36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 175
CONTENTS
Friday, February 5, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Motion
|
1010
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1015
1020
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1025
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1030
1035
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1040
1045
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1050
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1100
| RETURN TO ORTONA
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1105
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| MILITARY COLLEGE IN SAINT-JEAN
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1110
| CHRISTIAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| DR. HOWARD ALPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| NEWFOUNDLAND ELECTION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA STUDENTS' UNION
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1115
| FREDA AHENAKEW
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1120
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1125
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1130
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1135
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1140
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| COPYRIGHT COMMISSION
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1145
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BANKRUPTCIES
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AEROSPACE RESEARCH CENTRE
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. John Manley |
| URANIUM MINING
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1155
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| DRUG TRAFFICKING
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FARM SAFETY NET INCOME PROGRAM
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1200
| RAIL SAFETY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1205
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-468. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-469. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1210
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1215
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1220
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1235
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1240
1245
1250
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-63. Second reading
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1255
1300
| Mr. John Bryden |
1305
1310
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1315
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1320
1325
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1335
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1340
1345
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1350
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1355
1400
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1405
1410
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 175
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 5, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
COMPETITION ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): moved:
That a Message be
sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House
disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-20, An
Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and
related amendments to other Acts, because this House is of the
opinion that the intent and policy of the words in question is in
the public interest and reflects the opinion of the great
majority of Canadians, and this House proposes, in lieu of the
amendments made by the Senate, that the amendments be amended to
read as follows:
1. Page 14, Clause 19: Delete lines 31 to 46 and substitute the
following therefor:
66.1 (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe
that a person has committed or intends to commit an offence under
the Act, may notify the Commissioner of the particulars of the
matter and may request that his or her identity be kept
confidential with respect to the notification.
(2) The Commissioner shall keep confidential the identity of
a person who has notified the Commissioner under subsection (1)
and to whom an assurance of confidentiality has been provided by
any person who performs duties or functions in the administration
or enforcement of this Act.
2. Page 15, Clause 19: Delete lines 1 to 42 and substitute the
following therefor:
66.2 (1) No employer shall dismiss, suspend, demote,
discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee, or deny
an employee a benefit of employment, by reason that
(a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of
reasonable belief, has disclosed to the Commissioner that the
employer or any other person has committed or intends to commit
an offence under this Act;
(b) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of
reasonable belief, has refused or stated an intention or refused
to do anything that is an offence under this Act;
(c) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of
reasonable belief, has done or stated an intention of doing
anything that is required to be done in order that an offence not
be committed under this Act; or
(d) the employer believes that the employee will do anything
referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) or will refuse to do anything
referred to in paragraph (b).
(2) Nothing in this section impairs any right of an employee
either at law or under an employment contract or collective
agreement.
(3) In this section, “employee” includes an independent
contractor and “employer” has the corresponding meaning.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this morning on Bill
C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act. As you know, we
passed third reading of this bill in the House on September 23,
1998.
The aim of this bill is to improve and consolidate the
Competition Act.
Some of the key amendments were intended to equip the
competition bureau to combat the degrading crime of misleading
telemarketing.
The bill also included provisions for whistle blowing intended
to protect employees providing the competition bureau with
information on activities of their employer limiting
competition.
[English]
Those whistleblowing provisions were removed from the bill by
the Senate as a result of arguments made by Progressive
Conservative members of the Senate who focused on some concerns
raised by the Canadian Bar Association.
Today this House has the opportunity to reconsider the
whistleblowing provisions and an opportunity to do something
positive for Canadian consumers and legitimate businesses.
I would point out that protection for whistleblowers has been
the subject of a number of legislative proposals over the past
several years and has been introduced in private members' bills.
[Translation]
The director of investigations and research at the competition
bureau acted on this continued interest in whistleblowing by
asking Mr. Justice Dubin to study the matter and identify the
provisions that would be relevant should legislation on whistle
blowing have to be introduced.
This study and its appendix on the provisions on whistleblowing
were released on November 18, 1997 and posted on the Web site of
the Competition Office for the public to consult.
[English]
On the initiative of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the
whistleblowing provisions were introduced into Bill C-20 on May
26, 1998 when it was under consideration by the industry
committee.
The hon. member proposed these provisions to encourage
individuals who have knowledge of price-fixing arrangements to
act in the public interest and to report them.
As the hon. member indicated then, the amendments resulted from
a great deal of consultation with many people in the community
and throughout the country.
The Canadian Bar Association raised some concerns about the
whistleblowing provisions with the Senate Standing Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce, one of which was that there had not
been sufficient consultation.
We have made use of this time for additional consultation with
the bar and other groups that have expressed interest in this
provision.
[Translation]
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an organization comprising
over 800 private members and corporations representing over 1.5
million Canadians, provided strong support for the provisions on
whistleblowing.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association also considered the
provisions very important. The Canadian Bar Association as well
considered there was enough protection for whistleblowers in
Canadian legislation.
1010
[English]
However, the government believes it is important to enact these
additional protections as an express encouragement by parliament
to people to report criminal activity limiting competition.
As for the substantive objections of the bar, the principal
concern is that there could be criminal liability for requesting
an employee to do something that is not actually illegal at the
time of the request.
The Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, but also
deals with so-called reviewable matters in which conduct such as
an abuse of a dominant position only becomes illegal after it is
prohibited by the Competition Tribunal.
To meet this concern I have proposed an amendment to the
whistleblowing provisions which will limit their application to
conduct that is a criminal offence under the act and will not
refer to conduct that is merely contrary to the act.
The CBA also argued that the potential for criminal sanctions
could lead to inefficiencies in businesses where an employer
might hesitate to discipline unproductive staff, even though
legitimate reasons exist for doing so. However, the burden
always remains with the crown to prove all elements of the
offence beyond a reasonable doubt. If legitimate reasons exist
for disciplining or firing an employee, then those reasons will
no doubt raise the reasonable doubt that would preclude a
criminal conviction.
[Translation]
The conclusion is that employees acting in good faith when they
report competition limiting behaviour have our protection
against vengeful employers. The provisions on whistleblowing,
by balancing the rights of the employees and the employer, do
not place an undue burden of proof on the employer.
What I have proposed in response to some of the concerns about
the possibility of excessively heavy sanctions, is to withdraw
the sanctions set out in the first provision.
An employer will now be liable to the same sanctions as the
Criminal Code provides for the infraction of a federal statute.
[English]
I believe that it is important to send the right signal to
Canadians that we need to work together to combat crime.
I am very disappointed that this issue held up Bill C-20 in the
other place last December. I believe the modifications proposed
to the whistleblowing provisions do represent improvements to the
bill and do address the principal concerns of the Canadian Bar
Association and of the Senate.
Now it is time for us to act quickly again. We need to provide
appropriate protection for whistleblowers to enable the
Competition Bureau to obtain the information needed to properly
investigate criminal activity. We need to bring Bill C-20 into
force to provide effective measures against deceptive
telemarketers.
[Translation]
With every day that passes, there are new victims of scams.
Every day that passage of Bill C-20 is delayed, the confidence of
Canadians is put at greater risk. This is the moment to
consider consumers, businesses and the organizations responsible
for implementing the legislation across Canada, who have
advocated expeditious passage of Bill C-20.
[English]
It is time to show all of these consumers across Canada that the
House is listening to them. I urge that the bill receive
expeditious passage.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the proposed amendments
to Bill C-20. Before I begin I would like to reacquaint members
of the House with the full scope of this important piece of
legislation. I think that once my colleagues understand the
necessity and urgency of this proposed legislation they will also
understand why the motion before us is worthy of support, and why
the changes made in the Senate would only work to dilute the
effectiveness of this bill.
Bill C-20 is an act to amend the Competition Act and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts. Essentially
this bill will create an enforceable and judicial code of conduct
for those in the direct marketing industry. But I can assure
members of the House that this is not an onerous government
imposition on this industry.
1015
It is a welcome framework for ethical practice, welcomed by
legitimate direct marketers who understand that a legislative and
regulatory environment designed with common sense can create a
business environment that will foster growth and profitability.
Direct marketers understand that only in an environment of trust
and accountability will Canadian consumers use their services.
Direct marketers also understand that this trust and
accountability must come not only from their own due diligence
and fair conduct but from legislation supported by the full
weight of the law.
Bill C-20 gives teeth to the voluntary practices already adhered
to by legitimate players in this $4 billion a year industry.
Under this new law, telemarketers would have to identify who they
are representing, disclose the price of their services or
products they are selling, and explain clearly why they are
making the call. These three simple provisions, had they existed
in the past, could have saved many Canadians from the humiliation
of being victims of deceptive telemarketing.
I do not think it is fair to wait any longer to give this
protection to Canadian consumers. My hon. colleague from
Kelowna, British Columbia pointed out in a speech he gave some
time ago that protection against telemarketing deception has been
debated in this House since 1996 and that the cost of ignoring
this problem is estimated to be approaching $5 million.
I personally do not plan to delay the implementation of this
bill any longer and will consequently be keeping my remarks as
brief as I can.
This legislation also proposes amendments to the Competition
Act. Before I address those amendments, I would like to stress to
this House as I have done on other occasions that while
competition laws do have the potential to create a fair and level
playing field in the market, they can be arbitrary and
economically stifling.
Laws that make criminals out of individuals who are guilty only
of selling quality products at low prices should not be supported
in a democratic society that believes in the power and justice of
economic freedom.
I could not support a Competition Act that would allow men like
Bill Gates or Canada's own Conrad Black to be treated like common
criminals only because they dare to achieve and they dare to be
the best at what they do.
I would like members of this House to take note of these remarks
as competition laws will surely surface in this House again and
again. We can choose to create fairness in the context of
economic freedom or we can create a bureaucracy under which both
consumers and producers will suffer.
As part of the overall strategy to deal with deceptive
telemarketing, amendments were made to the Competition Act to
control deceptive marketing, advertising and pricing. These
changes were designed to complement the code of conduct created
in the same legislation.
These amendments continue to have the support of the Reform
caucus but it must be understood that even the most rigorous
protection against deceptive direct marketing or misleading
advertising will accomplish nothing if individuals do not step
forward to ensure that the law is adhered to.
Canadians who are the victims of deceptive marketing in any form
are often too ashamed and too embarrassed to bring their concerns
before a court. When the victims of a crime are afraid to act to
ensure that justice is applied consistently, something else must
be done.
To combat this situation, the legislators involved in the
creation and fine tuning of Bill C-20, particularly my colleague
from Ottawa Centre, sought to create a unique process by which to
ensure that the new law was properly adhered to. I am making
reference here to the whistleblowing provisions in Bill C-20, the
provisions that an unelected and unaccountable Senate decided to
remove from this act, the provisions that we must reinstate in
this House today.
The whistleblowing provisions have been designed to assist the
Competition Bureau in investigating violations of the Competition
Act as it applies to deceptive direct marketing. Those
individuals who bear witness to violations of the Competition Act
can bring their concerns directly to the competition commissioner
with the assurance that their privacy will be protected.
Furthermore the proposed law would ensure that those who did wish
to expose practices that hurt our most vulnerable members of
society would be protected from the reprisal of their employers.
1020
If we can create a law, we must not allow that law to exist
without the means by which to ensure that it is complied with. To
do so would only work to breed a feeling of contempt among the
Canadian people toward this House and toward the laws that govern
our nation.
The fact that this bill was amended by the Senate to exclude
provisions is offensive in and of itself. It is an insult to
democracy that the work of elected members of parliament can be
undone by individuals who are accountable to nobody.
I will leave the matter of the Senate to be discussed further by
my hon. colleague from Calgary West who is our party's very
capable Senate watchdog.
I close by saying that our party continues to support Bill C-20.
We will also support the Liberal motion before the House that
seeks to reinstate the whistleblowing provisions removed by the
Senate.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to support the hon. minister's motion to send Bill C-20 back to
the Senate with an amendment restoring the substance of the
whistleblowing provision which the Senate took out of the bill at
third reading.
I first proposed adding the whistleblowing provision to the bill
at the committee stage on May 26, 1998. I was heartened by the
support this provision received by my colleagues in the industry
committee and by the House at third reading. I was disappointed
to learn that the passage of Bill C-20 was delayed by the Senate
because of concerns about this provision.
The purpose of the whistleblowing provision is to assist
competition authorities in the investigation of price fixing
agreements and conspiracies by providing protection to employees
who come forward to report those crimes. These crimes undermine
competition and victimize both consumers and legitimate
businesses.
In my comments to the industry committee last May, I referred to
a letter that was sent to the committee by the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre, an organization which represents over 800
individual and group members and over 1.5 million Canadians. They
support this provision by saying:
We strongly support this proposed amendment. Often the only
persons who are aware of an offence are employees or others who
are vulnerable to retribution by the company in question should
they act in the public interest by advising the competition
authorities of a violation of the law. It is essential that such
persons be protected from retribution.
I repeat that often the only persons who are aware of an offence
are the employees who are vulnerable to retribution and it is
essential that they be protected from retribution.
In the testimony heard by the Senate committee on banking, trade
and commerce there were concerns about lack of consultation on
this provision and arguments that the present confidentiality
provisions and common law informer protections are sufficient.
The whistleblowing provision will protect the identity of
persons who come forward with information on how prices in the
gasoline industry or any industry for that matter are really set.
The whistleblowing provision will punish employers who take
retribution action against employees who act in good faith in
reporting price fixing arrangements and conspiracies.
The whistleblowing provision in this bill signals parliament's
express encouragement to individuals who have knowledge of
anti-competitive criminal activities to act in the public
interest and to come forward with that essential information. By
restoring this provision to the bill today, we reiterate that
encouragement and underline the importance parliament places on
the free operation of competition.
The amendment proposed by the Minister of Industry restores the
substance of the whistleblowing provision approved by this
elected chamber last September with changes that address concerns
raised by the Canadian Bar Association before the Senate banking
committee.
1025
One of the changes clarifies that the whistleblowing protection
operates only with respect to the criminal sections of the
Competition Act, not with respect to those subject to civil
process. The second has the effect of reducing the maximum
penalty for employers convicted of dismissing or disciplining
employees for reporting an offence or for refusing to participate
in an offence under the Competition Act. Instead of the specific
penalty provisions I have proposed, the Criminal Code penalties
for contravention of a federal statute will apply.
These changes will have the effect of speeding the passage of
the bill. I support them.
Finally, Bill C-20 contains many important provisions in
addition to the protection for whistleblowers, most notably the
provisions dealing with deceptive telemarketing.
The Canadian public has waited much too long for the passage of
this bill. I urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to
support this motion today without any delay.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was next, after the
official opposition, to respond to the minister's amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Right, but first we will have questions and
comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa
Centre. Are there questions or comments? No? Resuming debate.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning,
in spite of the fact that we voted against Bill C-20 to amend
the Competition Act at second and third reading because, in our
opinion, it weakened rather than toughened the provisions of the
act, we will be voting in favour of this amendment, which we
believe deserves the support of each and every one in the House.
The Senate, an unelected body, delayed passage of the bill
approved by parliament, notwithstanding our opposition, by
putting forward to the House of Commons an amendment to remove
from Bill C-20 the protection the Competition Act continues to
afford employees or any other person who discloses to the
competition commissioner unfair practices considered illegal.
Its arguments are based mainly on concerns expressed by the bar
association, but it has shown that this was an absolutely
essential provision.
The Competition Act is already, we feel, weakened by the bill.
If employees know or have reasonable grounds to believe that a
company is engaging in deceptive marketing practices and are
unable to inform in confidence the body responsible for
enforcing the Competition Act, they would then be in the
position of allowing these deceptive marketing practices to
continue. They would even be forced to take part in them
because they could not blow the whistle.
If an employee gets in touch with the commissioner of
competition and his employer finds out and can lay him off
without recourse, who will notify the commissioner of
competition? Nobody; no employee will be able to do so.
1030
In a letter which I myself did not read, but which was cited
when this issue was being studied by the Senate, the Bar said as
follows:
Employers should not be obliged to continue to employ employees
or entrepreneurs in whom they have lost confidence. The fact
that an employee complains to the commissioner can only worsen
the work climate.
An employer acting in good faith should be
able to let an employee go with prior notice or compensation in
lieu thereof. This legitimate action by the employer will no
longer be possible because paragraph 66(2) makes it a criminal
offence.
