdrawn
for non-payment of support. This is a real concern in that a
situation could develop because of this legislation whereby a
non-custodial parent due to an error, and in these days of
technology computer errors happen all the time, could arrive at a
port or airport planning to leave the country perhaps for
employment overseas only to find their passport had been revoked.
In cases where there has been a legitimate error, by the time the
individual could go through the appeal process they could perhaps
have lost their job. How would this be beneficial to the child that
the legislation is supposedly being put in place to help support?
This is a very real concern.
We put forward another amendment dealing with the same issue
that would extend the period from 10 to 20 days for deeming that a
person has received notice that the passport may be suspended or a
license revoked for the same purpose. A little more advance notice
might prevent a tragic situation when a person could conceivably
lose their employment and their ability to support their children
because of some error.
We have no problem where an individual has gone through the
process and it is obvious the non-custodial parent is intent on not
abiding by their responsibilities for the support of the children, that
the law treats it as a very serious offence. With the garnishment of
wages provision the bill provides that the children are properly
cared for and supported.
However, to go to the extent of revoking passports, the bill goes
a bit too far as there certainly could be some errors in the future.
When they come to light they could prove to be quite tragic in the
sense of loss of income for support of the very children the bill was
designed to assist.
Another area I want to get into is custody and access which the
bill does not deal with. We have said on many occasions when the
bill was before the House and when speaking on this issue outside
the House that the bill deals with the monetary aspect of child
support but completely misses the boat by not dealing with custody
and access and co-parenting. It does not promote an enhanced
environment for co-parenting.
As mentioned in the debate earlier today, the problem many of us
see in the whole area of divorce and what happens to the family is
that the divorce process seems to build a sense of adversity
between the two parents. The very system promotes adversity
rather than trying to arrive at a more amicable conclusion to the
divorce. We have said that while the overall purpose of Bill C-41 is
quite admirable, it is very lacking in this area.
8151
(1320)
While I am speaking on this issue, it reminds me that I
introduced private members' Bill C-242 in the House of Commons
on March 20 last year. The bill would give joint custody in all cases
of divorce except where it could be shown to the court that it was in
the best interests of the child or children to have sole custody
awarded to one parent. Obviously there are cases where there is
abuse, neglect or a very real reluctance on the part of one parent to
assume the responsibilities, however I would suggest that those
cases are a very small exception in the vast majority of cases.
I have talked to a lot of divorced parents in my riding of Prince
George-Peace River and across the country about these types of
issues. In the vast majority of cases, both parents are trying to
operate in the best interests of the children. They want to continue
to be loving and caring parents after the divorce just as they were
when the marriage was intact.
I noted in an earlier speech that according to a 1995 study by the
U.S. Bureau of Statistics, non-custodial parents with visitation and
joint custody were much more likely to pay support. Seventy-nine
per cent of those with access paid support, while only 59 per cent of
those without access paid.
We cannot separate the issue of financial support from the issue
of custody, visitation and access to the children. The two go hand in
hand. We cannot separate the two because statistics clearly show
that when there is greater access, there is also a greater willingness
on the part of the non-custodial parent, on the part of the other
parent, in most cases the father, to comply with support
requirements. This is an area where the government could enact
legislation that would support families rather than furthering the
adversity that we have presently.
A May 19, 1992 study by the Canadian Research Institute for
Law and the Family found that almost 75 per cent of non-custodial
parents reported problems in visiting their children. This shows
that access and visitation rights in Canada are not working and it
results in many problems, including as I said, non-compliance in
child support.
That is why when I was looking at this situation I opted to go
with moving toward joint custody, which many of the states in the
United States have adopted. It is not the total answer and I
recognize that. I talked with many groups, such as the umbrella
group FACT, Fathers are Capable Too, that was here about a week
and a half ago. They had a number of speakers and held a press
conference downstairs in this very building. They brought forward
a lot of points on this legislation and on this issue which the
government would certainly do well to listen to and pay heed to.
As one of my colleagues said earlier, we have to look at this
issue as a family issue and a support issue. Why is it that both
parents are assumed by society, by the communities and by the
justice system to be loving, caring parents when the marriage is
intact? We assume that unless it is proven otherwise. Yet it seems
that once the marriage breaks down and the parents are separated,
the system supports the sense of adversity between the parents. It
gives certain rights and powers to one that do not go to the other. In
1992 Canadian courts awarded joint custody only 16 per cent of the
time. Sole custody is awarded to mothers approximately 72 per
cent of the time and to fathers only 12 per cent of the time.
(1325)
In some instances where sole custody is awarded to one parent or
the other, the parents themselves can arrive at a reasonable
solution, a solution which is in the best interests of the children as
far as visitation, holidays and access to those children go. It is in
the best interests of those children and I certainly applaud those
parents who are able to do that.
However those statistics would indicate to me that there is a
problem out there. The problem is that in many cases, the children
are used as pawns. They are the innocent victims. That is my great
concern.
I do not want to come down on the side of the custodial parent
versus the non-custodial parent or vice versa. I do not want to come
down on the side of fathers versus mothers. I want to come down
on the side of the children.
As a loving, caring parent of three children, I cannot understand,
I cannot fathom nor can I see anything worse than the loss of a
child. In cases where the marriage breaks down and one parent
wants to continue to be that loving, caring parent and wants to build
a lifetime relationship with his or her child and is denied that
access, it is an indescribable horror for both the parent and the
child. Because of that separation, the bond between the parent and
child as the young person grows and reaches maturity will never
exist. This will affect everything that will happen to the child and
will certainly be an ongoing anguish for the parent.
Therefore, even with the amendments from the Senate, it is my
judgment that this bill does very little. It fails to meet the very real
need of so many families. We are failing the Canadian people on
this very important issue.
I only look to the future in the hope that following the next
election we will have a Reform government in this country that will
properly address this issue and so many other issues. We will bring
forward legislation that truly does support the whole family.
When we deal with the Divorce Act, the focus has to be what is
best for the children.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George-Peace River for
his remarks which I found very thoughtful. I realize he considered
8152
them very carefully. I would like to raise a point with my colleague
that was raised several times in the House.
I think we have all agreed that this bill has come back from the
Senate with improvements through the amendments that have been
added. My Reform Party colleagues on several occasions
mentioned that this was the Senate doing good work. They credited
the fact that it was a Liberal senator who, because of the equal
number of seats in the Senate, was able to answer the concerns
about the bill and to pressure for changes which resulted in
improvements. All in the House feel there have been improvements
here.
I note that the member for North Vancouver used the occasion of
this debate to suggest that while the Senate is doing its job in this
instance, it would be better if the Senate were an elected Senate. I
submit to my Reform Party colleagues that if the Senate were an
elected Senate the even balance that has permitted this event to
occur, a Liberal senator ensuring that amendments are made, would
not exist. An elected Senate would be an unbalanced Senate. If it
reflected the balance in the House of Commons the Liberals would
be in great majority and there would be no opportunity for the kind
of result we have here.