It seems to me that this letter from the bar association proves
beyond a doubt that employees need protection, because it is
certain that if an employee contacts the commissioner in good
faith to disclose his employer's practices, the employer will
lose confidence in him. If, as the bar association says, it is
legitimate for the employee to be dismissed because of this loss
of confidence, hon. members will agree with me that no employee
one will contact the commissioner. The commissioner will
therefore not have access to certain information, as it would
very likely not come from another source.
I would point out here that a large number of workers in Canada
are not unionized. Being unionized would give them a degree of
protection. Not being unionized is a serious problem in such
cases.
I would also like to point out that, since the bill allows the
use of electronic surveillance, it seems to me that consistency
requires the name of the person who has contacted the
commissioner in good faith to report anti-competitive practices
to be kept secret, due to the highly invasive nature of
wiretapping.
The purpose of all this is to indicate that we are going to be
voting in favour of this amendment. I would, however, be remiss
if I did not point out once again that, unfortunately, this
bill generally weakens the scope of the Competition Act. I use
the word “generally” because there is one provision in
particular that enhances the powers of the commissioner, the one
relating to fraudulent telemarketing.
As for telemarketing fraud, it is important to provide some
protection to its many victims, including elderly people like
me.
We agree that it was important and even urgent to take this
measure. There are too many contradictions in this bill, a
decriminalization that is not obvious and that is replaced with
a discretionary power in the hands of the commissioner, who may
not have the necessary budget to be everywhere he should be.
So, we regret this weakening, and this is why we voted against
the bill, even though we support this morning's amendment.
The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one to be really concerned
about these amendments to the Competition Act.
Let me quote an emeritus professor from the University of
Toronto, whose expertise in that field is well recognized. He
says:
In fact, I find a real inconsistency in Bill C-20, since it
transforms misleading advertising offences into offences that
require wrongful intent.
1035
The bill now provides that intent must be present for an
individual to be accused of misleading advertising. This was
not the case before, and is still not the case so long as the
bill is not passed.
It does, however, for the first time, establish telemarketing
offences subject to the old system of strict liability offences.
That makes no sense. On the one hand, we are told we must
fight deceptive telemarketing practices by making offenders
criminally liable. But in other areas, such as misleading
advertising, considered to be similar, they back off and require
proof of criminal intent.
Professor Ziegle goes on to say:
It is as if the drafters had received two sets of contradictory
instructions. This fact alone requires explanation and
justification.
To my knowledge, none was provided, and I see no
reason why we have a set of standards on criminal proceedings in
the Competition Act and another in other laws such as the Food
and Drugs Act, the Currency Act, our safety standards
legislation, and so on.
That said, this bill must be passed quickly. We have had our
say, and we will see whether the future will prove us right.
We can correct the bill again, but it is important that it be
adopted, for the provisions on misleading marketing, among
others, and this is why we support it.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-20, an act to
amend the Competition Act.
As has been mentioned by other members, Bill C-20 has returned
from the Senate with sections 66.1 and 66.2 deleted. These
sections pertain to whistleblowing and the government has
proposed new amendments to reinstate these provisions. The only
significant concession that the government has made, however, is
withdrawing any reference to criminal sanctions.
Before I give my comments on the amendments to the question I
would like to reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative
Party our overall support for this bill. Our party has always
understood that the promotion of competitive markets is of
fundamental importance in today's global and extraordinarily
competitive economy.
Competition stimulates innovation and growth in jobs, provides
businesses and consumers with competitive prices and product
choices that they need and increases overall the average standard
of living in society.
Without a modern competition law Canadian businesses will
encounter anti-competitive barriers to their entry and expansion
in their markets. They may find in time it is difficult to source
and input at competitive prices and ultimately they may encounter
other refrains in their ability to remain competitive.
In my view the Senate has made the correct choice to remove the
whistleblowing provisions which were not part of the original
legislation but were added by the House industry committee. That
is not to say the intent of legislating whistleblowing provisions
is wrong. But as pointed out by organizations, including the
Canadian Bar Association, sections 66.1 and 66.2 were an undue
intrusion into the role of the employer with respect to otherwise
completely lawful behaviours.
The whistleblowing provisions were introduced by the industry
committee during its hearings. Consequently they were not part of
the same public consultation process as the other provisions of
the bill. The Canadian Bar Association went further and said
that section 66.1 would require the commissioner of competition
to keep confidential the identities of persons who notify the
commission when they have reasonable grounds to believe that
another person has committed or intends to commit an offence.
Section 66.2 would prevent employers who dismiss, suspend,
demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee
or deny an employee a benefit of employment for whistleblowing
activities, and effectively employers are also prohibited from
the above employment actions if they believe an employee will
undertake the above whistleblowing actions.
I will read one paragraph from the letter by the Canadian Bar
Association that was sent to the chairman of the Senate committee
on banking, trade and commerce. Page 4, paragraph 6 reads as
follows:
Employers should not be required to continue to deal with
employees or contractors in whom they have lost confidence. An
employee's complaint to the commissioner would generally sour the
work environment. An employer acting in good faith should be
entitled to terminate an employee either with notice or damages
in lieu of notice. This legitimate action by an employer would
not longer be available—.
1040
Further, the Canadian Bar Association added:
Proposed whistleblowing provisions conflict with the 1997 report
by the honourable Charles Dubin, whom the Competition Bureau had
retained to study the issue. The Dubin report concluded that
there was no need to amend the Competition Act to protect
employee whistleblowers because protection is available through
existing processes. The Dubin report also found that the
whistleblower legislation in other jurisdictions has had little
or no impact.
There are significant problems in both the concepts and the
drafting of section 66.2. These problems will create unnecessary
and difficult situations for employers. In addition, there are
issues respecting section 66.1 that should be of concern to the
commissioner and to the Competition Bureau.
This past year the direction of the Competition Bureau, Mr.
Konrad Von Finckenstein, was asked at both House and Senate
committees to give the bureau's position on the whistleblowing
provisions. His response was: “The amendments were put forward
not by me and not on our suggestion but by a member of the House.
I am neutral on it. I see the deterrent value. On the other
hand, I do not want to create something that is going to cause
employers a lot of harm or interference with normal employee
relations or is going to cause a lot of useless work”.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement. Section 66.1 and section
66.2 even as modified by the government do not represent
government policy but rather the initiative of one member of the
House without in our opinion proper consultation or study.
As stated earlier, Justice Dubin when asked to express his view
on the desirability of such legislation produced a report which
concluded that the whistleblowing provisions are not necessary
because an employee would have rights currently under common law
and employment status. This was recently confirmed by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growing
Limited.
Let me be clear. Our party does agree with the intent of
whistleblowing provisions and to a certain extent in the
potential of whistleblowing provisions. This debate should be
subject to proper consultation and scrutiny and not hastily
rushed into. Elected officials sometimes are prone to look for
quick legislative solutions to otherwise complex public policy
issues. We would like to see more consultation and more
discussion and more rigorous diligence. In researching this
there are organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association
and the head of the Competition Bureau, that have expressed
significant reservations about the effectiveness of
whistleblowing provisions.
The Progressive Conservative Party will therefore oppose the
government's amendments to Bill C-20 and support the bill as
amended by the Senate.
For those members who criticize the Senate when individuals or
senators collectively take active roles in amending legislation,
and at the same time or perhaps days before or days after will
criticize senators for doing nothing, they should be consistent.
We want a Senate that is active and participates in these types
of very important public policy debates. I believe we do. Even
those members of this House who are opposed to the Senate need to
recognize that we have a Senate at this time and that the Senate
contains members who have significant experiences and a depth of
experience and knowledge of public policy quite exceptional in
many areas, particularly areas such as the Senate banking
committee, which I have had the pleasure of working with as a
member of the House of Commons finance committee.
1045
While we have the institution of the Senate, I urge all members
of the House to respect that institution and to encourage that
institution and its members to diligently pursue important issues
of public policy such that we can ensure collectively the House
and the other place will produce the types of legislation
Canadians need. It is extraordinarily important.
If Senate reform is something individual members of the House
feel is needed, that is an issue which should be pursued with
legitimate healthy debate. As long as we have a Senate and as
long as we have members in that Senate who are capable,
intelligent and diligent public servants that work hard on behalf
of Canadians, not just offering what Canadians want today but
what Canadians need in terms of public policy in the future, we
should be encouraging intervention and input from the Senate, not
discouraging it.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I heard
my colleague but I cannot help but ask the following questions.
Could he tell me what part of the amendment or the motion he
does not support? Does he not support the fact that if an
employee in a company or an organization finds out about
wrongdoings by an employer he should report it to the Competition
Bureau? Or, does the hon. member not support the fact that if
this employee comes forward with the information we should
protect the confidentiality of the information? Or, does he not
support the fact that if an employer decides to fire an employee
because that employee reported wrongdoings the employee deserves
to be protected?
What part of the particular motion does he not support? This is
exactly what the motion does. This is exactly what this
amendment to Bill C-20 does. I admit we have taken out some of
the teeth, but the bottom line is that we did that in order to
respond specifically to the concerns and to aspirations of
organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association. In fact its
concerns have been dealt with.
If my colleague were told now that the Canadian Bar Association
supports the motion before the House of Commons, would he be kind
enough to ask his colleagues to support the motion? The Canadian
Bar Association already indicated its support of it. Therefore a
big chunk of his concerns should be dealt with in the particular
position taken by the Canadian Bar Association.
Notwithstanding anything else and putting partisanship aside,
would the hon. member, in fairness, having heard what I just
said, not reconsider his position and support the motion?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
of the hon. member. Nobody in the House would disagree with the
intent of the whistleblowing amendments. The intent is sound,
but unfortunately there are toxic levels of naiveté in the hon.
member's arguments. The enforceability of the whistleblowing
amendments would potentially create a regulatory nightmare.
The head of the Competition Bureau, Konrad Von Finckenstein, has
said effectively that he will not provide either support or
opposition to it. I will read his response again:
—the amendments were put forward not by me and not on our
suggestion but by ... a member of the House.... I am neutral on
it ... I see the deterrent value .... On the other hand, I do not
want to create something that is going to cause employers a lot
of harm or interfere with normal employee relations or is going
to cause me of useless work.
1050
The Canadian Bar Association has indicated that there are
significant concerns about the amendments. The enforceability of
these amendments is dubious at best. The Dubin report basically
found that whistleblower legislation in most jurisdictions has
had little impact.
We are not disagreeing with the intent. What we are saying is
that we need to have more study and more diligence. We should
not rush forward to implement politically expedient but
unrealistic public policy that in the long term does not serve
the needs of Canadians and does not even meet the intent of the
amendments.
We have to be realistic. We must not just do what is
politically palatable. Sometimes we have to do what is actually
effective and realistic.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I took
note of the hon. member's speech with regard to Bill C-20. He
spoke of proper scrutiny and more consultation. He spoke of
wanting a more active Senate. He spoke of consistency,
capability, diligence and effectiveness.
Would he apply all the things he wishes Bill C-20 had with
regard to whistleblower protection to the Senate?
Mr. Scott Brison: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I would in
fact argue that there are members of the Senate who are working
very hard serving Canadians on an ongoing basis. We also have
senators in the Senate banking committee with which I am very
familiar who have forgotten more on finance and banking issues
than many members of the House know, even those on the finance
committee of which I am a member. We see legislation which the
House sends to the Senate being improved and made better for
Canadians by the Senate.
I absolutely would like to see the same degree of rigour that
would apply to this legislation or any other legislation and the
same level of scrutiny applied to the Senate. Like any
organization, there are members of the Senate who are more
capable and pursue public policy with a greater amount of vigour
and diligence than others. There are also members of the House
who pursue public policy more vigorously than others. There are
members of the House who love politics but do not really like
public policy. Politics can be the natural enemy of public
policy.
One thing I like about members of the Senate is that their focus
in many cases is exclusively on public policy. There are members
of the Senate who have a significant level of experience and
depth of knowledge in particular areas which is unequalled in the
House.
While the hon. member may be opposed to the Senate and may want
to see systemic overhaul of the Senate, and that is a legitimate
issue for discussion, while we have a Senate we have a duty as
parliamentarians to work with the senators to develop legislation
in the best interest of Canadians and not simply to criticize
senators for purely political partisan reasons.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20. The government
introduced the bill to address the issue of direct marketing
fraud. The bill is intended to protect consumers as well as
legitimate direct marketing businesses. It is a code of conduct
for the direct marketing industry.
I would like to focus on two items in particular. The Senate
has recently returned the bill deleting sections 66.1 and 66.2
which deal exclusively with the issue of whistleblowing.
On the issue of whistleblowing I think the country needs more
whistleblowers. We need people who expose the abuses of
government.
We need people to stand up when wrongs have been committed. As a
result that is why I support whistleblowers. I not only want to
see whistleblowers protected with regard to Bill C-20 in the
direct marketing industry. I want to see other whistleblowers as
well.
1055
I would like to see some whistleblowers in the other chamber.
Right now they are beholden to the Prime Minister; they are
appointed by the Prime Minister. I want to see effective
whistleblowers who can blow the whistle on problems with the
federal government and not fear that they hold some allegiance to
the Prime Minister for their appointments. I want whistleblowers
who are accountable to the people who elect them rather than to
the Prime Minister who appointed them.
Other countries have effective whistleblowers. Germany with its
Bundesrat has effective whistleblowers. They gather people who
are representatives of the various Landers or states in Germany.
They get together to determine whether or not bills that have
been passed in the Bundestag are effective. They whistleblow.
In other words, if people who represent the state or the Lander
of Baden-Wurttemburg or Berlin, or any of them, decide that they
do not like a particular piece of legislation, that it goes
against the interest of their particular state or their
particular Lander, they will whistleblow. They will go ahead and
blow their whistle and expose the federal document or whatever
was passed by the Bundestag for being ineffective or for not
dealing properly or not dealing fairly with their particular
grievance, with their particular state or their Lander.
Germany is not the only country that has effective
whistleblowers. The United States also has whistleblowers. That
country to the south with which we do 80% of our trade has
whistleblowers. It changed its laws so that it would be able to
elect its whistleblowers.
The first state that actually did that via a constitutional
amendment, the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution, was
Oregon. Now effective whistleblowers are recognized within the
constitution of the United States, those people in its senate.
Those who come from the state of Idaho can have the same
representation as those that have a more populous representation
in the House of Representatives.
California represents more people than all the inhabitants of
Canada and has two senators. Idaho and Wyoming, small states in
comparison, have two whistleblowers as well. The whistleblowers
in Idaho may blow their whistle about potatoes or injustices that
have happened with regard to agricultural policy in the same way
that whistleblowers in the state of California may blow their
whistles with regard to whatever may be troubling California in
its state of the union.
I want to see whistleblower protection. I have faith in
whistleblowers. They are important to the system. We need to
know what the problems are and have fair criticism. I want to
see fair criticism and not rubber stamps of government
legislation.
Right now in the other place we have a clear majority of people
who were appointed by the Prime Minister for his party, the
Liberal Party of Canada. We would like to see whistleblowers
elected by the people from the various provinces who fairly
represent the regions in the provinces. That is what we are
talking about: real whistleblowers, not rubber stamps.
The whistleblower protections proposed in Bill C-20 are opposed
by the Canadian Bar Association and opposed by the Senate. For
Canadians who may be watching—
The Speaker: The member still has 15 minutes left in his
very interesting talk. As it is 11 o'clock we will proceed to
Statements by Members and then the member will have the floor
when we return.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
Prime Minister and the government on the new social union
framework. This agreement strengthens Canada's health and social
programs and signals a new era of flexible federalism.
Canadians want the type of co-operation and consensus building
where governments work to improve the daily lives of Canadians.
1100
This government never viewed the process in winning or losing
terms, but with determination to succeed in arranging better
services for Canadians.
The government has once again demonstrated a commitment to
accountability. The inclusion of monitoring and evaluating
social programs and regularly reporting outcomes to constituents
is a valuable and appreciated aspect of the agreement. Providing
a review of the framework within three years confirms the
commitment this government has made toward improving the lives of
Canadians.
* * *
RETURN TO ORTONA
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the CBC Newsmagazine broadcast “Return to
Ortona”, in memory of the 1943 Canadian victory in which so many
lives were lost. I commend this program to all who respect our
veterans and appreciate the glory and sorrow of war.
However, there was one glaring omission in both the television
program and in CBC website coverage. Who paid for the veterans'
trip to Ortona? The government let these veterans down. Average
people made this event happen.
Thirty thousand names are missing from this story. Thirty
thousand contributors opened their hearts and wallets to give all
they could to send their boys to Ortona. This trip, this event
and this report would not have been possible without them.
Let us remember that these veterans travelled courtesy of the
generosity of 30,000 contributors. The CBC should have given
some recognition to the magnificent efforts of these 30,000
contributors.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all contributors now.
Their generosity allowed a wonderful event to take place.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a great day. In addition to the good news about our Prime
Minister's successful and significant negotiations with the
provinces on the social union, I awoke this morning to learn that
the unemployment rate in Canada had fallen to 7.8%, the lowest
rate in almost nine years. This means that in January 87,000
more Canadians, including 44,000 young people, had a job to go to
each day, jobs that they did not have in December. Bravo.
For some time I have been concerned that as our economy went
through a period impacted by technological change unemployment
had become structural. By smashing through and below the 8%
unemployment barrier, our government has proven that its policies
of sound fiscal management and progressive job creation
initiatives are working. This bodes well for the country as this
government will continue to offer all Canadians the strong and
visionary leadership that it has since 1993.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers agreed on a
framework to ensure Canada's health and social programs are
strengthened as we enter a new millennium.
Canadians are tired of seeing their leaders mired in partisan
wrangling. They want us to work together as representatives of
the people, regardless of our political party, to improve
programs and services for all Canadians. The successful meeting
yesterday proved that we can do it.
While I am unhappy that Premier Bouchard felt he could not sign,
I hope he will ensure that the people of Quebec benefit from this
spirit of consensus building.
As an MP from southwestern Ontario, I want a Canadian federation
that reaches out to all corners of our beautiful and great nation
and includes every citizen. Yesterday we made an important step
and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the premiers for
putting the interests of Canada first.
* * *
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
September 1996, as a delegate to the World Congress against the
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and last year at
Canada's “Out from the Shadows” conference in Victoria, I heard
firsthand from young people the devastating effects of sexual
exploitation.
I hope all members of this House take these issues seriously.
Members truly interested in ensuring healthy choices and freedoms
for Canadian children and the world's children might read the
Declaration and Agenda for Action ratified by the youth delegates
in March 1998.
They should talk to the youth who are abused on the streets of
this city and cities across our nation. They should learn the
language they would have us use and refrain from terms like
“kiddie” that make the issue overly cute and accessible.
Child pornography has had our attention over the last couple of
weeks. It exploits and abuses children.
I thank the attorney general for her work on intervening on the
appeal in British Columbia and upholding the law and the rights
of all Canadians to due process.
* * *
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, prairie farmers were surprised when the Canadian Wheat
Board ran ads in major newspapers across the west trumpeting the
fact that there are 15 new directors at the wheat board.
1105
The board spent approximately $100,000 telling farmers something
they already knew. When farmers are pinching pennies and trying
to deal with an income crisis, this is a shameful and inexcusable
waste of their money.
Since the board has argued in court that its only mandate is to
sell farmers grain in an orderly fashion, not to get farmers the
best price, maybe we should not be surprised that it wastes
farmers' dollars. But to throw so much money into a propaganda
campaign when many farmers are at the brink of bankruptcy is
beyond belief. Heads should be rolling for this ridiculous waste
of farmers' money.
Is this a sign of the so-called accountability of the new board?
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to the Prime Minister, the premiers and the
territorial leaders for signing the health and social union
framework. This deal will go down in history as one of the high
points in federal-provincial co-operation.
The government has agreed to (1) a statement for the equality of
every Canadian wherever they live; (2) the commitment not to
erect barriers to mobility; (3) give Canadians a greater voice in
monitoring social programs; (4) work together on new social
programs; (5) provide guidelines for dispute avoidance and
resolution; (6) establish provisions for a review of the
framework in three years; and (7) provide commitments from the
federal government to work with the provinces to identify
Canada-wide priorities and objectives.
Canadians are the clear winners in this process. On behalf of
the constituents of my riding of Hamilton West, I thank the Prime
Minister for initiating a process which will result in Canadians
from coast to coast to coast being better served by their
governments.
* * *
[Translation]
MILITARY COLLEGE IN SAINT-JEAN
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a military
symposium held in Ottawa last week, the director of the Canadian
War Museum, Jack Granatstein, said that the federal government
had done the right thing in closing the military college in
Saint-Jean, as it was a Quebec separatist stronghold. “This was
very clearly obvious”, he added.
In other words, it was fear of separatism that killed this
institution. For the best part of 43 years, all francophones who
dreamed of a career as an officer had to go through the Collège
militaire de Saint-Jean.
The college has seen 8,000 of them go on to have a career in the
armed forces and another 4,000 earn a university degree. This is
a function the very British royal military college of Kingston
will never fulfil.
The situation in Kingston has convinced and will continue to
convince many young Quebeckers in the military to become
sovereignists.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to share very good news concerning job
creation and unemployment with the members of this House.
The unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% from 11,4% in 1993.
That is the lowest it has ever been since June 1990. Moreover,
in January, employment increased by 87,000 jobs, and all of the
gain was in full time work.
[English]
This is the seventh consecutive monthly gain, with employment
increases over this period averaging 57,000 per month. The youth
employment rate fell half a percentage point to 13.9%, the lowest
since September 1990. Continuing the trend established in 1998,
employment among youth aged 15 to 24 years climbed by an
estimated 44,000 in January, with 33,000 of these—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian grain shipments ground to a halt last week when 70 grain
inspection employees walked off the job. Producers and everyone
in the industry who believed that recent changes to the Canada
Labour Code would ensure the unimpeded flow of grain to market
were duped again by this Liberal government.
The Reform Party proposed final offer selection arbitration as a
means to settle outstanding issues in sectors where continued
service is essential to the national economy. The government's
own West Coast Ports Inquiry Commission also recommended final
offer as a way to guarantee the continuous flow of grain to
market.
But the provisions in Bill C-19 are worthless in this case.
Canada's world class transportation and communications systems
cannot be allowed to become vulnerable to closure. Our
reputation as a reliable shipper of goods is in jeopardy.
Unfortunately for grain farmers, producers and exporters this
government just does not get it.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement
on the social union entered into with all of the provinces of
Canada except Quebec represents an improvement, another stage in
the workings of federation.
1110
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, no one government wins and
no one government loses; the people of Canada are the winners.
There is no doubt that it is a pity Quebec has refused to be
part of the agreement. It is clear also, however, that Quebec
will be associated with all stages of the consultation and the
setting of priorities and common objectives.
It is, however, important to point out that Quebec has accepted
the agreement on health.
* * *
[English]
CHRISTIAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to highlight events that concern the Christian
community in Canada and around the world.
The deadly religious violence perpetrated against Christians in
India, the inaction of the Indian government and the continuing
political persecution of elements of the Christian community in
China are only some of the more visible problems being
experienced by Christians in various parts of the world.
At another level altogether but still of concern is the
censoring of references to Jesus Christ in the New Testament at
the Swissair memorial service when other faiths were permitted
the use of faith specific language. Tolerance, inclusiveness and
multifaith worship are good things, but they should not and do
not require discriminating against, specifically, Christian
language.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the National Arts Centre, that major symbol of
Canadian biculturalism, tabled an English-only document before
the heritage committee.
Yet there has been a stipulation in the Official Languages Act
for 30 years now that French and English are the languages of
work in the National Capital Region.
Once again, the Liberal government is incapable of enforcing the
act right in its own backyard, and there is no denying that the
lack of political will of the federal government is directly
responsible for the 24% assimilation rate of the Eastern Ontario
francophone community.
There is nothing surprising about the fact that crown
corporations are thumbing their noses at the Official Languages
Act, when even the PMO does the same, as the appointments to the
Copyright Board prove.
The francophone ministers, including the President of Treasury
Board and the Prime Minister himself, do not seem to be much
burdened by this disgraceful non-compliance with the Official
Languages Act, as they shamelessly hide their inaction behind
empty speeches about the francophonie.
* * *
[English]
DR. HOWARD ALPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I had the pleasure two days ago of attending a ceremony during
which a professor of chemistry at the University of Ottawa, and a
constituent of Ottawa—Vanier, Dr. Howard Alper, was honoured by
being named Officer of the Order of Canada.
He is a research scientist, scholar and educator of
international reputation. His scientific discoveries related to
polyesters, fibres, foams and pharmaceuticals have led to
significant economic growth in numerous sectors of our society.
He was instrumental in initiating and developing the partnership
action group for science and engineering whose member societies
address issues concerning research and applications of science in
Canada and define their economic benefits.
Dr. Alper is also known for encouraging important reflections
upon the future of science and engineering.
I congratulate and thank Dr. Alper for his contribution to
Canada and wish him and his family the very best.
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND ELECTION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I
stand to deliver a very important message which comes from the
next premier of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Ed
Byrne.
Mr. Ed Byrne has asked me to communicate to the people of Canada
and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, pursuant to
the health and social union agreement yesterday, he publicly
commits to spend every last penny of health care funding restored
partially by the federal government on the health care system of
Newfoundland and Labrador when he is elected on Tuesday.
Ed is a man of his word. He is a man of sincerity, integrity
and enthusiasm and he intends to become premier of Newfoundland
and Labrador to improve his province; not just as a stepping
stone to federal politics, but for the betterment of the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. He and his team of candidates will
provide exceptional government to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who badly need new leadership.
We want to encourage all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
to vote for Ed Byrne and the PC Party on Tuesday for the sake of
their health care.
* * *
UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA STUDENTS' UNION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four
years ago when the concern over student debt was rising the
University of Manitoba students union decided to act.
Four presidents—David Gratzer, Trevor Lynes, Catherine
Kowalchuk and Chris Kozier—worked tirelessly with the Canadian
Alliance of Students Association to present proposals to the
federal government. They have worked in the province of Manitoba
with the provincial government to find solutions to the problem
of student debt, and they decided to act on their own.
Over the past four years they have raised money to create a fund
that today stands at close to $1 million, which provides direct
support to students on their campus.
This year 1,400 students received scholarships and bursaries
directly from the students union showing what people can do when
they decide to act.
* * *
1115
FREDA AHENAKEW
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of all the people of Canada I would like to extend our
congratulations to Dr. Freda Ahenakew. She was recognized for
her devotion and commitment to the preservation of the historic
and linguistic significance of the Cree language. She was
awarded the Order of Canada on Wednesday, February 3, 1999.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had an
opportunity to sign a truly historic document that was all
inclusive. Instead, because of his inflexibility, we have yet
another agreement that does not have Quebec's signature.
Can the Prime Minister please explain to Canadians why it was
more important to him to prevent provinces from opting out than
to allow Quebec to opt in?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that
the hon. member does not join with the vast majority of Canadians
in celebrating the important agreement that was entered into
yesterday by nine provinces, two territories and the federal
government.
If the hon. member looks at that agreement, if the hon. member
listens to the premiers of this country, what she will understand
is that it is a historic moment in terms of the degree of
collaboration and partnership that will exist in this country as
we move forward as governments working together to deliver good
social policy for all Canadians regardless of where they live.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister would like us to believe
that if it was not for her government, the provinces would slash
spending in education, health care and social services. In
reality, over the past five years the only government that has
significantly reduced spending in these areas has been this
federal government.
Can the minister give Canadians one example of a province that
has cut more funding in health care than this federal government?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate for the
hon. member that yesterday was a historic occasion in which all
governments, nine provincial governments, two territorial
governments and the federal government committed themselves to
ensure adequate, affordable, stable and predictable funding for
social programs in this country.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one more day we hear this minister talk
about all governments, excluding in the child porn case B.C., and
now here it is Quebec. One province is missing.
When will this government learn that it is not the federal
government's money and it is not the provincial governments'
money. It is the Canadian taxpayers' money that funds health
care.
Why are the Prime Minister and this government so obsessed about
getting all the credit?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me speak in terms of health care. Let me tell the hon.
member that it was all governments, including Quebec, that
reaffirmed the principles of the Canada Health Act. It was all
governments, including Quebec, that undertook to spend any
additional money for health.
[Translation]
All the governments of Canada, including the Government of
Quebec, undertook to spend any additional money for health.
[English]
That is in the interests of Canadians and that is an
achievement.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning the health minister said that the health
agreement signed yesterday will put an end to waiting lists.
As the minister well knows, 200,000 Canadians are on waiting
lists today. Exactly when will that number be reduced to zero,
or was this minister just spouting political rhetoric?
1120
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said and what is quite clear to the case is that we are
now in a position to invest significantly more money through the
budget over the coming years for health care. The provinces,
including Quebec, have agreed to use that additional money for
health care. The provinces have reaffirmed the principles of the
Canada Health Act. By using that additional money and that
common resolve to deal with the urgent present problems and plan
for the future of sustainable medicare, Canadians will indeed see
a return to access to quality care in this country.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that is any guarantee to the 200,000
Canadians currently on waiting lists in this country.
Since 1995 the Prime Minister has gutted social spending by
$2,200 per family. Yesterday after fighting tooth and nail with
the provinces he agreed to grudgingly give back $267 per family.
Let us get this straight. He cuts $2,200 per family and now he
is giving back only $267 per family? Where is the rest of the
money? Did it all end up in some golf course in Shawinigan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bottom line for this government and for governments
throughout the country is access to quality health care for
Canadians.
One of the things that made yesterday a historic day is that we
had every government in the country, all 13, saying that they are
committed to the principles of our health care system, that they
will use additional money provided through our budget to improve
it. Health ministers know where the priorities are: to solve
the present urgent problems and to make sure we plan for a
medicare that is sustainable for the 21st century.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
questioned yesterday as to whether Quebec would receive its
share of federal budgets for social programs, the Prime Minister
replied “In so far as possible”.
This morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs replied
that Quebec would have to meet the terms of yesterday's
agreement.
I therefore ask the Minister of Justice, the person behind the
negotiations, whether “In so far as possible” means that Quebec
will have to meet the terms of an agreement that it did not
sign.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before the agreement, it was fully recognized by the
courts that the federal government had the right to announce a
social or health program in a budget and tell the provinces that
they could have the money if they met certain national
standards.
With this agreement, the federal government may no longer take
such unilateral action. It must consult the provinces and
territories, obtain the support of a majority, stick to
objectives, not launch programs unilaterally and let provinces
that have already met the objective use the money for something
else.
The premier of Quebec has a choice: stay away, or work with the
other—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Quebec has kept his word. The other premiers have
gone back on theirs. If there is any government that is
governing without Quebec today, it is the federal government.
The responsible minister has answered my first question, but I
put my supplementary to the minister responsible for
negotiations: Does she realize that the federal government is
getting ready to use Quebec taxpayers' money to fund programs in
other provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois is pathetic and
unfair.
First, the premiers have always said that their
position was one of negotiation. Only the premier of Quebec
would not budge. The other provinces were ready to negotiate,
but not he.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I have lost my train of
thought with all these insults—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the social
union framework reached by Ottawa and the nine provinces, the
federal government denied the right to opt out in the case of
Canada-wide initiatives involving transfers to individuals and
organizations, such as the millennium scholarship.
1125
My question is for the Minister of Justice, who is responsible
for this. Are we to understand that this formula, which they
themselves describe as innovative, represents for them the way
of the future and that the millennium scholarships are only the
first of many direct interventions by the federal government in
the areas of education, health care and social programs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is entirely legal for the Government of Canada to
spend money for the benefit of Canadian citizens.
For the first time in the history of this federation, and
probably of most federations, a federal government is committed
to consulting the provincial governments significantly before
acting, to give them prior notice and to listen to their point
of view, so that it will be possible to work jointly to the
benefit of Canadians. That is modern federalism.
What is not modern federalism, is pulling back and saying “What
we want is to opt out tomorrow and separate the next day”.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, among the
sticking points between Quebec and the signatories is the matter
of interprovincial mobility.
For example, in the area of education, Canadians studying in
Quebec universities pay higher tuition fees than students from
Quebec. This policy is criticized outside Quebec, even though
Canadian students in fact pay lower tuition fees in Quebec than
they would in their own province.
Are we to understand that, in the future, the federal government
will attack Quebec's policy of differential tuition fees on the
basis of this agreement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has not read the agreement, of course,
because it provides that, in the case of potential negative
effects of interprovincial barriers, a reasonability test will
be given. If the barrier is reasonable, there will be no reason
to eliminate it.
I would add one thing on the federal spending power. The
province benefiting most from that spending power is Quebec.