(1330)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bryden: Does the member for Prince George-Peace River
not agree that the current method of producing senators-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I ask members to address
their comments through the Chair.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I am not
clear. Was the hon. member finished with his comments and
question?
An hon. member: He was interrupted by the Speaker.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the particular question because it gives me a chance to
talk, very briefly admittedly, about the whole need for democratic
reform in Parliament.
The problem with the hon. member's comments is the
presumption that were the upper Chamber an elected body people
would vote for their senators in the same fashion as they would
vote for their members of Parliament. From what we see in other
parliaments and republics around the world it is not always the case
the same party that holds the majority in the lower Chamber holds
the majority in the upper Chamber.
The presumption is that there are no free votes in this place. The
basis of the member's comment is that there are no free votes; they
will simply vote along party lines. Yet in this case Liberal Senator
Anne Cools stood up to the pressure from this justice minister,
stood up to the pressure from the government, and did not allow
this piece of legislation to be fast tracked through the upper
Chamber. That is what took place. She stood up to the pressure and
forced through the amendments we were unable to force through in
this Chamber.
This Chamber does not allow free expression and free votes in
the House. There are no free votes in the House. The very basis of
the comments made by the hon. member across the way allude to
that fact.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently had a letter from a constituent in my riding of
Kootenay West-Revelstoke who was concerned about the issue
the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River brought forth,
that is denial of access of the non-custodial parent.
This individual was very concerned having over the years paid
thousands upon thousands of dollars which he was required to pay.
He paid each time on time with honour and yet was denied access.
There is nothing in the system to address that. It is a very important
point.
My hon. colleague addressed it very well as he always does
when he speaks. Would he make a few comments on why such a
common sense provision has met with such resistance by the
government?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the
reason common sense provisions do not prevail with the
government across the way is that there is no common sense over
there.
If common sense was the guiding motive for legislation in the
House we would have a lot less legislation. A lot of the bills that
have been brought before the House over the past three years have
done very little in the eyes of the citizens out there in the real world
who might be watching the debate today.
(1335 )
At one point I commented that a party running for election to the
House of Commons could very well win a substantive majority if it
ran on a platform of repealing useless laws and legislation rather
than bringing in inconsequential, ineffective legislation like the
government has done over the last three years.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
8153
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and
concurred in.)
* * *
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister for International Trade)
moved that Bill C-81, an act to implement the Canada-Chile Free
Trade Agreement and related agreements, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
debate a very important piece of legislation for all Canadians. The
legislation would solidify the good trading relationship Canada has
had with Chile.
Bill C-81 is enabling legislation for the Canada-Chile Free Trade
Agreement. It is an important milestone for us because it broadens
the access to Canadian products and services under a free trade
regime into Latin American and South American countries.
As most people in the House and in the country are aware,
Canada has a very proud and strong tradition of being very
competitive in international markets.
I come from Atlantic Canada which has a history of trade. Many
times I have said in the past that up until 1867 when we were
merely a British colony places like Nova Scotia did a great deal of
trade. The reason Nova Scotia did so well in the 1800s is that the
culture of the people in Atlantic Canada was to look abroad.
The port of Halifax, the finest natural port in the world, used to
be chock full of ships plying their trade. I am told one could almost
walk from the shores of Dartmouth to the shores of Halifax on a
good summer day. Ships from all over the world were coming into
the port of Halifax in the 1850s and 1860s to trade with the world.
They would not just trade with central or upper Canada. They
would trade with the New England states. They traded a great deal
with Latin America, with the Caribbean, with Europe and with the
rest of the world.
In 1867 with the formation of Canada and the various regimes
and nation states that were being put in place protectionism became
the name of the game. For well over 120 years we saw countries
like Canada looking more and more inward and putting up barriers
to trade to protect their industries and markets.
In the last decade there has been an explosion in trade
deregulation. If we look around the globe we see the emergence of
different trade groups like the European Union and the Mercosur
block in South America. In North America we initially had the free
trade deal with the United States which was then extended to
Mexico and was known as the NAFTA.
(1340)
Great debates took place in Canada on whether or not this nation
was up to the challenge of competing globally and of removing the
tariff and non-tariff barriers to its own markets, on whether or not
we had the wherewithal as an entrepreneurial class of Canadians to
still be competitive, to have growth in our industries and jobs, and
to create wealth.
Maybe the verdict is out but I think the verdict in on free trade.
After two recessions, one in the early eighties and the other in the
early nineties, Canadian industries are among the must competitive
in the entire world.
In my job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade I deal with some of the most successful
competitive companies with the best practices in the world. They
are Canadian companies in almost every sector: mining, natural
resources, telecommunications and infrastructure. They are
renowned around the world for the way in which they do their
business, the quality of the product and the timeliness of delivery
of their service.
In the last few years we have seen the Canadian industrial
infrastructure take advantage of the reduction in tariffs and the
introduction of free trade in the NAFTA. We continue to penetrate
the toughest market in the world, the American market.
The statistics are important. At the risk of sounding boastful I
would like to repeat them. Canada, this great country of ours with
30 million people, does $1 billion a day in two-way trade with the
United States of America. We ship $550 million in goods and
services south of the border and we get $450 million back. For
every working day of every month in Canada, Canada does over $1
billion in two-way trade. This is a small country with 30 million
people and we do over $1 billion every working day.
If anybody out there questions whether or not Canadian
industries are up to the challenge of free trade and can compete in
international markets and keep their own markets the answer is yes.
Canada leads G-7 countries in terms of the percentage of GDP
coming from trade. It is approaching 39 per cent. It boggles the
mind that Canadian industry has been as competitive as it has been.
Most of the nearly 700,000 jobs created since the government came
to power have been created in industries that have expanded their
export performance. They have gone out. They have competed.
They have penetrated markets. They have created jobs and wealth
for Canadians.
8154
What does it mean in terms of jobs created in international
trade? How do they relate? They relate in a very real manner. For
every $1 billion in exports from Canadian industry there are
11,000 jobs maintained or created in the Canadian economy. These
are not the traditional McJobs at $5 per hour. These jobs are in
the high tech sector. These are jobs for scientists, researchers and
professionals. These jobs create real wealth and prosperity across
the country.
Places like Atlantic Canada where I come from have benefited a
great deal. It has taken us a little longer to twist our minds around
to the fact that we once again can be competitive and that we are no
longer bridled and collared by just the domestic marketplace and
the regulatory regimes that go with it.
Increasingly we see ships from around the world once again
making the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John, New
Brunswick, part of their international ports of call. We see the jobs
that come with that. We see more and more people from around the
world looking at places like Atlantic Canada because of its
strategic location, because of its natural resources and because of
its history of entrepreneurship and trade. Increasingly we are
seeing these individuals looking at places like Atlantic Canada and
the ports in the province of Quebec and in British Columbia as
places where they want to invest dollars.
The recent history of free trade has been extremely successful.
About a year ago we decided we would not wait for the United
States which had decided not to give fast track authority to its
president to pursue trade liberalization or free trade negotiations
with Chile. We as a government made a strategic decision to follow
an independent forum and an independent trade policy. It was in
our best interest, because we knew how competitive our industry
was, to extend our free trade negotiations to our friends to the
south. We found a willing partner in the great nation of Chile. Chile
said: ``We also want to become a partner in free trade with Canada.
We believe there is a tremendous amount we can do together''. The
negotiations began in January 1996. In less than one year, on
November 18, 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada and the
President of Chile initialled the free trade deal between Canada and
Chile.
(1345)
It is a very important deal. It showed the world that Canada was
not just going to talk about free trade. It showed Canada was going
to pursue opportunities wherever they existed so Canadian
companies could have access to foreign markets. It showed that we
were not afraid to allow foreign companies access to the Canadian
marketplace because we were absolutely convinced of the
competitiveness of our industry and our entrepreneurs.
What has this deal done for us? Some people would ask why we
would go with Chile, that we do not really have a lot of trade with
that country. We do have a lot of trade. We have about $700 million
a year in trade. More important is the recognition that we invest
about $7 billion in Chile. Canada is the second largest investor in
Chile. It is important for us. It gives us a window on that market in
South America.
This is a good deal for Canada. It is a deal that has good support
around the House of Commons. It immediately reduces the import
duty for about 75 per cent of the goods that Canada exports to
Chile. For the rest of the goods, by and large with one or two
exceptions, over the next five years a zero tariff will be applied.
The deal also allows us to do a couple of other things which I
will cover quickly. It gives us a very good dispute settlement
mechanism which is similar to the deal we have with the United
States. On trade remedies, where I will draw the line, we have
agreed in this deal that there is no room in a free trade association
for anti-dumping laws to be applied. This is a great victory for
Canada. This deal is a great victory for the people of Chile.
I look forward to support from all members of the House to have
this speedily passed at second reading and referred to a committee
so that on June 2 this free trade deal will come in force for the
benefit of all people of Canada and Chile.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have engaged in
some discussions with representatives of the official opposition
and the Reform Party. There is unanimous support for this
legislation. I know the sitting has been extended until two o'clock.
Could we have unanimous consent that there would not be any
questions or comments to any of the interveners, that we would still
have a member from each of the two parties, the Bloc Quebecois
and the Reform Party speak, and then we would put the question.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I see there is no consent to that so let
me try this. While there would be questions and comments if
people chose to have them, that a member of the Bloc would speak
and then a member of the Reform Party. At that time you would put
the question. Effectively, you would not see the clock at two
o'clock.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we would be in agreement, but on
condition that each party be limited to 10 minutes.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the wrinkle added, is there
consent from the Reform Party to that?
8155
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had discussed that we
would allow one question on the Liberal member's speech and
then after that no more questions, just finish the speeches if they
wanted.
The Deputy Speaker: We have added a second wrinkle. There
will be one question to the hon. parliamentary secretary and then 10
minutes to each of the parties. Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the speech of the hon. member for Dartmouth, I do not
think he is a Liberal. He spoke of all the virtues and strengths and
benefits of a free trade agreement, of the North American free trade
agreement and this wonderful agreement with Chile. My goodness,
he sounds like an entrepreneur and a free enterpriser if I ever heard
one.
(1350 )
He also spoke of the advantages of Halifax. With his forward
vision I am surprised that the Liberal Party under John Turner was
against free trade. We hear these great sounding speeches from
Liberal members which is quite an about face, but I might add a
welcomed about face. However, I take exception to the reference in
his speech about the NAFTA in terms of the dispute mechanism
settlement.
When the Liberals ran in the last election their three big issues
were jobs, jobs, jobs; get rid of the GST and renegotiating NAFTA.
We all know that they did not renegotiate NAFTA. They signed it
the way it was presented.
They made the mistake of not sticking to their original principles
and by not adhering to their commitment to hold the agreement up
until there was a satisfactory dispute settlement mechanism. That
has really cost this country severely. It has caused a severe problem
in international trade and trade with our partners because the
Americans are taking advantage of us very chance they get. We
would not have the dispute over softwood lumber. It would have
been settled. Settlements would be a lot faster if there was a proper
dispute settlement mechanism in place in the NAFTA.
Based on the comments in his speech that he feels this is a good
deal with Chile because it is the same as the one Canada has with
the States, I submit we are not happy with the one with the United
States. It is causing some problems. I would like clarification of
that kind of double talk.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs a lot of
clarification if he misunderstands that the Liberal Party has always
been the traditional party of free trade. It was not the Tory Party, it
has never been. The hon. member laughs, but if he looks at some of
the most important trade liberalization moves that have been taken
since 1867, they were taken by the Liberal Party of Canada.
What he does not want to understand is that when the Liberal
Party of Canada goes forward with trade liberalization, it does not
succumb to the wishes of the United States. We stand firm for the
rights of Canadian industry. We have done it under NAFTA. We
have done it under the FTA and we have done it with Chile.
Finally, the hon. member has asked a very important question.
He alluded to the fact that the dispute settlement mechanism under
NAFTA simply does not work. I would like to sit down and show
my hon. colleague that the dispute settlement mechanism has
worked very well. Of the disputes that have gone full term, Canada
has won over 90 per cent of them. I believe the deal we have
negotiated has protected Canadian industries.
With respect to the promises made in the election campaign
about NAFTA, working groups have been established to look at a
subsidies code as well as at anti-dumping. Those reports are going
to be the subject of negotiations and discussions at the next NAFTA
commission. If he is still around when those are discussed we will
be edified with the results of those negotiations.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-81, an act to implement the
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
It was at the Summit of the Americas held in Miami in late 1994
that the decision was made to allow Chile into NAFTA. One year
later, following complications in its negotiations with the US, the
Chilean government decided to break off talks.
Canada and Chile then looked into the possibility of bilateral
negotiations on an interim agreement. This agreement would
eventually pave the way for Chile's accession to NAFTA.
Negotiations with a view to such an agreement took place
between January and November 1996, and the Canada-Chile Free
Trade Agreement, signed in December 1996, will take effect June
2, 1997. It is an interim agreement, one purpose of which is to
facilitate the accession of Chile to NAFTA, probably around the
year 2000.
(1355)
First of all, I will tell you the Bloc Quebecois is pleased that this
agreement has been signed, and it is with an open mind that we
prepare to welcome our Chilean friends into the vast North
American free trade zone.