First, it receives nearly half the amount of all equalization
payments. Second, with the Canada social transfer, Quebeckers
currently receive more support than other Canadians for their
universities, hospitals and social programs, because the
Government of Canada is there—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
notwithstanding the pros and cons of the social union, it is
clear that we still have a very serious social problem in this
country, and that is homelessness. Just yesterday there was a
man who died on a heat grate within view of the Ontario
legislature.
I ask the Minister of Finance, when will there be a serious
national response to the recommendations made by the task force
in Toronto on homelessness? When will the federal government
assume its responsibilities in this matter along with other
governments to make sure that the scourge, the embarrassment, the
shame of homelessness is once and for all dealt with in this
country?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a
very complex problem. We are working with the other levels of
government. It is not only a federal problem, it is a national
problem and all levels of government have to work together.
We participated in the Golden task force and we put in $300,000.
CMHC also participated with the research branch. In December I
announced an additional $50 million in RRAP, the program which
will help make available more shelter and housing for the
homeless people.
We are working together with our—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not all that complex. Social housing has been
gutted in the country. Welfare assistance is not what it used to
be. There was a time in this country when people were not
homeless because they had enough money not to be homeless and
they were not being kicked out of psychiatric institutions in the
name of deinstitutionalization, which is another form of cost
cutting.
When will the government bring all levels of government
together? Let us have the equivalent of the effort that was put
into the social union to return this country to the kind of
country it used to be, a country where we do not have thousands
and thousands of homeless Canadians.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working
together and an example of this is the Golden task force. There
is another conference in March in Toronto. CMHC is organizing a
working group across the country. We hope that all levels of
government come to a solution to this very serious problem.
Again, homelessness is not just a housing problem. Homelessness
is a very complex social problem. Federal, provincial and
municipal governments have to work together to solve it.
* * *
1130
[Translation]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, while I admit I
am no legal expert, I am capable of imagining the delays that
will result from the ability of crown prosecutors to appeal
judgments in favour of those accused of possessing pornographic
material.
In the meantime, the children of this country are unprotected,
and I am not convinced that the minister would view these delays
in the same way if she were in the shoes of parents whose
children have fallen victim to the pornography industry.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Justice what her priority
will be: children's safety or long legal wrangles?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon.
member is talking about.
I had officials in my department contact provincial and
territorial colleagues yesterday. As I said yesterday, attorneys
general across the country are enforcing child pornography
provisions to the full extent of the law.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, honestly I do
not understand the government's position in this matter.
It seems to me that, in the hierarchy of values guiding the
actions of legislators in any civilized country, issues relating
to children rank first. The safety of this country's children
is in danger, and prompt intervention by the Minister of Justice
is required, for she has the power to speed up court procedures
in order to reinstate the contested legislation.
I am therefore asking again: Could the Minister explain to this
House how she can justify her inaction in this matter?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this
government has taken action and has taken expeditious action in
partnership with the attorney general of British Columbia.
I reiterate that the child pornography sections of the Criminal
Code are in force and in effect across this nation. Police are
investigating, charges are being laid and prosecutions are taking
place as they always have.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the defence minister claimed that Canadian doctors
tested and retested suspect American anthrax vaccines.
Health Canada then said this was not true and that it grudgingly
only issued a permit approving the vaccine with a warning to take
at your own risk.
Why did the minister say it was tested here in Canada when it
was not?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our policy for
pharmaceuticals is to obtain approval from Health Canada approval
to import, store and distribute vaccines licensed in other
countries but not in Canada before DND gives them to our
personnel. This is exactly what we did last year with regard to
the anthrax vaccine.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada did not do tests. It said to take the vaccine at
our own risk.
General Kinsman, chief of defence air staff, said he would not
have given the vaccine to soldiers if they knew it had expired.
Why did the minister withhold this information from his
generals?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister said
yesterday in reference to the comments by the chief of the air
defence staff and after my talk with him this morning, none of us
would ever recommend anything to our Canadian troops if it was
not safe.
The vaccine given to CF members in the gulf was tested for
potency, safety, sterility and purity. The vaccine is safe.
* * *
[Translation]
PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, on Zone Libre, the Minister of Human Resources
Development finally admitted that the active measures he is now
offering older workers who have been laid off, such as those of
the BC mine, are not the answer to the special problems of this
category of worker.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Are we to understand that the minister is going to quickly throw
together a new and improved version of POWA, a program that he
himself cut?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has
given me a chance to tell the House how well the government's
strategy is working.
We are so concerned about unemployed workers that our strategy
is to create jobs. The results for the month of January are
eloquent: 87,000 new jobs in January 1999 alone.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Half of these 87,000 full time jobs,
in other words 44,000, are held by young people. The
unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% and that is the best news
for unemployed Canadians today.
1135
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
no time to waste. Instead of shedding false tears over those
who have been excluded, when will the minister take action and
introduce an improved version of POWA to do something about the
poverty and exclusion of older workers who have lost their jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best remedy against poverty
and exclusion is to create jobs, to have a dynamic labour
market. This is why we have changed a number of difficult
approaches.
The Bloc Quebecois is living in the past. They are still back
in the 1970s. They think they are the only ones with
compassion. They are not, and that is why we believe that an
active approach to helping people back to work is still the
best. The figures back us up.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the B.C. supreme court ruling on possession of child
pornography will be going before the B.C. court of appeal today.
I commend the B.C. attorney general for getting it there.
However, it is very likely that this will go all the way to the
Supreme Court of Canada and we are still faced with unacceptable
delays and cases being held in limbo.
Will the minister assure Canadians that none of those currently
charged will go free because of a delay and an unnecessary length
to get to trial?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for or in
charge of the prosecution of any individual case under the
Criminal Code relating to child pornography.
What I can, however, do is reassure the hon. member, because of
my officials' discussions with provincial and territorial
attorneys general across this country, that every one of them has
reassured us that the child pornography sections of the Criminal
Code are in force and effect and will be prosecuted.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
effect of this ruling has already spread out of B.C. and into the
minister's home province of Alberta.
I am not talking about whether the rules or laws are still in
effect. I am talking about Askov and I again ask her will she
assure Canadians that none of those currently charged will go
free due to undo lengthy delays in getting to trial?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as indicated, the charge of
prosecutions under the child pornography sections in the Criminal
Code lie with provincial and territorial attorneys general.
I quote from my counterpart, the attorney general of Alberta,
Mr. Havelock, who yesterday in relation to a case in Red Deer
said: “The law remains in effect here. The recent decision of
B.C. Justice Shaw is outside of our jurisdiction and it is not
binding on any court in Alberta”.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
scandal over employment insurance quotas, the Minister of Human
Resources Development is defending himself very badly. Yes,
fraud must be dealt with, but there is a big difference between
that and forcing the responsible employees to enforce an already
restrictive law by setting targets for the number of cuts they
must attain.
Is it not profoundly immoral that this government sees every
unemployed person as a potential fraud, when the employment
insurance fund is overflowing with a $20 billion surplus, and
the Minister of Finance is dipping into it with both hands to
pay off his deficit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason for our checking
whether there has been excessive abuse and fraud is to protect
the unemployed. It is precisely in order to be able to protect
the reputation of the unemployed in the difficult situation we
are well aware that they are experiencing.
There are no quotas. I have stated this in the House on a
number of occasions. There are administrative practices in
place which are exactly like those used by social insurance in
Quebec City, where the head office of this branch-plant party is
located and where exactly the same kind of checks are being made
in order to ensure that public funds are going where they are
really needed.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
the minister is doing is called damage control. Given the
serious nature of the situation, ought not the government
immediately mandate the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development to carry out a thorough investigation on the scandal
of quotas and harassment of which both the unemployed and the
employees of Human Resources Development Canada are victims?
1140
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on that side, they love to use
such words as “scandal”.
No congratulations for the 87,000 new jobs in Canada, no
reference to the exceptional work being done by the employees of
the Department of Human Resources Development for the people of
Canada to help them join the work force, or the fact that the
employees of the Department of Human Resources Development
assist people who are in difficult situations to get into the
work force.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the employees of
my department for their excellent job in helping people get into
the work force.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Colin Thatcher was convicted of brutally murdering his wife in
1984. He received a life sentence for that. These days he is
spending his life golfing, cooking his favourite dinners,
watching television, chatting on the phone. No, he is not out, he
is actually at Ferndale prison in Mission, British Columbia. He
asked recently if he could board his horse at the prison and the
prison agreed.
I would like to ask the solicitor general if the Liberal's think
that golfing, cooking and grooming horses in prison is sufficient
punishment for someone who so brutally murdered his wife?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter
has been brought to the attention of the attorney general and
because of that, Correctional Service Canada officials are now
investigating the matter.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
now it is the attorney general. I thought it was the solicitor
general that looked after those things in this country.
Most law-abiding citizens today have to pay green fees if they
play golf. They have to pay quite a fee to board and ride
horses. But in this Liberal justice system it appears to me that
the murderer gets these luxuries paid for not just by all
taxpayers but by victims of crime.
Does the government think it is right that the victims should be
seeing this at Ferndale prison, watching prisoners playing golf
and riding horses?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the
solicitor general, the matter has been brought to his attention.
He has responsibility for corrections Canada. Because of the
information brought to his attention in this matter, he has
Correctional Service Canada officials investigating the matter.
Let me remind the hon. member that this government is doing more
for victims. I thank some hon. members on the other side of the
House for their participation in an outstanding report on victims
rights and concerns that was issued by the standing committee—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
COPYRIGHT COMMISSION
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
our information, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has
recommended to the Minister of Industry Andrew Fenus, a
unilingual anglophone, to head the copyright commission, a quasi
legal body it regularly appears before. Mr. Fenus worked on Mr.
Manley's election campaign.
To protect his personal integrity and the commission's
impartiality, is the minister prepared to make public the
correspondence between the ministers and the Canadian
Association of Broadcaster?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
followed a procedure to establish the best candidate for the
position on the copyright commission's tribunal.
We have not yet made a decision. I always get letters when
there is an appointment. Everything is being taken into
consideration. I really do not know if there was such a letter,
but there will certainly be a number of other people recommended
too.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was a great day for Canadians and we now know that
there will be stable funding for all our cherished social
programs.
We need one thing. We need the money. We want to know whether
the Minister of Finance will be able to tell this House today
when he will table his budget.
1145
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is particularly apt that I should be asked this
question by the member for St. Paul's who is herself a medical
doctor.
I am delighted to announce that the government will table its
budget at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, following up
on the Liberal justice system, on April 10, 1998, Eric Wanamaker
broke out of Bowden penitentiary. He then is alleged to have
kidnapped and sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl. He was
recaptured and three months later he received a two week
unescorted pass.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why was this
unescorted pass drawn up and why did the warden sign it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot comment on
any individual case, but if the event or incident to which the
hon. member is referring refers to a situation in which the named
individual was taken unconscious in an ambulance to a local
hospital, let me reassure the hon. member that person upon
arriving at the hospital was in restraints for the full time he
was in hospital receiving medical attention.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is that the unescorted permit for this person was
granted. Yes, he arrived at the hospital and a guard was kept
there because the hospital demanded that happen.
Why did this warden draw up that permit for this criminal? Why
did that happen? Why did this warden draw up that unescorted
permit and why did he sign it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
sharing with members of the House more of the full story.
Let me reiterate that the individual in question was taken
unconscious in an ambulance to a local hospital whereupon after
admission to the hospital he was in restraints for the time of
his stay at the hospital.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers
are feeling betrayed by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
In December the minister committed $900 million to a farm
disaster relief program. The minister is now crawling away from
that promise. He and his bureaucrats are busy slashing and
cutting even before one thin dime has been paid out.
By including NISA and by excluding negative margins the federal
government's $900 million has shrunk by $300 million. Will the
minister live up to his promise by including the full $900
million in the farm disaster relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our officials, along with advice from all
sectors of the agriculture industry, have been working diligently
to put together the criteria for the program.
I assure the House and assure all producers out there who are
deserving of this assistance that we will do the best job that we
possibly can to assist most of them to the greatest extent that
we can through this difficult time.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is now
58 days since the commitment was made that the farmers would
receive disaster assistance. In fact the hint was even before
Christmas that a bankable announcement would be made.
Winter is now half over. The days are getting longer but
farmers are still totally in the dark about what this program
will be. Farmers do not know how much they will get, when they
will get it or how. They only know one thing for certain: it
will not be nearly as much as it was back on December 10.
When will the bankable announcement be made and when will the
cheques be in the mail to farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed and I am sure
the farmers in Saskatchewan and elsewhere across the country are
disappointed as well that the hon. member is disappointed that on
December 10 an announcement was made. Yes, the criteria and all
that work have to be done to make available to the farmers in
need up to $1.5 billion more to assist cash strapped farmers than
there was on December 9.
I am sorry the hon. member is so disappointed that was done for
producers in Canada.
* * *
BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
first five years of this government there have been 420,000
bankruptcies in Canada.
1150
This is more bankruptcies than the number that occurred during
the entire previous nine years of the Progressive Conservative
government, and that government had to deal with the 1991 and
1992 recession.
Under this finance minister more Canadians have gone bankrupt
because the finance minister insists on raising taxes and putting
Canadians in a position where they have to work harder and
receive less.
Will the finance minister commit that in his upcoming budget he
will increase the basic personal exemption to $10,000—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. In fact the rate of
bankruptcies both personal and business is on the decline.
I would just like to add a couple of facts to the numbers of the
Minister of Human Resources Development. The member may want to
know that not only were 44,000 new jobs created for youth this
year. It has been over 200,000 since January 1998.
Since December 1996 there have been 909,000 new jobs created in
the country, with 526,000 created in the last 12 months. In the
past seven months, 400,000 new jobs were created—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
awfully glad the minister has discussed the employment figures.
The fact is that the U.S. has the lowest unemployment right now
in 20 years. I do not think the minister can claim credit for
that. In fact I do not think he can claim credit for the success
in the reduction of Canadian unemployment rates either.
The previous government's policies, free trade, the GST,
deregulation of financial services and transportation and energy
were the structural changes that were necessary.
Will the minister do what is right and reduce taxes for
Canadians so that the next generation of Canadians can succeed in
this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really do not know why the hon. member does this to
himself and his party. When we took office we inherited an 11.5%
unemployment rate from the Tory government. It is now 7.8%.
Let us understand something. The 400,000 new jobs that have
been created in the last seven months were more jobs than were
created in the entire last mandate of the Tory party.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Jeff Cuff is a young man living in Newfoundland who
needs a bone marrow transplant to save his life. Thousands of
Newfoundlanders have said yes, they would be willing to be
donors. The Canadian blood system, though, said no because it
does not have the money to screen these potential donors.
Will the Minister of Health guarantee to Jeff Cuff and others
who require these life saving procedures that there will be
enough money to screen potential life saving donors?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that the Canadian Blood Service is owned
and funded by the provinces. It is regulated by the Government
of Canada. We do not fund it.
If indeed the CBS requires more funding to do its work, I am
certain that it will tell the provincial ministers that is the
case and the provincial ministers will have to decide whether to
put it in funds.
* * *
[Translation]
AEROSPACE RESEARCH CENTRE
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
December, the Montreal chamber of commerce expressed the hope
that the future aerospace research centre would be built in the
Mirabel region, given the location there of the airport, Bell
helicopters, Bombardier and a number of other related
businesses.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Is he prepared to
choose Mirabel as the site for the new aerospace research
centre?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is really a bit premature, since no decision on the
creation of this institute has yet been taken. It depends on
the availability of funds for the National Research Centre of
Canada.
If we do set up this institute, I have already indicated my
approval in principle of establishing it in the Mirabel region.
The decision on its location will be made after the decision on
its creation.
* * *
[English]
URANIUM MINING
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
northern Saskatchewan's abandoned Gunnar and Lorado uranium
mining sites are an environmental and public safety issue.
The children of Uranium City are exposed daily to the hazardous
nature of the abandoned and deteriorating properties of the
former mining town. While governments continue to expand uranium
mining, these abandoned sites require reclamation.
When will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to funding
arrangements with Saskatchewan to decommission and reclaim these
sites creating green jobs for northern residents through
environmental technology, training and employment opportunities?
1155
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are significant environmental issues to be
resolved with respect to these previous mining locations in
northern Saskatchewan. I agree with the hon. gentleman that
there may be some positive spin-off benefits in terms of economic
activity, training and job creation potential.