The Bloc Quebecois is obviously in favour of the principle of
free trade. I would point out that this has been the traditional
position of the Quebec government. Furthermore, we were strongly
8156
in support of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the
United States. Let us remember that this was one of the primary
issues in the 1988 federal election campaign in Quebec.
Similarly, we also supported extending the FTA, which later
became the NAFTA, as well as the Canada-Israel Free Trade
Agreement.
In reiterating the sovereignists' strong position on free trade, I
cannot help thinking about the last election campaign of the Liberal
Party, the party forming the government today.
I was listening earlier to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade as he boasted-we have a more
colourful expression for it-that they have been in favour of free
trade since 1867. I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to
take another look at his history books.
At the time, the Liberals were strongly opposed to the free trade
treaty with the United States. In the infamous red book, the
Liberals promised, on page 24-the parliamentary secretary does
not need to take a history course, all he has to do is read the red
book-that ``a liberal government will renegotiate the
Canada-United-States Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA''.
It just happens that this is another one of their broken promises.
Today, a few years after they came to power, the Liberals seem to
have miraculously converted to free trade.
Indeed, once elected, the Liberal Party decided to change its tune
and is now finding the Free Trade Agreement quite acceptable. It
likes its purpose, content, and wording so much that instead of
making changes to it, the current government used it as a model to
draft the Canada-Chili Free Trade Agreement, and rightly so.
Of course, since the purpose of the Canada-Chili Free Trade
Agreement is ultimately for Chili to join NAFTA, it was
appropriate to include dispositions similar in many respects.
However, I believe that since it is on a smaller scale, with less of an
impact on both partners, it would have been possible to include
certain elements, if only to put its feasibility to the test. I refer
mainly to parallel agreements.
As was the case with NAFTA, parallel agreements on the
environment and labour standards are attached to the Canada-Chili
Free Trade Agreement. I believe the government could have taken
this opportunity to include environmental and labour standards
within the agreement.
The government should have done everything in its power to
raise the labour standards and thus increase protection for Chilean
workers. I will, once again, quote the red book where the Liberals
said: ``Future trading arrangements will be shaped not only by
economic considerations but also by social concerns''.
The Liberal government could have included a clause on respect
for human rights and democratic principles. In any case, the
government must not forget that, over and above trade and
commercial interests, it bears some responsibilities both on the
national and the international scene.
On the question of human rights, I want to emphasize that the
Bloc Quebecois considers that respect for fundamental rights is a
top priority and that such a principle should always be part of any
agreement like the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
Trade must go on, free trade must be encouraged, but not at the
expense of our responsibilities as individuals and as members of
the global community.
(1400)
The Minister for International Trade feels that the protection of
human rights has no place in a free trade agreement, but the free
trade agreement between Israel and the European Union contains
an interesting clause in this regard.
It says: ``The relations between the parties, as well as all the
provisions in this agreement, are based on respect for human rights
and the democratic principles that underlie their domestic and
international policies and constitute an essential part of this
agreement''.
As I have said repeatedly in this House, respect for human rights
will not come about automatically, either in isolation or through
trade. I now take this opportunity to applaud the Quebec
government for subscribing to an unknown part of NAFTA this
week: the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation.
This agreement will now allow the filing of complaints against
businesses in the United States or in Mexico which do not respect
certain basic principles relating to their employees' working
conditions. Apart from Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta are the only
provinces to have signed this agreement.
I will conclude by welcoming a new economic partner of Quebec
and Canada. The institutionalization of closer political and
economic ties with Chile, through this bilateral agreement, and
possibly in the longer term, through its accession to NAFTA, is
promising.
For many Quebecers and Canadians, Chile is now associated
with democracy, political stability and economic success. What a
change for a country that, for a long time, reminded us more of
authoritarianism and human rights violations. In less than a decade,
Chile has been able to put itself in the forefront of a renewed,
resolutely modern and promising continent.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my party has agreed to
this truncated form of debate because, like the government, we
would like to see
8157
this bill get into committee where it can be properly dealt with. We
do support it in principle. There are a couple of stickers in it that
are worthy of further discussion. We will get to them in committee
and at third reading.
As everyone here knows, the origins of this treaty were at the
summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994 where the leaders of
Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Chile announced their intention to
pursue Chilean ascension to NAFTA.
Chile looked rather briefly at this possibility however, since the
Clinton administration was unable to convince the U.S. Congress
to fast track a treaty to a pass or fail vote without amendment. Chile
therefore backed away from the risk of entering into an agreement
that could be further modified after it was signed.
This treaty as everyone knows, although it will have bilateral
advantages to Canada and to Chile, certainly is mostly about what
the Department of Foreign Affairs likes to refer to as building
bridges. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade sometimes calls the Canada-Chile FTA an interim bilateral
free trade agreement because it is hoped that the agreement will
ultimately lead to incorporating Chile into NAFTA, or FTAA as it
is sometimes called now, a free trade agreement for the Americas.
It appears that the U.S. Congress' stubborn refusal to fast track
Chile's entry into NAFTA will be to our gain. Mexico already has
an FTA with Chile and the Americans will eventually have to get
on board through the free trade agreement for the Americas
initiative.
One of the advantages of leading by example is that we do get a
head start. Chile has strong trade links throughout the southern
hemisphere, in particular through its association with Mercosur,
the common market between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and
Uruguay. Chile is not a full member of that trading bloc. Therefore
even though it has this easy access, it was able to give us certain
considerations which are a little better than it is giving to its
neighbours.
(1405)
For example our agricultural products will get much better
treatment. Many Canadian companies are already finding that
Chile is an excellent gateway or an open door to the other markets
in Latin America.
The deal in its immediate consequences provides Canadian
exporters with significantly improved access to the Chilean market
through the elimination of the 11 per cent duty on about 75 per cent
of the goods which we ship into Chile. Since 80 per cent of Chilean
exports into Canada are already duty free, it is reasonable to expect
that the adjustment phase for the Canadian market will be very
moderate.
In the agricultural sector which is of particular concern to me
Canadian durum wheat which accounts for 35 per cent of Canadian
agricultural exports to Chile will benefit from an immediate
removal of the 11 per cent duty currently imposed. There is similar
treatment slated for barley and pulse seeds.
Duties on Canadian exports of a variety of processed agricultural
products will be reduced to zero over five years. The exception for
a long phase out period is for Chile's most sensitive product,
milling wheat, but in 17 years that will be duty free as well. On the
Canadian side we will phase out a limited number of tariffs over six
years primarily for horticultural products. Canada's over quota
most favoured nation tariffs for dairy, poultry and eggs are
excluded from tariff elimination and will continue to be protected.
However it is not all wine and roses. Some Canadian producers
are afraid of the Chilean $15 a day average farm wage, cheap land
and flexible government regulations, all of which lower the cost of
production for Chilean agricultural goods. Fortunately most
Canadian horticultural produce will be available during our
summer and fall and Chilean produce will fill in the winter-spring
gap of our growing season. So Canadian and Chilean producers
will mostly complement each other rather than compete head to
head.
Apples however are another story. This is a very significant
worry. B.C. fruit growers have expressed concerns about the six
year phase out period of the FTA's anti-dumping regulations.
Chilean apples have been entering Canada duty free for years with
no problems apparent. However Canadian orchardists are uneasy
over the precedent that the agreement sets when Chile eventually
gets into the general NAFTA agreement for this reason: A few
years back the price for red delicious apples was driven below the
cost of production when Washington state growers dumped their
product in the B.C. market. The Okanagan apple producers
eventually won damages under the anti-dumping laws in the
Canada-U.S. FTA.
Should Chile eventually be admitted to NAFTA and the phasing
out of anti-dumping regulations be extended to all NAFTA
partners, Washington producers could dump their apples in Canada
again and drive down domestic prices. So it is not Chile they are
afraid of, it is the U.S.A. which is sitting in the wings watching
this.
We must be cautious. I hope that this will be addressed in
committee. The only remaining recourse for Canadian growers in
the scenario that I have outlined would be an appeal to the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a safeguard action. The
CITT could apply immediate tariffs on a temporary basis and
probably for one season. It would be a mirror image of our never
ending softwood lumber dispute, only in this case the plaintiffs
would be north of the border instead of south of it.
Let us proceed with a moderate degree of caution. In general,
this treaty is a good deal for both Chile and Canada but like all
8158
treaties, it is not perfect and I would not want to see British
Columbia apple growers sacrificed for the general benefit of our
trade relations.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.10 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8158
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-249, an act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Nuclear
Liability Act. Members may ask: What is the Nuclear Liability
Act? The Nuclear Liability Act was passed in 1970 but was only
proclaimed in 1976. Its purpose was to make operators of nuclear
installations absolutely liable for damages, but at the same time it
limited their liability for a particular incident to $75 million.
When I say that it made them absolutely liable, I mean that it
provided that victims of a nuclear accident would not have to prove
negligence against the operators of a nuclear facility; they merely
had to show that the damages to their person or to their property
were caused by a breakdown or by an accident at the nuclear
installation. Once they did that, the defendant was absolutely
liable. However as I said, the liability was limited to a total of $75
million for all claimants on any one particular incident.
The Nuclear Liability Act also protects manufacturers of nuclear
facilities and manufacturers of components for nuclear facilities,
such as General Electric, Westinghouse and others. It protects them
from any liability whatsoever. It does the same thing for the
suppliers of fuel for nuclear installations. In other words, all
damage claims by victims of a nuclear power accident must be
channelled to the operators who are in turn limited to $75 million.
The act also provides that where the damage exceeds $75
million, the Government of Canada may decide to pay additional
amounts, but that is not obligatory.
It should be noted that all operators must be licensed under the
Atomic Energy Control Act by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Of course the purpose of that is to screen out unreliable operators.
Bill C-249 which is before the House today would do two things.
First, it would increase the liability limit for operators from $75
million to $500 million per damage incident. Second, it would
oblige the government to pay damages when they went above $500
million, subject to certain conditions.
Why is this necessary? Why am I putting forward this bill? It is
necessary because the liability limit of $75 million is totally out of
date and inadequate.
There are presently 23 nuclear installations in Canada situated in
Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
(1415)
If we were simply to adjust the $75 million maximum to
compensate for inflation, the adjusted maximum calculated for
1989 would be $279 million. As members know, it is now 1997 so
with further inflation adjustment the maximum would be close to
$500 million.
Experience has now shown us that the original maximum was
woefully too low. The 1986 Chernobyl breakdown resulted in $300
billion of damages in Ukraine and Belarus. As a result of that
accident 250,000 people had to be evacuated from their farms,
villages and communities.
Briefs to the Ontario Hydro hearings in 1990 demonstrated that a
severe accident at the Darlington, Ontario installation would result
in damages of $1 trillion. In 1990 the Business Journal stated that
Ontario Hydro was not adequately insured for damage from
accidents of this kind.
It should be pointed out that Toronto is closer to Pickering than
Kiev was to Chernobyl yet Kiev incurred approximately $100
billion in damages in 1986. That is probably why the city of
Toronto with Energy Probe and Rosalie Bertell went to court in
1986 to have the Nuclear Liability Act declared unconstitutional.
Unfortunately in 1996 after 10 years of legal wrangling they
were obliged to drop their action. The principal opponents in that
action were Ontario Hydro and New Brunswick Power.
Some say that these changes are not necessary because Canadian
installations are extremely safe. It may be correct that the Canadian
safety record is a good one, and I congratulate the operators for
that, but no one will argue that our system is fail safe. Not only do
we have the examples of Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island
in the United States in 1979, but in 1995 in this country there were
786 unusual incidents recorded for Canadian installations and 391
were formally reported to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
8159
In 1983 there was a serious accident at the Pickering 2
installation less than 20 miles from Toronto. The two reactors were
shut down for four years. A pressure tube had burst without
warning in the in the very core of the reactor system. The
replacement cost was $700 million.
Ontario's nuclear facilities are not built to withstand the
magnitude of earthquakes now anticipated in this region. An
earthquake is considered the most likely cause of a severe accident
to a nuclear power facility.
The bill is also necessary because individuals in Canada cannot
get personal or household insurance which will cover them for
damages resulting from a nuclear facility accident. No insurance
company will cover this risk for individuals. The insured has no
coverage for radioactive contamination. I was shocked to learn that
but that is the case. None of us can get an insurance policy which
will cover us against these kinds of damages.
Consequently the only recourse for individual damage claims
from victims is the operators under this law. At present the
operators are only liable up to $75 million. One can imagine what
this would give to the citizens of greater Toronto if there was a
Chernobyl type breakdown at Pickering or Darlington. One million
people would get about $75 each.
In the United States under the 1957 Price Anderson Act recent
amendments require liability coverage of $160 million per reactor.
Plus, in event of claims beyond that, a fund has been established
which provides total coverage of up to $7 billion. Sweden has
recently increased its liability in similar circumstances from $81
million to $130 million per reactor, and Japan from $80 million to
$240 million.
(1420)
If you were affected by a nuclear accident, Mr. Speaker, because
the winds deposited radioactive fallout over your home, business,
farm or workplace making them uninhabitable for tens or perhaps
hundreds of years, think of what this would mean to you, quite
apart from the knowledge that you and your loved ones might
contract cancer or your offspring suffer genetic damage.
Financially your means of livelihood could be wiped out and
your property destroyed. You and your family could be ruined and
there is no way to protect yourselves because insurance companies
also fear a meltdown. Every insurance policy in Canada excludes
coverage for nuclear accidents. No other industry has the freedom
to destroy the health or property of innocent third parties who can
neither insure themselves beforehand nor sue for compensation
afterwards.