The issue in terms of the source of funds that is necessary
because we are essentially dealing with abandoned sites is
presently under discussion between the Government of Saskatchewan
and the Government of Canada.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. The loss of Devco has
caused the loss of 1,700 jobs in Nova Scotia. There are
opportunities, though, for Nova Scotia. The super port in
Halifax could result in the creation of up to 5,000 direct and
indirect jobs in construction and spin-off jobs in Nova Scotia.
Winning this bid would be good for both Nova Scotia and Canada.
Will the government commit today to a strategy to help ensure
that the super port facility comes to Halifax where it belongs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government certainly agrees with the hon. member
that should Maersk containers allocate Halifax as one of its
ports of choice it would be good not just for Nova Scotia but for
all of Canada.
The minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and I have said publicly that once the decision is made by
Maersk it will be incumbent upon all levels of government and all
Canadians to ensure this very worthy development goes forward.
* * *
DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa has
returned from South America where he was attending discussions on
how to control drug trafficking. I understand he narrowly missed
an earthquake on which I congratulate him.
Could he please tell the House what these meetings accomplished
to build international support to deal with this issue which is
of such great importance to Canadians?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the objective was to meet the
governments of the four Andean countries to discuss the foreign
ministers' drug dialogue which was launched by our minister last
month in Jamaica.
The visit was well received by all. They appreciate Canada's
holistic approach to drugs and see them as a major problem in
development, health and trade. One official I met said that drugs
kill not only people but also institutions.
As the member has indicated, it is an extremely important
problem for all of us in the Americas.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister still does not understand that
the farm income crisis is real and serious. He says that he is
still diligently working away.
How hard was he working during January when he was out of the
country on a junket? By what date will the farmers have a plan
on the table and can start getting their cheques? I would like
to ask that right now.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer that right now. We are
very close to having the criteria finalized.
If the hon. member wants to be of great assistance he can go
back home on the weekend and convince the government of his
province that if it comes onboard on the 60:40 split we talked
about all along, the farmers of Manitoba will get the full
support from this program when it is delivered.
* * *
[Translation]
FARM SAFETY NET INCOME PROGRAM
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in December,
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a $900
million aid program to help farmers cope with large revenue
losses.
Given that this program sets a number of conditions, in
particular a ceiling on allowable individual assistance, without
covering negative gross margins, will the minister admit that
the total assistance for farmers will unfortunately fall well
below the amount announced?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the total amount is available for
producers. The criteria are being finalized at this time. Every
farmer in Canada who meets that criteria, no matter where they
are, will be eligible for it.
With all programs, parameters have to be set and we are trying
to set those parameters in such a way that they are as fair as
possible, that they are equitable to everyone and that they
deliver the assistance to those who need it.
* * *
1200
RAIL SAFETY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he is
aware that CN and CP are running trains now which are some 10,000
feet in length. Instead of the already long trains which they
have been in the habit of running, which are 5,000 to 6,000 feet,
we now have trains which are 153 to 160 cars in length. There is
a great concern arising among the people who work on the trains
and in communities across the country about these trains not
being able to clear crossings in the time that trains used to
clear crossings.
Would the Minister of Transport undertake to investigate this
matter and report back to the House as to what his views are on
it, unless he has views on it already?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that safety is Transport
Canada's top priority. There is a trend toward elongated trains
by the railways.
My officials have been on top of this matter since the
announcements were made to ensure that safety standards are met.
As of this point in time I have no information which would
suggest that there is any compromising of safety.
This is an ongoing matter because we want to make sure that rail
safety is indeed as good as we think it is.
* * *
[Translation]
FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the famine in
North Korea is comparable to the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
Reduced assistance from Russia and China, coupled with floods
and drought, saw the food supply begin to dwindle in 1995.
[English]
Sixty-two per cent of the children under the age of seven have
stunted growth and almost as many are facing mental development
problems.
[Translation]
My question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
What has Canada done to date in this matter, and why can it not
do more to help the starving people of North Korea?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the member's
question. We will look into the matter and get back to her as
soon as possible.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of
pleasure this morning that I table on behalf of the Government of
Canada and all Canadians, in both official languages, a document
entitled “A Framework to Improve the Social Union for
Canadians”.
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in the House of Commons the exchange of letters
between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers
concerning the social union.
* * *
1205
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table today in the House, in both
official languages, a government of Canada document entitled
“Collaborative use of the spending power for intergovernmental
transfers—the Race to the Top model”. This document sets out the
principles which will guide the government in the future in its
new approach to the spending power for intergovernmental
transfers.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 19
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 55th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 55th report later today.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions and I understand there would be
unanimous consent to introduce for first reading a bill entitled,
“An act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of
corporations, directors and officers)”.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent for the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona to introduce
the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (for Ms. Alexa McDonough) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-468, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act to amend the Criminal
Code concerning the criminal liability of corporations, directors
and officers.
The purpose of the bill is to establish in certain circumstances
the criminal liability of corporations for criminal acts or
omissions carried out by their officers or staff. This would
arise if the corporation management knew or should have known of
the act, or omission, or condoned or was wilfully blind to it. It
is not necessary for the act or the omission to be committed by
the same person who authorized it or tolerated it.
This arises out of the concern that many Canadians have
expressed because of the Westray disaster and other incidents
where workers have been victimized by corporations and yet the
management and ownership have gotten off because there is no
provision in the law for the appropriate prosecution.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-469, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour today to
introduce a bill that would allow union members not to be forced
to contribute to political parties on causes against their will.
The Canada Labour Code affects over 700,000 employees. There
are people within those 700,000 employees who do not believe they
should be funding partisanship, who want to promote the sanctity
of human life, who do not support the idea of unilateral
disarmament and who do not want to advocate violence.
They want to advocate freedom of choice and freedom of
conscience. They do not want to be forced against their will to
contribute to causes they do not believe in.
1210
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if
the House would give its consent, I would move:
That the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs of the House of Commons, presented to the House
earlier today be adopted.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just to
reiterate for the folks back home because of the interlude for
members' statements and question period, what we are talking
about today is Bill C-20. It has to do with direct marketing.
More than that, we have had the Senate and the Canadian Bar
Association, along with some other characters, say that there
should not be whisteblowing. Because they do not approve of the
whistleblowing provisions they have tried to strike clauses 66.1
and 66.2 of this bill.
I am going to move beyond the fact that just because it is being
advocated by the Canadian Bar Association and the Senate we have
to be somewhat suspect about these things. Whenever we have
those types of groups getting together to say that we should not
have protection of public interest with regard to whistleblowing
we have to watch out.
People talk about combating crime. They say they want to see
protection. They say they want to see the victims of crooked
manoeuvres looked after. They also believe the House should
listen. As a matter of fact, all of those four statements came
from the Minister of Industry.
Let us take a look at some of those issues when it comes to the
idea of whistleblowing and that other place called the Senate. I
want to see protections too, just like Michael O'Connor, a lad
who lives here in Ottawa. He started up a group called Taxpayers
Have Had Enough. He wants protections for the average Canadian
taxpayer to make sure that the Senate is living up to its duty
and responsibility and that it is being accountable to him.
Michael O'Connor, just like everybody else in this country,
contributes to the salaries of our people in the Senate. When he
learned that Andy Thompson was only spending one day in the
spring and one day in the fall in the Senate, for a total of two
days every year, collecting a yearly salary of $64,000 plus
$10,000 in expenses, Michael O'Connor was upset. He is a part
time health care worker in the Ottawa area. He actually took
time from his summer vacation to go to the Senate Chamber to
research what the attendance records were. It broke his heart to
learn that when the Senate only sits 68 days of the year somebody
can attend only two of those 68 days and still qualify for their
full salary.
Where is the protection there? We need whistleblowers and we
did not have effective whisteblowing on the Senate side.
Today the Minister of Industry, in speaking to Bill C-20, said
that the House is listening, and so the House should listen. A
few years from now when the Prime Minister decrees an election,
the writ will be dropped and I and all other members of this
place will go back home to talk to our constituents. We will
tell them what we represent, what mandate we want to carry
forward in the election and, if we form the government, what we
will undertake to do.
Therefore the House does listen.
1215
But in that other place, the Senate, there are people who have
been appointed there for decades. There is no measure to ensure
that they have to listen to anybody. There are those in the
Senate who are diligent and do a decent job, indeed there are.
But the problem is they are tainted by all those others who do
not do due diligence and do not do their job, the Andy Thompsons
of this world who are absent to the point of disrepute, of
bringing dishonour not only upon that institution but ours as
well. The whole parliament suffers as a result of those types of
truancies and problems.
That is why we call upon the Prime Minister to recognize the
results of Senate elections, not only in the province of Alberta
but other places that have enacted legislation similar to
Alberta, such as British Columbia.
We want the Prime Minister to act upon the promises he made in
his 1990 Liberal leadership race. At that time he said it was
possible to hold Senate elections and so he should. Had he held
Senate elections and recognized Senate elections since he became
Prime Minister, a vast chunk of the people who sit in the Senate
today would be elected and accountable senators.
That is what we want to see. We want to see Liberals who hold
dear their promises, and prime ministers who stand by their
words. That is what we want to see. We want to see taxpayers
who have not been burnt like Michael O'Connor and his group.
Taxpayers have had enough. They want to see effective
whistleblowing.
With regard to Bill C-20, the Reform industry critic talked
about victims of deception. He talked about advertising and
pricing. He talked about competition. He talked about contempt
in individuals unaccountable to anyone. Let us talk about
victims of deception.
Right now an election is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The premier goes around bellyaching that the federal government
does not listen, and he was part of the cabinet of that
government. He was part and parcel of a party that promised that
it was going to make changes to the Senate.
What happens all too often? The concerns of those provinces, of
those hinterlands fall on deaf ears. If that man who is running
for premier in that province now, if Brian Tobin recognized
Senate elections, held Senate elections in the province of
Newfoundland, he would not have the prospect right after that
election—and I will make a prediction for February 9 when that
election has come and past.
There are five vacancies that I know of in the Senate, three for
Quebec, one for Newfoundland and another for Ontario. If Brian
Tobin had held an election concurrent with the provincial
election for members of the House of Assembly in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundland on February 9 would have
somebody who represented the interests of Newfoundland and not
just those of the Prime Minister.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to assure both you, Mr. Speaker, and the member who is
speaking that there is no political motivation for interrupting
him at this moment. However, unanimous consent was refused a few
moments ago to present a report on committee membership. I
understand that there is now agreement among the parties.
I ask for the consent of the House to return to motions so that
I may move the motion and present the report on committee
membership.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to motions for the purpose alluded to by the hon. deputy
government whip?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a
small technicality. I wonder whether the person seconding this
motion is in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: We have not had a motion yet. We are
waiting to see if there is consent to revert to motions for the
purpose of allowing the motion to be put. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. deputy government whip will
want to put her motion.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1220
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a new motion and it does require a new seconder.
It will be moved by me and seconded by the member for Oxford.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the
55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy government whip
have unanimous consent to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
we are talking about accountability. Today we are talking about
people who have been victims of deception, the citizens and the
taxpayers of this country and particularly those people in the
province of Newfoundland who are going to the polls on February
9.
A previous premier of that province, Clyde Wells, recognized
that a Senate election would allow for people to stand and
represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in the
Senate and not be beholden to the Prime Minister and not be
appointed by the Prime Minister.
A strong voice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is
needed in the Senate. They need somebody who is going to point
out the problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not
giving them the straight goods. They need somebody who is going
to say that the federal mismanagement of the fisheries has been a
travesty and has resulted in the elimination and the wipeout of
the cod stocks and the groundfish in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They need somebody who is going to say that provincial rights
should be paramount with regard to the fishery and that the
province should have a say.
They do not need more bellyaching from a premier who has not
been able to demonstrate much or come through with much, despite
the fact that he sat in the federal cabinet, despite the fact
that he is a good buddy and chum of the Prime Minister. They
need somebody who is going to be accountable to the people of
Newfoundland and not the Prime Minister of Canada.
That is what we are talking about regarding victims of deception
with regard to the Senate, with regard to Bill C-20, with regard
to whistleblowing. They need somebody who is going to be an
effective whistleblower for the people of Newfoundland, not just
a bellyacher.
Today we have also heard people talk about advertising and
pricing. Recently we have heard the Senate go on about how the
senators want to have cameras in their committees because people
are not seeing them do their work. No surprise as they only sit
68 days of the year. It is pretty tough to see them when they
are only there 68 days. And some of them only sit for two days
of the year. It is pretty tough to notice somebody if they are
only there two out of 365 days a year. It is pretty tough to
notice.
It would be a good idea to bring cameras into the Senate
committees and advertise their proceedings so people can see what
goes on in that chamber. In terms of pricing it is going to cost
a few million dollars. The Senate would love it for those
committees that operate. They would love to get their mugs on TV
and try to justify their $64,000 a year salaries. That is what I
say to advertising and pricing.
We have also heard people talk today about competition. I am a
big fan of competition as are a lot of people in the country.
They want to see public choice. That is why they want to get rid
of the system of appointments.
People want to move toward elections because with elections
there is competition. Candidate X, candidate Y and candidate Z
can say what they want to do for the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, what type of things they want to institute, what
policies they want to change, what status quos they want to
overthrow. That is the type of thing we want to see from a
Senate election.
That is the type of thing we had in Alberta in 1998 when we held
the second and third Senate elections in Canadian history. We
did it once before when Stan Waters was elected to the Senate.
There will be others, mark my words, because it has come time for
change in the Senate.
We heard people talk about contempt today. Indeed there is
great contempt in the land for politicians in general, but no
more contempt is there than that for the Senate. That is why we
have politicians in this place—
1225
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon. member has had
more than his fair share of interruptions but I think it only
just to point out to him Standing Order 18 which states:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of
any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the
person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive
words against either House—
I know that the hon. member will want to be very judicious in
his choice of words when he is discussing the other place. We do
have freedom of speech in this House and he is entitled to say
what he wants, subject to the standing orders. The standing
orders are quite explicit in what he can say about the other
place.
I would invite him to watch his language and try to ensure that
he complies with the standing orders in every respect.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have
raised this whole issue of offence because there are people who
are offended. They are taxpayers and they are citizens.
We talk about offence and we talk about contempt. There is so
much offence and so much contempt in this land that there are
those in this very chamber, in our House of Commons, who are
advocating for the abolition of the other place.
I do not advocate for the abolition of the other place. I
recognize that there are things part and parcel of this House of
Commons that are present today that are in a sense a sickness and
a disease upon our body politic in this country because we do not
have an effective other place.
The reason there is contempt, the reason there is offence, the
reason there are cries for abolition of the Senate—
An hon. member: Even from Liberal members.
Mr. Rob Anders: That is right, Mr. Speaker, even from
Liberal members, those who benefit wholesale from having the
appointment process right now, those who hope to be able to wind
up in the favoured books of the Prime Minister and to sit in the
other place.
The reason there is such contempt, the reason there are such
calls for abolition is that we do not have accountability.
Individuals are not accountable to the people who elect them.
They are not accountable to the regional interests as was set out
in 1867. They are not accountable to the interests of the
provinces. These are serious problems.
People talked today about Bill C-20. The Bloc Quebecois
industry critic talked about public interest advocacy and
weakening competition. I share the member's concerns with regard
to these two issues. I believe that having a change in the
Senate will advance this idea of strengthened competition and
will advance public interest advocacy.
Senators have a difficult time speaking on behalf of the public
and advocating on behalf of the public interest when they do not
represent or have not been elected by the public. When they are
appointed by the Prime Minister, the process by which they are
appointed, that very deed itself taints what they otherwise would
do.
Today I heard the Tory industry critic talk about Bill C-20. He
said that the intent of whistleblowing legislation is good.
Beyond just intents the member also talked about proper scrutiny,
more consultation and wanting to have an active Senate. Nobody
more than I would like to see an active Senate.
The Senate sits 68 days a year. I would like to see the
senators do more scrutiny but in order to do that, I need them to
attend. When there are people who attend only two days of the
year and senators who only show up for 10% of their meetings, I
raise these concerns because I want to see an active Senate. I
want to see an effective Senate. I would like to have all of the
people in the other place in attendance every single one of those
68 days of the year. I would like to see them there more than
that but if we could at least see them all there for the days
they are required to show as it stands right now, I would feel we
had a more active and effective Senate.