In conclusion let me summarize. The Nuclear Liability Act in its
present form is not adequate to compensate victims of a nuclear
facility accident. Accidents have taken place before and can take
place again. The law needs to be updated and revised. The act
requires other amendments as well but I am not dealing with those
today. For example, in the act there is a limitation that all claims
must be made within 10 years. Now they realize that such claims
for such damage only come to light much later than 10 years, such
as damage to offspring or cancer and so on. There have been
recommendations that claims be allowed up to 30 years but I am
not dealing with that. I am not dealing with that today; I am simply
saying that the act requires other amendments.
I urge hon. members to send the bill to committee where
witnesses could be heard and if necessary have the bill amended. I
am extremely flexible on the details of the bill. If the evidence
suggests that the liability should be higher than $500 million then
change it. That is no problem. If the committee can find a better
way of protecting citizens when the damage goes beyond $500
million I am all in favour of improvements.
On the other hand I cannot accept that this matter be ignored.
Nuclear energy is too dangerous a substance. There is no perfect
way to control it or its waste product. I would prefer that we stop
using nuclear energy, but if that cannot or will not be done then at
least let us make sure that any victims get fair and just
compensation.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for
introducing Bill C-249, an act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act.
If I am not mistaken, the purpose of this bill is to increase to
$500 million the maximum level of liability for which a private
sector nuclear facility operator may be required to have insurance
coverage. This level is currently set at $75 million. So, the cost of a
nuclear disaster exceeding $75 million would be borne by the
Crown if, of course, it agrees to meet that cost.
Personally, I have no objection to increasing the insurance
coverage required. I would even feel that $500 million is not
enough.
We only have to consider what happened last summer in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region to realize that a figure like $500
million is not nearly enough when disaster strikes.
Another example more closely related to the nuclear industry is
the Chernobyl disaster. Five hundred million dollars is not much
considering the extent of a disaster such as Chernobyl. I am sure
that accident cost billions of dollars, and I am not taking into
account all the repercussions on the lives of the people affected.
In a country like the USSR, at a time when human rights and
individual rights did not count for much, officials were able to
come through all right.
(1425)
Let us imagine for a moment that such a disaster should occur in
Canada. Let us consider the impact on people and estimate the
costs of such an accident.
8160
I do not think Bill C-249 goes far enough. I agree that
companies should have excellent insurance coverage, but is that
the real problem?
Some may think an insurance coverage of $1 billion is excessive.
They think so because, collectively, we do not think we could
experience such a disaster here. Personally, I am convinced we
could.
Since the beginning of nuclear power plants in Canada, a number
of minor incidents have occurred. More recently, we have realized
that certain components of our plants deteriorate faster than our
engineers had expected. Moreover, those who run these plants in
the public or parapublic sectors have only one goal: producing
electricity at the lowest possible cost.
Some of you may agree with me, but they do not think
companies would push it to the point of jeopardizing public safety.
Again, I am a bit more sceptical. Collectively, when we have
examined this issue in committee or when other bills have been put
before the House, we have realized that if public safety is a goal, it
is not necessarily assured.
In the nuclear industry, the situation is worse, because this form
of energy is extremely difficult to control and a relative safety can
be achieved only with the most advanced and carefully
implemented technology.
And I do mean relative safety. Also, $500 million in coverage
does not seem like much for the following reason. If an accident
were to occur in one of our plants in Quebec, in Ontario or in New
Brunswick, it could mean massive population evacuations, and
depending on the direction of the winds, it would not be surprising
if our neighbours down south were affected.
We know that several countries were affected by the fallout from
the Chernobyl accident. Do you think that $500 million would be
enough to deal with the problem? I do not think so. We would need
to evacuate the whole population of some cities and towns, the
sick, the elderly, the school children. Not to mention the
unavoidable damages to the environment. The fallout could affect
livestock, wildlife, the flora and all the food production over quite
a large area. Add to that the destruction of whole service sectors in
cities located near these facilities.
Man still has much to learn about nuclear energy. An oil spill can
be contained. With much effort, the environment can be restored
within a few years, but following a nuclear accident, it will be
thousands of years before the environment is back to normal.
For example, such an accident in Canada would have a major
impact on extensive forests, agricultural lands, and vast mining
areas. Would 500 million years take care of it? In Ontario, with
Ontario Hydro, in Quebec, with Hydro-Québec, in New Brunswick
or elsewhere in Canada, I doubt any operator could deal with a
major accident.
The introduction of this bill is another opportunity for me to
raise the question of the development of nuclear energy as a source
of power. I really think that, in spite of the assurances they give us
as taxpayers, the leaders of all the countries in the world have made
decisions in too great a haste.
We started to build nuclear generating stations without being
assured of their total safety.
To conclude, we support Bill C-249 but we are still sceptical that
$500 million will be sufficient in the event of a major nuclear
catastrophe.
(1430)
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill
C-249. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, for bringing this important matter before
the House.
The hon. member has a long and distinguished history of service
to Canadians. I commend him on his commitment to issues of
public safety and well-being. This member is well known across
the country for the good work he has done. He is especially well
known in my part of the country.
This proposed legislation is another example of my colleague's
concern for Canadians and it deserves the careful attention of this
House. As I understand it, Bill C-249 would achieve three
objectives. First, it would increase the maximum level of a nuclear
operator's liability for third party damage in the event of a nuclear
accident. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is proposing
that nuclear operators be required to carry $500 million worth of
liability insurance compared to the current requirement of $75
million.
By extension, Bill C-249 would increase the threshold at which
the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission would be established and
claims would be moved from the court system to the commission.
Finally, the bill would require the minister to make liability
payments once an order is issued by the commission. This
addresses what some have criticized as unwarranted discretion on
the part of the minister.
I want to make it very clear that the government supports in
principle the objective of increasing operator liability under the
Nuclear Liability Act. We support a strengthened commitment to
compensate victims of nuclear accidents. At the same time, we
recognize that a number of other important changes need to be
made to the act. I would like to take a few moments to explain why.
The Nuclear Liability Act, as the hon. member said, was
proclaimed in 1976. It establishes a comprehensive scheme for
8161
compensating victims of injury and damage arising from nuclear
accidents. Twenty years after its proclamation, the act continues to
uphold the principles that are important to a nuclear liability
regime.
It is important to note that in those 20 years the Nuclear Liability
Act has not changed substantially. A full six years before it was
proclaimed, the act was actually passed by Parliament in 1970. It is
a quarter of a century old and in that time the nuclear industry has
evolved dramatically. While there is clearly a need to increase
liability levels in the act, this is only one of several modernizations
that need to be made for the benefit of potential victims of a nuclear
accident.
In other words, the time has come for a comprehensive review of
this act. Recent litigation that challenged the constitutionality of
the act also highlighted the need for a comprehensive review.
Although the Ontario Court, General Division, ruled in 1994 that
the act is valid federal legislation, in 1996 an appeal of that
decision was discontinued.
We need to update and modernize the act to more fully meet our
present domestic needs and also to reflect changes in the area of
international nuclear liability. In addition to revising the
compensation regime, we need to correct several technical
problems that have been identified within the act.
I am pleased to inform the House that such a comprehensive
review is currently under way. A federal interdepartmental review
committee has already developed a number of proposals to amend
the act, and these proposals have been presented to key
stakeholders, including operators of nuclear facilities,
representatives of provincial ministries with responsibility for
energy and emergency planning, and the Nuclear Insurance
Association of Canada. Based on the feedback received during
these preliminary discussions and on subsequent consultations, the
review committee will recommend how to proceed.
Hon. members should know that the stakeholders involved in
these discussions have expressed strong support for a
comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act, one that will
encompass all of the issues that need to be addressed. The outcome
will be a package of amendments that will update, modernize and
clarify the entire act.
I want to assure the House that the improvements to the
compensation regime as proposed in Bill C-249 are a key element
of the review. This is the most important objective of the revision
process. I agree with the hon. member that we need to review the
current liability limit of $75 million. We must arrive at a liability
level that reflects current realities. I think the limits should be
raised, but I do not know whether that amount should be $500
million or some other amount. We should approach the matter in a
thoughtful way, assessing what funds might be available from
whom, and in what form.
(1435)
The interdepartmental review committee is currently exploring
options for securing higher levels of insurance from private
insurers. This would increase funding for victims. The review
committee is prepared to consider other forms of security, such as
self-insurance, pooling arrangements and government
compensation. If we examine all these sources, we may well come
up with a $500 million fund. However, I am told that this is not an
easy matter and certainly it is not clear that the private insurers can
come up with these funds.
Another issue we need to consider is the impact Bill C-249 will
have on the federal government's liability under the reinsurance
agreement that was signed with the Nuclear Insurance Association
of Canada in 1976. Reinsurance enables insurance companies to
undertake business that their limited capacity would not normally
allow them to touch.
This arrangement between the federal government and the NIAC
provides for both additional insurance capacity and additional
types of risk. Basically it ensures that the federal government will
provide coverage for all the risks contemplated in the Nuclear
Liability Act that are not covered by the operator's insurance up to
that limit of $75 million.
For example, some small reactors may be required by the
Atomic Energy Control Board to carry only $500,000 in liability
insurance. In that case, the remaining $74.5 million is guaranteed
by the federal government through the reinsurance agreement.
Increasing the maximum liability to $500 million would mean that
the federal government could become liable for as much as $499.5
million under this scenario. Any amendment to the liability limit
clearly should be accompanied by changes to the reinsurance
agreement.
The interdepartmental review committee is addressing another
issue, the limitation periods for claims arising from nuclear
accidents. Under the current act, claims must be brought within 10
years of the accident. However, some arguments favour extending
the limitation period for claims related to personal injury or death.
Other arguments favour relying more heavily on administrative
systems, rather than the courts to deal with compensation. This
could be achieved by amending the act to explicitly lower the
threshold at which the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission is
established. The result would be a more effective compensation
scheme that minimizes hardships for victims of nuclear accidents.
A number of other provisions of the Nuclear Liability Act need
to be clarified or updated. For example, the definition of
compensable nuclear damages should be reviewed. The current
definition does not make explicit reference to environmental
damage, preventive measures or economic losses. This is not
consistent with evolving international trends, nor with the growing
public concern for the environment or with principles of fairness.
The review will
8162
address the need to revise the definition of nuclear damage to
reflect these matters.
As well, the rules and regulations governing the Nuclear
Damage Claims Commission need to be elaborated. The criteria for
the commission's membership could be broadened to permit
people with a range of experience to participate.
Another concern is that under the current act, the rules governing
the commission's procedures can only be developed after the
commission is established. It would seem to make sense to have
this operating framework in place before an accident occurs, rather
than after an accident when the development process may be
rushed and may not be well thought out.
As mentioned earlier, there are also a number of technical
problems with the act. For example, the act lacks a preamble that
would explain its purpose and objectives and describe a
constitutional basis for the legislation. It has also been suggested
that compensation amounts be included in regulations rather than
in the act itself, since it is easier to amend regulations to take
account of inflation or increased insurance capacity than it is to
amend the act.
There is also a perceived need to clarify and strengthen the
relationship between the federal government and the Nuclear
Insurance Association of Canada.
In conclusion, I can offer my qualified support for Bill C-249. I
acknowledge and agree with the objective of increasing liability
limits under the Nuclear Liability Act. However, we need to
establish a solid rationale for a new liability limit. As well, we need
to identify where these funds come from and how this proposed
change will affect the federal government's liability.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth. A senior colleague has given his place to
him because he has to catch a plane.
(1440 )
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-249 because it
gives me an opportunity to share with you an historic anecdote
pertaining to Canada and Canada's role in nuclear energy that I do
not think is very well known.
During the second world war, Canada was very active in research
in chemical and biological warfare weaponry at Suffield in Alberta
near Medicine Hat. At that time the Canadians experimented with
the dispersal of biological and chemical dust with the expectation
that this would be the kind of weapon that would be used during the
second world war by the Germans or possibly the Japanese. So the
research was primarily directed at the developing countermeasures.
However, by the end of the second world war because this
research took place out in the prairies Canada became the number
one nation with an expertise in the dispersal of small particulate
matter over very large areas.
What we are really talking about in Bill C-249, which is an act to
amend the Nuclear Liability Act, is nuclear fallout. In the event of
an accident occurring at a nuclear reactor there is the possibility of
radioactive dust escaping into the atmosphere, polluting and
irradiating large regions and causing serious consequences to the
health of humans and animals.
This is the same problem that existed in the late 1940s when at
the onset of the cold war it was realized that the Soviet Union had
developed an atomic bomb. My historic anecdote is for those of
that generation who remember the early years of the cold war and
the nuclear fallout scare. I think people in their fifties and sixties
will remember that their parents were installing fallout shelters in
their basements. They will remember that there were all kinds of
maps and diagrams showing the effects of nuclear fallout.
These maps and diagrams were produced mainly by the
Americans and by the British showing the impact of a nuclear
explosion on a city in the United States or in Europe were entirely
the product of Canadian research in chemical and biological
weapon dispersal.
It is an interesting anecdote because as Canada was the second
country in the world to develop nuclear capability, we have always
had a responsibility to lead the world in issues pertaining to nuclear
energy and certainly issues pertaining to nuclear safety.
The Nuclear Liability Act addresses the possibility that a
peacetime nuclear reactor will have a catastrophic accident and
will pollute the atmosphere with down wind fallout in the same
sense as a nuclear explosion. There is no doubt that in the event of
such a catastrophe the provision for $75 million in damages is
inadequate in every way for the kind of damage that would actually
occur.