I believe in consistency. My Tory colleague talked about
consistency in the law. I want to see consistency. I remember
the Liberal campaign promises in 1968. They were before my time
but I read about them. Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaigned across
the land that he wanted to see changes to the Senate, but in 1968
the election came and went and we did not see changes to the
Senate.
The Liberal leadership in 1990 promised to see changes in the
Senate. We did not see them then.
1230
I want to see consistency as much as anybody. So for all these
reasons I agree with my colleagues. I want to see more scrutiny.
I want to see more accountability. I want to see a better
whistleblowing institution. The Senate must be reformed.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Calgary West spoke at great length about the Senate
and very little about Bill C-20. I guess there is obviously a
relationship because the amendments made to Bill C-20 came from
the Senate and some people would find that objectionable, that an
unelected body would have any legislative power or ability to
influence bills.
My question gets back to Reform's idea about the elected Senate
and the need for Senate reform. I have often found it a sort of
an irony when many of us worked so hard to get the Charlottetown
accord put through, the constitutional amendments, which actually
would have given what the Reform Party has been asking for,
elected senators, Senate reform along the lines the hon. member
seems to feel are necessary. Our party, as the hon. member
suggested, believes the Senate should be abolished, not reformed
to be elected. He is accurate in that.
I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's views about
how the Reform Party justified working so hard to sink the
Charlottetown accord, the constitutional amendments, when it is
actually the position of the Reform Party that it wants the
elected Senate which it would have had if the Charlottetown
accord had gone through.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct
something the member said, that the Reform Party quashed the
Charlottetown accord. It was not the Reform Party. We were
merely the vessel for people who had concerns across this land
with regard to Charlottetown and the provinces.
There were people across this land who got out to the polls in
that October. I remember it well. I remember there were people
in provinces right across this land, including Quebec, who voted
against Charlottetown. It was the people of Canada, the people
of the respective provinces of Canada, who got out to the polls
in October 1992 and rejected Charlottetown because they rejected
the process. That was the problem.
The Reform Party served as a vessel for those people who saw
problems with the quotas inherent in Charlottetown and who saw
problems with the special deals that were part and parcel of
Charlottetown. It was the people of this country from coast to
coast to coast who rejected Charlottetown, not just the Reform
Party.
Thank goodness the Reform Party was there to serve as a conduit
for all those who saw the problems, the fallacies and the
inherent contradictions in Charlottetown. If the Reform Party
had not been there I do not think we would have had a public
referendum. I think Brian Mulroney would have gone ahead and
simply imposed that law without having consent.
One of the reasons I stand in my place today is as a youngster
of 10 years old in grade five I remember well the patriation of
the constitution in 1982. My father and I and many others had
problems with the idea that the charter of rights and freedoms
was based on collective group rights rather than the rights of
the individual. As a result of that I understood at that tender
age that it was important to be active in politics because my
father and many others like him, the people of this country,
never had a chance to vote on the patriation of the constitution
and the structuring of the charter of rights and freedoms.
In 1992, 10 years later, we did have a vote and I am going to
argue that were it not for the Reform Party the people of this
country would never have been able to cast a ballot and make
their own decisions for their own constitution.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is really refreshing and enlightening to see a young
member of parliament get up and give us some real history.
It is a credit to the Reform Party and the first reformers who
came here that honesty and truth were number one in our party
policies.
1235
I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary West what really
is the problem that when taxpayers or voters tell the House what
they want it does not get accomplished. The member mentioned the
Premier of Newfoundland that he has realized all of a sudden that
to deal with the federal government is not a simple as he thought
before. We have seen it through history time and time again.
One very prominent Liberal recently told me that in two national
Liberal conventions they passed a motion that would promote a
triple-E Senate. The Liberal conventions have recognized that
there should be a change in that other place but it has not
happened.
Can the hon. member tell me what kind of vehicle do we need to
get the wishes of taxpayers and voters accomplished in the House
instead of being ignored?
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, time and time again people
in this country raise a cry for changes. They raise a cry for
changes to the Young Offenders Act and they raise a cry for
changes to the Senate. We look at polls across the country for
the last several decades there have been cries for a return to
capital punishment.
I look at all these issues. Yet even though there have been
free votes in the House of Commons on these issues, the will of
the people has not been reflected.
There is a profound problem with our democracy when the will of
the people, the will of the clear majority in this land, cannot
bring forward law and have it enacted. There is a profound
sickness and problem with what we have as an institution. That is
why we need to see more free votes.
We are talking about real free votes. That means we do not have
the government whips and the Prime Minister's office come down on
the backs of the backbenchers in the governing party, the Liberal
Party of today, and tell them that the government will fall
because of having a free vote, because they cast their ballot,
they vote nay or yea as their constituents would want them to
vote.
That is why it is important that we bring forward a formal vote
of non-confidence. That way if a money bill or any other bill
falls, the government does not fall. There would have to be a
formal vote of non-confidence in order for the government to
fall.
That would free up backbenchers not only on the government side
but in every party to vote the wishes of their constituents. That
little change would help advance democracy.
Another one would be for us to have initiative so that
taxpayers, citizens, constituents could go ahead with a petition
and sign up their neighbours door to door. With that process they
would be able to put on the ballot in the next election, to save
taxpayer money because people have brought up the costs of
democracy, a question of whether they want to see a return to
capital punishment, whether they want to see an elected Senate,
whether they want to see substantive changes to the Young
Offenders Act or the faint hope clause, section 745. On all these
types of things there has been vast public outcry.
With more free votes, with a formal vote of non-confidence, with
recall legislation to get rid of a member of parliament who does
not represent their will, with initiative all these things can be
accomplished. We need also to reform the Senate.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
were talking about Bill C-20, although that seems like a long
time ago after what we have just been through.
1240
Bill C-20, in a nutshell, is about two things that we need to
deal with today. The whistleblowing aspect for telemarketing
fraud is first and foremost. Second is an issue we have not
heard talked about much today, the prenotification of mergers
process, the attempts to strengthen and simplify this process.
The reason I raise this is that it is a matter of record. The
NDP did not vote in favour of Bill C-20 when it came up last
spring and that was our reservation about the bill.
We applauded the effort to clean up telemarketing fraud and
to implement whistleblower protection for employees. That
certainly is in keeping with our policy. We are very pleased to
see any reference to whistleblowing raised.
We could not vote in favour of Bill C-20 due to this other
aspect, the prenotification of mergers process with which we
simply were not comfortable. The reason we are dealing with Bill
C-20 today is that it went through third reading. It went to the
Senate and came back to us with amendments, the key amendment
being the elimination of any reference to whistleblowing.
This is a great disappointment to us. We are very much of the
mind that it is time to recognize whistleblowing protection in
our public service and in the private sector. We believe good
managers would welcome whistleblowing because it helps to alert
them to wrongdoing of any sort throughout the enterprise over
which they might have jurisdiction.
Certainly in the public sector our managers could use an
improved level of whistleblowing to alter them to, for instance,
the misuse of funds within their own government agencies.
Whistleblowing is an issue we have been hearing a great deal
about in labour circles. The trade union movement has recognized
for a great deal of time the need for whistleblowing protection
because actually in common law the obligation of loyalty to the
employer is paramount.
If an employee blows the whistle on some sort of wrongdoing and
causes some inconvenience for the employer, discipline is
actually justified in that case, especially if the employee is
mistaken, even if they turned in the circumstances without any
malice and with the best of intentions.
If the employee was wrong without any saving clauses in
legislation to back them up, they could be disciplined and even
discharged from their workplace for pointing out these
wrongdoings.
Whistleblowing is key and paramount to backing up workers and
helping them feel comfortable with alerting the public or their
employer about wrongdoing of any kind. Telemarketing fraud, we
heard today, a $100 million a year problem, lends itself to this
kind of manipulation of employees or intimidation or coercion.
These are often poorly paid employees working in a call centre
of some type. If the employer is an employer who would willingly
undertake fraudulent enterprises or criminal activity, chances
are pretty good they are not a very good employer either. They
are the type of employer who would intimidate, coerce, harass the
employees for blowing the whistle on them or for even threatening
to or for even revealing to the public the true nature of the
fraudulent enterprise that is going on.
I believe we need to do everything we can to clean up the
telemarketing industry. I think it is actually rife with fraud.
Frankly, the direct marketing people welcome any legislation that
would help improve the image of that industry.
I do not think there is a lower form of animal than the
telemarketing fraud practitioner who would take advantage of
often seniors or shut-ins or people who are vulnerable and
incapable of making good judgment about the products they have
been asked to purchase.
I have a personal experience with this. An elderly relative of
mine was in her late nineties when she started being harassed by
unscrupulous telemarketing companies which by the way seem to
share lists.
1245
Once one gets its hooks into a senior citizen, the others seem
to come in like vultures. It seems a whole series of sales
people have started to harass this elderly relative of mine and
have taken her for most of her life savings. For instance,
absolutely fraudulent work has been done to her home. One
salesman told her on the phone that her chimney looked like it
was pulling away from her house. Being in her late nineties she
was not able to go outside to see whether or not it was true.
They sold her a $5,000 fix-it job to reattach the chimney to her
house.
Being in the building trades, when I went to visit her next and
learned of this I went outside to look at the chimney and found
that it had never been leaning away from the house and had never
been fixed. It is absolute, blatant fraud. They realized that
they had a live one on the wire because she was a single woman in
her late nineties living alone and with only home care.
We have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to
stop that kind of activity. I compliment aspects of Bill C-20 if
there is anything we can do to limit this type of activity.
I said this was the lowest form of animal in my mind, the person
who would deliberately defraud vulnerable people or shut-ins.
Frankly I have more respect for somebody who would mug than
somebody who would cheat in this fashion. I have more admiration
for somebody who sticks someone up and steals a wallet. At least
they can see it coming; the person is being forthright about it.
However this kind of stealth is a reprehensible problem.
We would stop more of these people if we had this whistleblower
protection and employees who have been engaged, and often against
their will, in sucking these people would feel comfortable in
blowing the whistle. If there were some wrongdoing going on we
would be able to stop more of them.
It is a coincidence that today I plan on handing down to the
journals branch my own whistleblowing legislation in the form of
a private member's bill. It is very thorough and comprehensive.
It deals with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I am
hoping that other members of parliament will see fit to support
it. As I say, good managers welcome whistleblowing because it
points to all kinds of opportunities for savings or efficiencies
within the system.
Bill C-20, as we expect, will go through. The NDP is pleased to
say that we can support the motion made by the Minister of
Industry today. I listened to the minister's remarks and I found
that I could associate myself with them quite easily. It is
quite honourable that we are trying to do something about the
fraud that exists in that industry.
One of the biggest issues is the reporting of price fixing. This
is one aspect the minister pointed out. We believe the Direct
Marketing Association, as I mentioned, is eager to have the
reputation of its industry improved, and it will be done through
this regulation. I should point out that it is not a
heavy-handed regulation. It is not interference in the free
market by any stretch of the imagination. This is regulation for
consumer protection and for the well-being of this rapidly
growing industry.
I am pleased to say that the NDP will be voting in favour of the
motion. I am also pleased that there will at least be some
reference, even without the kind of penalties that we would like,
in Bill C-20 to whistleblower protection.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1250
The Deputy Speaker: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I
take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration for proposing a much needed update of
the Citizenship of Canada Act.
The minister has put forward a series of initiatives to update
citizenship and immigration legislation and procedures. These
efforts represent a very welcome change in some Canadian
institutions that will play a key role in our country's future.
Our existing citizenship act was well suited to the time when it
was last revised in 1977. However, with all the changes we have
seen over the past couple of decades and with the wide array of
interpretations the term resident has been subjected to, it is
time to revise our legislation to reflect today's social,
political and economic realities.
It is also important that we include changes to strengthen the
value of Canadian citizenship. As an immigrant to Canada I have
a keen sense of this great value as do my family and millions of
other Canadians who are grateful for the chance they have been
given to become citizens of this country.
The new act is a step in the right direction for all of us since
it helps to promote the great value of Canadian citizenship. That
is important for those of us who already possess this valuable
asset. It is just as important for those who want to become
Canadian citizens.
As we all know we owe a lot of our global prominence to new
Canadians, their hard work and their contacts. An increasingly
global outlook is one of the keys to Canada's future as are new
Canadians and their initiatives and the new Citizenship of Canada
Act.
I will reflect with my fellow members of parliament on the
history of Canadian citizenship, which is about people coming
from all corners of the planet to build a country characterized
by tolerance, generosity and compassion, a country that
represents a beacon of hope in an often troubled world torn by
strife, wars and intolerance. Citizenship is about people and
nation building. Its evolution represents the very essence of
our collective identity as a people.
[Translation]
Nation as a concept relies in large measure on citizenship and
the evolution of citizenship represents the very essence of our
collective identity as a people.
[English]
As many of us will remember, the creation of Canadian
citizenship was an initiative of Paul Martin Senior who served at
the time as Canadian secretary of state. At the end of World War
II, as Mr. Martin walked among the graves of soldiers in Dieppe,
France, he recognized the names of several soldiers from his
hometown. He was struck by the fact that despite the different
ethnic origins of their names they were all Canadians. He
decided it was high time to work toward recognition for Canadian
citizenship.
The Citizenship Act of 1947 marked the beginning of a new era in
our history. To emphasize its importance Prime Minister
Mackenzie King was the recipient of the first certificate of
Canadian citizenship. After World War II Canada experienced an
unprecedented increase in its population. As the population of
our country grew and changed and our Canadian identity gained in
stature worldwide, the concept of citizenship evolved leading
parliament to review the original Canadian Citizenship Act. A
revised act came into effect in 1977.
1255
More than 21 years have passed since the last major amendments
were made. Over that time Canada has changed. The world has
changed. It is important and necessary for our legislation to
reflect those changes and strengthen the value of Canadian
citizenship.
I point to the features of the new act that contribute to
strengthening the value of our citizenship. New criteria for
attribution of citizenship are certainly a big step in that
direction. By proposing clearly defined precise requirements we
can now rely on a more effective decision making process. These
criteria guarantee that new Canadian citizens will be deeply
committed to our country and its values.
In the case of children born to Canadian parents who no longer
reside in this country, the transitional citizenship is limited
to the second generation. This means that the second generation
of Canadians born abroad will obtain citizenship at birth but
lose it at the age of 28 unless they live in Canada before that
time. The residency requirement is three years of physical
presence within a five year period. Successive generations of
Canadians born abroad cannot obtain Canadian citizenships unless
they meet the same requirements as any other participant.
These new requirements have been established because we strongly
believe that to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship we
must ensure that all people who are Canadian citizens develop and
maintain real links with Canada.
It is also with this in mind that we have introduced important
changes in the requirements for permanent residence. Under the
new act applicants for Canadian citizenship have to prove that
they have spent three years out of five years in the country.
This requirement is a good way to ensure applicants are well
acquainted with Canadian society, our lifestyle and our values.
By meeting the requirements these future Canadians will
demonstrate their commitment to participate fully in the life of
our society.
At the same time, as the minister pointed out, the new act also
introduces a more flexible framework for application of these
conditions by giving them five years instead of four to go
through this requirement. Furthermore, applicants will be
expected to have sufficient knowledge of one of the country's two
official languages. They will have to be familiar with values of
Canadian society and demonstrate that familiarity without the
help of an interpreter. With these well defined criteria the
decision making process will be simple, clear and effective.
Currently over 90% of citizenship applications are
straightforward. Each application must nonetheless be approved
by a citizenship judge. This process is long and costly. With
the new act decisions will be based on criteria already set out
in law and will therefore be more expeditious.
Another way to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship is
to promote it actively. With a more effective decision making
process in place our citizenship judges will now be called
citizenship commissioners and will have more time to promote the
values symbolized by citizenship across the country. Not only
will they continue to be ambassadors of citizenship within the
context of citizenship ceremonies, but they will extend that role
to other community events in order to reach more people and make
Canadian citizens more aware of the responsibilities and
advantages of being Canadian.
The appointment criteria for citizenship commissioners are
defined in the new act. We believe they will foster consistency
and ensure the commissioners are outstanding citizens with solid
track records. Our new commissioners will be Canadians who have
been publicly recognized for their important contribution to
civic life and have demonstrated their attachment to the values
embodied in Canadian citizenship.
The new act also includes measures to enhance the protection of
Canadian citizenship. The vast majority of applicants for
citizenship are law-abiding individuals who contribute greatly to
our country, to daily life and to the growth of Canada. In the
pursuit of our objective to be properly prepared to face the
occasional difficulty we have added new measures.
The proposed act sets out a new prohibition. This includes the
power to refuse citizenship in the public interest. The proposed
act also gives the minister new authority to cancel citizenship
in cases where it was obtained by using a false identity while
the individual was not entitled to citizenship due to a criminal
offence. It has more severe sanctions for offences.
As the minister mentioned, we are also proposing to revise our
oath of citizenship. Like the other modifications we are
suggesting that this proposal evolve from extensive
consultations.
Canadians say they want our oath to reflect our contemporary
values. They also want clearer references to loyalty to Canada.
Our existing oath has not been updated since it was first
introduced over a half century ago. The oath clearly states our
allegiance to Canada and its values as well as our allegiance to
the head of state. The words express a strong commitment to
these values.
I would also like to remind all my colleagues that the
citizenship act is the result of extensive efforts initiated by
the minister to respond to Canadians and their concerns.
1300
The act is the result of a lengthy consultation to modernize one
of our most valuable assets, our Canadian citizenship, with full
respect for our Canadian identity, values and traditions.
As can be appreciated, the changes proposed in the new act are
designed to strengthen this most valuable asset, Canadian
citizenship. Therefore I ask all members of the House to support
the new citizenship act.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am actually nervous about speaking to Bill C-63. I,
who have spoken in the House perhaps 60 to 70 times without
notes, am nervous this time. It is because of the nature of the
subject.
First of all the circumstances of my speech. I learned that
Bill C-63 was on the order paper just late Wednesday morning. I
hurried over for question period to get a copy of the bill and to
study it, because I had not looked at it before, just in time for
the opening ceremonies on Wednesday which involves, as the House
knows, the singing of O Canada. I came in here just on time. I
was not on House duty, but the others were gathered on the other
side and I stood next to the member for St. John's and sang with
her. In O Canada is “God keep our land glorious and free”.
Then I sat in my place as question period unfolded and the Prime
Minister answered questions from the opposition on various
subjects. I read the proposed oath of citizenship that my
colleague has just mentioned that has been put forward with Bill
C-63. My heart sank.
I am sorry I do not share the view of the parliamentary
secretary that this oath of citizenship really does reflect what
we are as a country. The parliamentary secretary explained to me
subsequently that it was something created by consensus, by
consultation.
I suggest that sometimes consensus and consultation is not the
way to go and where really one has to come to that place and to
those people who deal every day with what it is to be a Canadian
as part of their lives, as part of their professions perhaps to
get an idea of what an oath of citizenship should be all about.
The oath begins: “From this day forward I pledge my loyalty and
allegiance to Canada”. Loyalty and allegiance are synonyms.
They are the same words. So we begin the new oath to take us into
the next millennium with a redundancy.
It goes on: “We pledge allegiance to Canada, Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”. This is another
redundancy. When I pledge allegiance to Canada I pledge
allegiance to all Canada's democratic institutions. I pledge
allegiance to this parliament. I pledge allegiance to the Queen.
So long as the Queen is the Queen of Canada I pledge allegiance
to the Queen whenever I pledge allegiance to Canada.
In other words, I am a monarchist. It is just that I am not so
sure that we need in this part the Queen along with pledging
allegiance to Canada, because I feel it is something of a
redundancy.
The oath goes on: “I promise to respect our country's rights
and freedoms and defend democratic values and faithfully observe
our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of a Canadian
citizen”.
This does not capture what it is to be a Canadian. These are
generalities. Yet in this place every day we debate very
fundamental values that drive this country. One cannot be a
member of parliament for more than a week or two before one
realizes the five real principles that drive this country, that
make this country free, that make this country Canada.
Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of
speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.
1305
That day in question period we dealt with all those issues
because always, in a country like Canada, the issues that have to
be dealt with in parliament are the issues where we try to
balance those five principles, where we balance the rule of law
with basic human rights.
On that day in question period we dealt with hepatitis C, the
problem of a ruling on child pornography and similar things. All
these things deal with this balancing act on the five principles
of Canada and Canadian freedom.
My biggest disappointment when reading the new oath was that
there was no reference to God. Do members realize that among all
the major nations that accept new citizens, we are the only
country that has dropped God from our oath of citizenship.
Australia has “under God” in its oath. Great Britain has
“Almighty God” in its oath. New Zealand and the United States
have “so help me God” in their oath.
We did have it at one time, 1976 I think it was, but for some
reason it was decided that “so help me God” was not important
in Canada's oath and it was dropped subsequently.
I am not a deeply religious person but I believe there is an
eternal presence, there is something more, some higher authority,
a higher authority than parliament, a higher authority than the
country. We have reason to count our blessings as Canada. Those
blessings emanate from a higher presence, from God.
I am a member of a village church, the United Church of Canada.
I am not a terribly regular churchgoer but I do go. The stained
glass window is yellow. As the minister may be speaking or the
choir singing, that window lights up with sunlight. I sit in my
pew and think how grateful I am to be among my people, my
community, how grateful I am to be a Canadian where there are no
wars and no strife, where I can feel at home with people who love
one another. I know that is a heck of a thing to say but that
does happen in church. That is what church is all about.
During the referendum crisis in 1995 the Liberals had a lot more
seats than now and there was an overflow on the opposition side.
I had a seat on the opposite side, right next to the opposition,
that faced toward the Prime Minister.
One of my most moving memories was during that debate on the
referendum crisis to see the Prime Minister attempting to defend
the country he believed in, in the most crucial moment of his
life trying to defend Canada against what was a real questioning
of whether Canada should stay united.
I could see the Prime Minister trying to find the words and
trying to speak and he would look over my way because I suppose
the camera was directly behind me and he could address the
Canadian people. I could look into the Prime Minister's eyes as
he spoke and I knew the passion he was feeling.
In the context of that I could look up to the northwest window,
the Ontario window, and the sunlight would invade the glass of
that window. That window is comprised of trilliums and at the
very top the three maple leaves of Canada. The trillium of course
is the trinity and the trillium that was chosen for that glass is
not all white. It is stained red.
When we make these associations we realize there has to be a bit
more than just words, more than just things, there has to be
something that is greater than all of us that does give these
blessings that make us Canada, that make us Canadian.
1310
I have to think that 99.99% of new people coming from anywhere
in the world come from cultures where there is a god. It may not
be the God of Christ. It may be the god of another great
religion but still there would be a god and I think they would
expect to see an oath of citizenship that contains the word god,
an invocation to God.
I sat here today among my colleagues with the encouragement of
the members for Brampton West—Mississauga and for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. I made an effort to write a
new and different oath of citizenship. I wrote it right here.
This is not a prop. This a piece of paper on which I jotted my
notes during question period. This is what I wrote.
I wrote “In pledging my allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second”, and the next part was difficult
because I did not want to say promise. I did not know what words
to use and then it occurred to me with the encouragement of my
colleagues: “I take my stand, I take my place among Canadians”,
and the rest of it flowed very easily, “united before God whose
sacred trust is to uphold five principles: equality of
opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and
the rule of law”.
It flowed so much more easily in French:
[Translation]
En prêtant allégeance au Canada, je me compte au nombre des
Canadiens qui sont unis par leur foi en Dieu et leur attachement
à cinq grands principes: l'égalité des chances, la liberté
d'expression, les valeurs démocratiques, le respect des droits
de la personne et la primauté du droit.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I commend
my colleague for a very good speech.
I have often wondered about these same things, how we can
possibly detach ourselves from any anchor in our society. That
has happened to a great extent.
While I am also a Christian believer, one who believes in the
Scriptures and the teaching of the Bible and tries to the best of
my ability to follow those instructions given and to worship God
and lead my family in that, I have a very serious and practical
question. It is one with which I have battled.
When it comes to matters of faith belief we ought to be in a
mode of persuasion and not of coercion. I am aware that to a
degree when one gives an oath if one does not want to minimize
the meaning of it it has to be one that people can freely respond
to in sincerity. I think of the oath we take in becoming members
of parliament. I do not want to cast any aspersions against any
of my colleagues here but there were some members of the House
whom I do not really see how they could in sincerity give that
pledge and that oath.
How do we balance the coercion and the temptation to insincerity
in giving the oath with actually having the oath in place as he
suggests?
1315
Mr. John Bryden: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that God is
excluded from very few people. I think the god that we refer to
in any oath that emanates from this parliament or from this
country is a god of all people in all religions, or all religions
and all people, if you will.
In this sense, even the atheist has a place with God and it is
appropriate for any of us to acknowledge that there is something
higher than humanity. We may define it in many different ways,
but there is something higher than humanity. We know that when
we see things beautiful. We know that when we see our freedoms.
The mistake that has occurred in the past is that people thought
when they put God into oaths it was a god of some particular
religion, but it is not. It is the God eternal.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to address Bill C-63. Before I begin I would
like to compliment my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington for
his very passionate and heartfelt speech and for his willingness
to be open to share some of himself with us. Often we do not
take the time to do that and I appreciate it.
I would like to frame my comments toward this bill in the
context of what I see to be a major problem within the current
immigration system. I make that comment very clearly, once
again, with the immigration system, not with the concept of
immigration. Immigration is a positive contribution to Canada.
Canada is a country built on immigration. No one disputes that
fact. That is a part of our great history.
I would say that there are some serious and very glaring
problems within our immigration system which need to be
addressed. They have been brought to the attention of the
minister and the government, not just by opposition members but
by many different groups from around the country in a number of
different areas. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the
immigration system is broken and it appears as though the
minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it.
I make those comments not flippantly and not in a rhetorical
manner. I have had the opportunity to study the system over the
last year and half and it has come to my attention that there are
some very serious problems which need to be addressed that have
not been addressed.
When we see a problem, when we see a concern with something,
when we know there is a problem and yet we fail to take action,
then we also fail to take the responsibility for that lack of
action and the consequences which flow from it.
I would say that there are some serious consequences as a result
of many inactions within our immigration system.
I will move on to address some of the information that the
minister has shared with us in the tabling of the bill. I would
first point out that the current minister has been the minister
for three years and this is the first substantive legislation she
has brought forward. I have some questions as to why it is that
this would be her first piece of legislation when there are many
other issues at hand right now. I am not saying that this is not
important legislation, but in my mind and in the minds of many of
my colleagues, we do not see this as being the top priority.
There are some glaring concerns that need to be addressed which
simply are not addressed through this legislation.
1320
The problems within the immigration system are most strongly
felt by those individuals who are part of the immigrant community
and who have come to Canada recently. The comments they share
with me are that if the government is concerned about fixing the
system, why is it that it does not do anything when it sees a
problem?
In essence, the individuals within the immigrant community are
then painted with the same brush as the very few individuals who
would cause problems within the system. They want the abuses to
the immigration system to be addressed and fixed. They are, in
many ways, finding their concerns falling on deaf ears.
I would like to point out one situation. This is an issue that
has been brought up by opposition and by many people across the
country, by lots of different groups. It is a situation that is
happening in the Vancouver, British Columbia area right now
having to do with people who are abusing the system because of a
loophole.
Some individuals have come to Canada and have claimed refugee
status falsely. As a result of that, they have abused the
system. That is not the only problem. Many of the individuals
who have falsely claimed refugee status have been selling drugs
on the streets of Vancouver. Again, it is a small number of
individuals.
This is a serious problem and it is having a huge impact in the
downtown east side of Vancouver. It is spreading into the suburb
areas around Vancouver, to the areas of New Westminster, Surrey
and elsewhere. This is a concern that has been brought up over
and over again. There appears to be very little response coming
back in any substantive way from the minister.
Again I make the point that when someone knows something is
wrong, when someone knows there is a problem, when they can see
it staring them in the face and they can see the effect it is
having on individual lives, on individual people, on the young
people and others living in these communities, and yet they fail
to take action, it is a dereliction of responsibility.
That is exactly the position that the current minister is in.
There are individuals who are calling for changes, calling for
something that I have suggested, which is an expedited process
for those individuals who have been charged with drug
trafficking.
Many of these individuals, prior to or upon their arrest for
dealing drugs, have claimed refugee status. In our current
immigration system they go into the mill. They go into the
waiting line with all the other individuals to have their refugee
status determined.
The problem is that there is no differentiation between those
individuals who are flagrantly abusing the system and those
individuals who are genuine refugees in need of Canada's
protection. They all go into the same grouping.
It could take up to a year and a half or two years before
anything is done to settle the claim the individuals have made.
A simple answer to that problem would be to have an expedited
process where those individuals who were brought up on these drug
charges would be processed quickly to see whether they are truly
refugees and then removed from the country if it is found that in
fact they have made a false claim.
Why not do it quickly? Why not deal with the issue and solve
the problem? It is something that the minister could do today.
It is something she could do today if she had the willingness to
do it.
I can only conclude that it is her lack of action, her lack of
responsibility in moving on this issue and others that points to
the fact that she is either unable or unwilling to make that
change.
1325
There are many other areas that fall into that same category,
where there are individuals who are abusing our system, abusing
the goodwill of Canadians, without any action being taken.
Again, it is a small number of individuals who are causing the
problem, the people who are abusing the system.
Word is out on the street internationally that Canada is an easy
place to get to. Canada is an easy place to make a false claim.
When a refugee claim is made, the claimant is entitled to all the
rights of a citizen, apart from being able to vote. They have
access to free medical care, welfare payments and legal aid.
What is very insulting about this current situation is that these
individuals are taking advantage of Canadians. They are taking
advantage of us. Something could be done, but it is not being
done, and that is unacceptable.
They are talking advantage of legitimate claimants. They are
taking time and resources from the immigration department which
could be used to deal with individuals who are truly refugees.
Those resources are going to process individuals who are
undeserving of our protection, who have committed criminal acts,
who have made a false claim and who are not in need of the
protection of this country. They are here for sometimes two or
three years. I have heard of cases where individuals have been
here for five to ten years. That is unconscionable and something
needs to be done about it.
When we bring up these issues we are rebuffed by the government
in a harsh manner. We are told that we are not supportive of
immigration, which is patently false. I cannot emphasize that
enough. The fact that we want to fix the system shows we care
about immigration. We will fix the system, given the chance to
do so, while government members sit idly, twiddling their thumbs,
in the face of these issues. We will bring positive change. We
will bring those things that need to be addressed and fixed to
the forefront and deal with them quickly because they are of
great concern.
A couple of government members have made statements like the
following when we have brought up this issue. It is a glaring
issue. There seems to be a contradiction. The Liberal member
for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, in a recent letter to
his constituents, stated “I happen to believe that by deporting
refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs we would be taking a
major step forward in the fight against the illegal sale of
drugs. They should be deported immediately, with no review or
appeal allowed to drag things out”. It seems a bit extreme to
me that a government member would be suggesting that.
Other members of the government have said in committee that the
official opposition does not support immigration. I cannot agree
with that. It is patently false. We want the minister to move
forward with positive change. If she is going to sit idly by and
do nothing when these problems continue to happen over and over
again, let her stand aside, let her government stand aside,
because we will do the job. We will move forward with positive
change and we will take care of the issues that Canadians are
asking be dealt with, rather than having a government that sits
idly on its hands and watches these things happen over and over
again with absolutely zero response. That is unconscionable.
1330
We will move forward in a positive manner and make the changes
necessary to address not only this department but other
departments in need of great change.
I could go on at length and name those areas but I do believe my
time has drawn to a close.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have time to go
on at length the next time this bill is up for consideration
because, happily for him, there are six minutes remaining in his
time.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
The House resumed from December 8, 1998 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue the
debate on this very worthwhile and important motion, Motion No.
300.
I think this motion which deals with energy efficiency and the
federal government's response to the calls and expectations of
energy efficiency is a very timely debate and discussion. The
impact of the Department of Natural Resources Canada's programs
on energy efficiency has been very positive both for the
environment and for the economy.
Picking up where I left off I would like to say to the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre that he was quite correct in his
earlier conversation with the House when he made the link between
energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1 million invested in
energy efficiency projects generates approximately 20 years of
employment and millions are being invested each year.
Canada's energy services industry grew by 600% between 1991 and
1995 and is now a $300 million industry.
Energy efficiency also creates indirect jobs and it reduces
operating costs for industry and businesses which in turn makes
them more competitive in domestic and international markets.
Competitive companies grow with the economy and generate
employment and income for all Canadians.