Canadians studies done during the second world war and the
immediate post-war period indicated that in the event of a nuclear
bombing or a nuclear accident at a reactor the fallout could go
down wind for as much as 30 miles on a widening, fan shape that
could be a couple of miles wide at the outset to very wide at the 30
mile limit.
Since then as a result of the accidents that have occurred, in
particular at Chernobyl, we have come to appreciate that when
there is a nuclear fallout emergency, it very long term and long
range. In fact the radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident has
been detected all away around the world, so the fallout has come
down.
Therefore, it is high time, after 26 years, to upgrade Canada's
nuclear liability legislation.
8163
(1445 )
Of the G-7 nations, Canada has the lowest at $75 million of
nuclear liability in the event of an accident. In Great Britain and
Germany the liability in the event of an accident is $550 million. In
other countries in Europe there is an unlimited liability. In the
United States the liability runs up to $13 billion.
Therefore it seems clear that Canada needs at least to come up to
the minimum level of liability as expressed by our European
colleagues.
It is certainly true there is a different situation occurring in
Europe in the sense that the countries are small and there has been a
need for international conventions in the event of an accident in
one country that contaminates the territory of another country.
There are conventions that provide for compensation across
borders.
Because of the vast spaces in Canada and the vast spaces in the
United States, in the event of an accident of less than 1,000 kilotons
only Canada and possibly the United States will be affected. It is
not likely to affect other countries of the world. We do have an
arrangement with the United States in the event of an accident in
Canada or in the United States. Crossing the border there is a
provision for liability payments if the lives and properties of
citizens of our neighbouring country are affected.
In the final analysis Bill C-249 addresses only one aspect of the
Nuclear Liability Act. Obviously the act has to be upgraded and
modernized in many aspects. Other colleagues have suggested
some ways in which this can be done.
By raising the liability threshold from $75 million to $500
million at the very least we say to the operators of nuclear
facilities, who in some instances are private operators, that they
have a very high responsibility to ensure every level of safeguard is
implemented in the operation of their nuclear establishments. This
is the very least we can expect of both nuclear institutions that are
privately run and those that are publicly run.
It is with great pleasure that I support in principle and to the
letter the intent of Bill C-249. The member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has done a great service to his country and
to the House bringing the bill forward.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House
regarding Bill C-249, an act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act.
The issues raised by the proposed legislation are important to all
Canadians. It adds to our international standing as a responsible
nuclear nation.
It comes as no surprise to any of us that the bill was sponsored by
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. He has consistently
shown foresight and wisdom in bringing matters of national
concern before the House. I commend my hon. colleague for his
commitment to his principles and to the parliamentary process.
He and I were elected on the same day to the House. On many
occasions we have been seatmates over the years. He has been
consistent in his feelings and principles toward various issues that
he has promoted.
(1450 )
As my colleagues before me have indicated, the government
supports in principle the need to increase operator liability under
the Nuclear Liability Act. However, we also bring to the attention
of hon. members the need for a comprehensive review of the act to
address a number of other concerns as well.
I will take a few minutes to outline the rationale for the Nuclear
Liability Act and the principles upon which it is based to
underscore the importance of the act and the need to establish some
broad based consensus on amendments.
Canada is recognized as a pioneer and world leader in the
development and use of nuclear power. I am pleased to note that we
were among the first world nations to establish a liability regime
geared specifically to the special circumstances of the nuclear
energy sector. A distinct regime is needed for a number of reasons.
As hon. members know, a strong nuclear industry brings
tremendous economic and environmental benefits to Canada in
spite of what we hear from the other side of the story almost
constantly.
If it had not been for the Candu reactors in Canada we would
have had to purchase coal from Pennsylvania on a large scale to
have coal burning furnaces to generate hydro electric power in
industrialized Canada, and our environment would have suffered
terribly as a result. The Candu reactor is one of the most clean,
environmental sources of energy we could have. In particular
Ontario would never have been industrialized to the extent it has if
it had not been for the Candu reactors perfected in Canada.
In order to encourage investment in nuclear facilities, however,
it is necessary to limit operator liability in the unlikely event of an
accident. Otherwise the financial risks are simply too great. This is
as true today as it was 30 years ago when the Nuclear Liability Act
was first presented. At the same time it is important to ensure that
Canadians have access to compensation should they suffer injury or
damages as a result of a nuclear accident.
Canada's nuclear safety record is second to none in the world.
The Atomic Energy Control Act and the Nuclear Liability Act
provide a solid legislative framework for regulating the industry
and have done so since day one. The former seeks to prevent and
minimize nuclear accidents while the latter applies should an
accident occur. However, unlikely as it may be, we must be
8164
prepared for the possibility of a serious nuclear accident that could
result in significant third party damages.
Candu reactors are the safest in the world because they have built
in backup systems in the event that something goes wrong. It is
because of the expense of building those safe reactors with those
backup systems that they have sometimes been difficult to market
in the world. Today countries are beginning to realize that the
Candu reactor is not only safe but also very efficient.
I mentioned before about the safety record in Canada being one
of the best in the world.
(1455 )
I want to make the point that AECL workers at Chalk River have
a lower rate of cancer than the national average and across the
country where there are no nuclear reactors or processors. It is
because of the safety features built into the system. The employees
are well protected. They are checked on a daily basis. If other
industries in Canada put as much emphasis on safety factors in
their industries as our nuclear industry has done, we would have a
better record right across the board in industrialized Canada.
The cobalt therapy unit for the treatment of cancer was brought
in by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Research and development
produced that product. We have now sold it in dozens of countries
all over the world.
Radioisotopes are produced in Canadian reactors. They are used
to sterilize medical instruments. They are used in all kinds of
health checks, in checking patients out for various types of injuries
and blood conditions. The result is that Canada has a very good
nuclear health system.
The results of the non-use of nuclear energy would have had a
tremendous negative effect on the health of Canadians because of
the environmental fallout of coal dust and fumes.
Canada's involvement in the nuclear industry and in research
and development has been for peaceful purposes. Every time
people mention nuclear they think of war. They think of explosions
and all kinds of other things. However, our work in the nuclear
industry in Canada has been to produce energy to drive industry
and promote jobs across the country. It has promoted a good
environment and cheap energy. It has also been a tremendous asset
to Canada's medical industry.
It always bothers me when Chernobyl is thrown into these
arguments. The Russian reactor is totally different from the
Canadian reactor. The Russians built their reactors with no built-in
systems to protect people. We did the very opposite here in Canada
by building the Candu reactor. It is the safest reactor in the world
and has all kinds of built-in systems to serve workers and
Canadians at large.
This is an industry we should positively promote. I totally agree
with the hon. member that with this safety record we should be
looking at greater insurance for the people in the areas of these
developments.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being three o'clock, this House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.59 p.m.)