Canadian industry is showing the way when it comes to
energy efficiency. Nearly 250 companies, representing about 75%
of total industry energy use in Canada, have registered with
Natural Resources Canada's industrial energy innovators program.
About 80% of these companies have filed voluntary action plans to
improve their use of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Ninety-seven per cent of the participants in the industrial
energy innovators have also registered with the climate change
voluntary challenge and registry incorporated and with the VCR.
Another 46 industrial companies have registered directly with the
VCR. Through the Canadian industry program for energy
conservation, industry has formed 19 individual sector task
forces that work in close partnership with Natural Resources
Canada in finding ways of improving energy efficiency.
Let me give the House some other examples of Canadian energy
efficiency achievements. During the 1990s the amount of energy
used by new clothes washers and dryers, for example, decreased by
about 20%. New refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are using
between 30% and 40% less energy than those manufactured just 10
short years ago. Those improvements are largely the result of
federal regulations that establish minimum energy performance
standards for household appliances and for other energy using
products.
Progress is also being made in the transportation sector which
is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in
Canada. The sales weighted average fuel consumption rating for
new cars sold in Canada improved by about 8% from 1990 to 1996.
1335
From a technology perspective Canadian leadership is
particularly evident in the buildings area. For example, for the
past two years the energy technology branch of Natural Resources
Canada has spearheaded the green building challenge 1998, an
international project to develop and test a system to assess the
environmental performance of buildings around the world. Just
last month Canada hosted more than 600 international delegates at
the green building challenge conference in Vancouver. This event
was a huge success and strengthened Canada's position at the
forefront of green building design and construction.
Canadian firms are also developing leading edge energy
efficiency manufacturing processes. For example, with research
and development support from Natural Resources Canada, Stackville
Limited of Mississauga, Ontario has developed an innovative
powder metallurgy process for manufacturing automative parts.
The process eliminates casting, forging and tooling operations
which means it saves both energy and materials. It has helped
make Stackville one of the largest producers of powder metallurgy
auto parts in North America.
We are finding that you do not have to be a large corporation to
be a world leader. A small company from Lethbridge, Alberta is
generating a great deal of interest after developing the world's
first cargo carrying natural gas motorcycle, again with support
from Natural Resources Canada. The so-called cargocycle produces
20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a similar gasoline
powered motorcycle and has enormous potential in the
international markets. This company is now exploring options for
commercial production that could mean 3,000 new jobs in Canada.
I thank the hon. member who put forward this motion for his
efforts. It is providing government with an opportunity to
highlight our achievements to date. I look forward to continue
working with him and this House in advancing the cause of energy
efficiency and in the process advancing the cause of Canadian
industrial efficiency and productivity.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Motion No. 300 is an interesting and clearly well
intentioned motion.
Like many NDP and Liberal initiatives it takes the attitude that
government is the be all and the end all of society and that
people will not do things for their own good unless they are
whipped along by government coercion through regulation and what
not. It also refers fairly heavily to a federal building
initiative. I wonder about these things. I will get into that a
little later.
The concept of retrofitting buildings to make them more energy
efficient is a very valid one. It certainly is not new. On a
very elemental level, 40 years ago my parents decided they were
going to install central heating, a furnace in the old farm
house. Before they could do that they decided they had better
insulate the place. They put in a furnace and did not want to
spent a lot of their hard earned money to buy oil to melt snow.
That was not considered a good idea. These were practical
people. They were not trying to protect the environment. They
were not worried about that dreadful gas carbon dioxide being
emitted from their chimney. They were interested in keeping some
money in their pockets.
In his address of December 18, the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre said the savings are unbelievable and almost too good to be
true.
1340
I have had some experience around here with spurious data and
glossy ministerial bunk in other fields of endeavour so my
reaction is that sometimes if something seems too good to be
true, it is probably false. Before private owners spend money to
upgrade buildings they do cost benefit analyses. They do not do
that as a make work project. Their decisions are validated by
the bottom line. Above all, after they have made decisions
they let contracts to do the work in a properly tendered manner.
As a cautionary note, when we talk about federal government
retrofitting, I invite hon. members to look around them. We have
been retrofitting this place for the last four years. It is
interminable. The last time I looked the government had spent
about $400 million. It is already over budget and it is half
done. This is the way the federal government operates.
I have some problem with the idea that we must look to the
federal government to take care of waste of
energy problems. I would like to see some figures that are
believable and provable. When our critic in this area tried to
get some details on some of these federal building initiatives
from the government, he was effectively stonewalled. There was
no detail available. So a word of caution.
Industry left to its own devices, free of a lot of regulatory
and tax impediments, will develop energy efficient strategies
because it is profitable to do so. Although this is anecdotal, I
will tell the House about a couple of projects developed by the
innovative Canadian mining industry many years ago not to
conserve fuel in the national interest or to curb emissions of
combustion gases but to help them make more money.
One of the best examples I can think of was designed and built
more than 80 years ago in the town of Cobalt, Ontario where a
mining company drove a vertical shaft up near the bed of a river
at a waterfall so they had an enormous cascade of falling
water coming through the raise. That water was used to compress
air. The compressed air, which was produced at virtually no cost
and with no fuel, was then used to power the drills
to drill the holes in which they would load the dynamite
to break the rock in the mines in the neighbourhood. It was a
wonderful system developed 80 years ago.
There is an example in the Sudbury area with which I am more familiar
because it gets into my age group. In order to help with
the ventilating system of a deep mine, International Nickel
Company drove a raise into the bottom of a very large worked out
area near the surface of the ground and installed its ventilating
fans. They would suck the down draft air through these old
workings. In the winter the company sprayed a fine spray of
water into the old workings. As the water froze it heated the air to
give them free air heating to ventilate the mine. There was this
great mound of thousands of tonnes of ice sitting near the
surface of the mine so in the summer they sucked this air past that
mound of ice and had a cooling system for the deep levels of
the mine.
Industry is not stupid.
Industry will do what is necessary to conserve energy, especially
now when we consider the extremely high cost of fossil fuels.
They will do anything they can to prevent the waste of valuable
resources. This is where the real work will come from.
1345
I have no confidence whatsoever in any federal government
initiative to do anything, to do it right and to do it
economically. It does not happen, or if it does, it happens by
accident.
On that note I will relinquish my space to others. I do hope
the hon. member from Winnipeg will give some thought to what I
have said.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, our
party's environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, has been
working assiduously on this file.
We believe that Motion No. 300 has provided some really good
food for discussion and progress within this parliament about the
very important issue of the environment and how the public and
private sector can work together. The government can work with
and engage Canadians in a very important dialogue to make
progress in a concrete way, particularly relative to the
environment, given our Kyoto commitments.
It is interesting that the previous speaker said he has no
confidence in the federal government's ability basically to do
anything. I must challenge the hon. member on that assertion. It
is not necessarily the size of government. The size of
government has been debated largely in the House and by
Canadians, but we have to consider the role of government.
I would argue that the government does have a role, a leadership
role, to play in the area of the environment. The benefits of a
clean environment are not felt solely by individual Canadians nor
by individual companies. There is a societal benefit to a clean
environment. As such it is imperative that the government act
decisively to work with the private sector to meet the
obligations we have made in Kyoto.
Energy efficiency benefits all members of society. When the
private sector engages in more energy efficient behaviour, we
will see a lowering of operating costs for business and better
workplace productivity. Productivity is an extraordinarily
important issue. Our productivity has been lagging that of our
trading partners over the past 20 years. This is one area, one
opportunity Canada has to improve productivity in environmental
areas.
This is a particularly important issue, given the degree to
which the U.S. government and President Clinton and
Vice-President Gore have engaged in a leadership role on the
environment, on sustainable resource development and energy
efficiency. Canada cannot stand back. We must take a more
proactive role.
When the government engages in more energy efficient behaviour
ultimately the taxpayers will save money. It will help us meet
our international obligations, for instance those made at Kyoto.
Over time, municipalities and provincial governments will be able
to invest the money saved by more environmentally sound practices
in things like community infrastructure, recreation and
education.
The federal government particularly has a leadership role to
play in this area. We have seen organizations such as Edmonton
Power and the Canadian Homebuilders Association promote
efficiency in new homes. This type of technology can be sold not
just within Canada but globally.
We have the potential to improve the quality of life of
Canadians and to reduce the damage to the environment by using
greener sources of power. Ultimately less taxes will be paid by
Canadians because energy efficiency will result in greater
operating efficiency for government. In time there will be a
better quality of life for all Canadians.
1350
Frankly, it is unfortunate that the government is not actively
pursuing these initiatives, as opposed to the opposition and my
colleague from the New Democratic Party who has put this motion
forward.
One thing concerns me relative to the commitment we have made in
Kyoto. That is the lack of meaningful dialogue in Canada prior
to those commitments being made. There was very little meaningful
dialogue with the sub-national governments, the provincial
governments and the municipalities. The level of dialogue with
the private sector was not as extensive as it should have been.
It is very important that we are debating these issues now but
it would have been far better had we debated them more thoroughly
and diligently prior to going to Kyoto. Then our commitments
made in Kyoto could have been based on sound research and
consultation with Canadians.
Now after the fact we need initiatives like Motion No. 300 which
brings to the forefront the important issues: jobs and energy.
There is an inextricable link between energy efficiency and
investments in energy efficiency augmentation and employment
growth, particularly in the new economy in a global sense. Around
the world countries will be seeking better approaches to energy
efficiency and better approaches to some of the age old problems.
This is an opportunity for Canada not just to compete globally
in this newly emerging sector, but to succeed globally. Young
Canadians can pursue education in these areas and participate in
what could be an exciting new growth industry where Canada could
be a leader. We need leaders in Canada who recognize the
potential of this extraordinary opportunity to contribute not
only to a better quality of life for Canadians, but for a better
quality of life for everyone on this planet.
We have a responsibility to this generation and future
generations to protect the environment. We have been extremely
fortunate. For far too long we have taken for granted our
country, its tremendous potential, its natural resources and the
relative purity of our environment.
Pursuing this type of initiative more actively would cause us to
consider and improve every aspect of everything we do in our day
to day lives to contribute to better energy efficiency and to a
cleaner environment. Ultimately if we do this properly, there
will be more jobs for Canadians.
I believe the Reform Party's position is that global warming is
not a proven phenomenon and may not exist. We can ask a thousand
doctors if smoking causes cancer and we might find one who says
that it does not. The fact is the weight of evidence clearly
indicates that global warming is a problem. When the weight of
evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of global warming being
a problem, it would be irresponsible for us not to act
decisively.
This does not have to mean a loss of jobs. This does not have
to mean, as some would assert, a loss of opportunities. It can
mean more jobs, more opportunities, a cleaner environment, a
better Canada and a better world. All of that is possible if we
act decisively and we ensure that this House provides the
leadership so that Canada can provide the kind of global
leadership that the world needs on the environment.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre. I do so on behalf of the residents
of Waterloo—Wellington.
1355
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the member for
bringing this motion to the House. I am pleased to see his
commitment to energy efficiency and his interest in the federal
buildings initiative, something that is important for all of us.
Energy efficiency helps Canadians save money. It ensures a
responsible use of our resources and as has been pointed out, it
ensures and protects our environment. Energy efficiency is
important not only for government but for all Canadian
homeowners, industry, small business, and automobile drivers for
that matter.
Energy efficiency is a winning strategy. It contributes and
helps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is critical in
achieving our Kyoto commitments on climate change. Our
commitment on energy efficiency is also key in creating high tech
jobs and in making Canada a world leader in this field, something
of great note.
My remarks today will focus largely on the role of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services in this
initiative. As a major property owner in Canada, the Department
of Public Works and Government Services has the opportunity to
promote and implement energy management initiatives such as the
federal buildings initiative.
The federal buildings initiative, or FBI, is a voluntary program
which helps government departments and agencies improve the
energy efficiency of their facilities. The FBI offers a new
approach to updating federal buildings with energy saving
technologies and practices with no front end cost.
The federal building initiative employs an innovative
contractual arrangement involving a pre-qualified energy
management firm and federal government departments or
organizations. Through this arrangement the full cost of energy
efficiency improvements is financed with the resulting energy
savings.
The energy management firm finances a project and supplies and
installs the new equipment. The department then pays the
resulting lower energy bill to the utility and an amount
equivalent to the energy savings to the energy management firm
until the full cost of the energy efficiency improvement is
recovered. At no time does the department pay more than its
pre-improvement energy bill. After the improvements and costs
have been recovered, it pays a lot less.
The FBI reduces the cost of government operations. It generates
thousands of jobs and in the process lowers greenhouse gas
emissions. In many buildings, annual energy savings of between
10% and 15% can be achieved by implementing relatively simple
measures such as high efficiency fluorescent lights and motors,
and heating-cooling system upgrades. Energy accounts for roughly
30% of a typical facility's operating and maintenance costs so
that even modest improvements can add up to improvements that are
substantial in nature and substantial in savings.
Let me describe a few success stories. In Winnipeg for example,
Public Works and Government Services Canada is upgrading four
federal buildings which will result in annual savings of
$100,000. Environment Canada reaped annual savings of $880,000
through its retrofit of a Burlington, Ontario facility.
Public Works and Government Services Canada alone has signed 29
contracts representing about $33 million in energy investment by
the private sector. This generates over $5.2 million in annual
savings for energy costs, reducing CO2 emissions by 80,000 tonnes
per year and creating 660 jobs in the process.
By the year 2000, Public Works and Government Services Canada
estimates that it will have reduced energy consumption by $12
million per year and CO2 levels by 14%. This is quite remarkable.
This is an important element in the government's response to
meeting our greenhouse gas emission commitments which were made
in Kyoto.
In addition to launching its own projects, Public Works and
Government Services Canada as a common service agency helps
others departments implement the federal buildings initiative by
undertaking project management on their behalf. With its broad
expertise in the areas of procurement, fleet management, water
management, water conservation and energy efficiency, Public
Works and Government Services Canada is well suited for this
task.
1400
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will be pleased to hear that
public works is now pursuing the feasibility of the federal
buildings initiatives in all leased buildings it manages. This
of course means more energy savings and more job creation.
Virtually every department that owns buildings has made a
commitment to pursue this initiative and the programs of the
federal government are having an increasingly positive effect on
the energy efficiency of government operations. We are also
encouraging the private sector to go faster in its reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions as well.
It is only appropriate then for the federal government, a big
energy consumer itself, to set this kind of important and
positive example. Canada is recognized as a world leader in
energy efficiency, and deservedly so. That is something we can
all be proud of.
Let me assure the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that the
federal buildings initiative is alive and well and will be
implemented wherever and whenever possible. It is important that
we as Canadians do so.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak in support of Motion No. 300. We highlight job
creation in the motion. That is a basic belief of the hon.
member who placed this before us.
If this country takes the leading edge in addressing its federal
responsibilities we would be creating development into high tech
expertise. This expertise could be exported to federal buildings
throughout the world.
We have a similar climate to European countries, circumpolar
countries and countries with boreal forests. The high tech
expertise we would practice and use under the federal buildings
program could generate opportunities in long term employment and
investment back into our communities and industries.
There are about 50,000 federally owned buildings in this
country. In retrofitting these buildings through the federal
buildings initiation and the many departments that would be
investing, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is correct in
calling on the House to recognize that this buildings initiative
can work but it has to be accelerated. In about five years we
have had about 100 buildings that have been addressed. We have
to address 50,000 buildings. We have to accelerate this program.
That is the challenge before us.
This motion is asking that the federal government undertake its
responsibilities on the properties it owns and make them energy
efficient and in the process address the unemployment regions,
the training of the many trades that would be affected in all
regions of Canada. There should be an equitable program, not
just located in certain urban centres. These buildings are in
all corners of Canada.
Canada's international commitment as highlighted in the Kyoto
protocol was targeted at a 6% reduction from 1990. Since 1990 we
have increased greenhouse gas emissions up to 13%. That is a
total of 19%. Almost 20% has to be targeted now. That is almost
a quarter out of all our initiatives that we have to take from
here on in.
This initiative has to be taken seriously by all Canadians. We
listen to members who say the federal government cannot take
leadership. It cannot take leadership behind closed doors.
Leadership has to be shown by example, as this motion is saying.
The federal government could show example by retrofitting its own
buildings and leadership by taking the question to Canadians.
We have 12 issue tables that have been formulated by the
greenhouse gas and Kyoto protocol secretariat. Those are closed
debates. None of these members of parliament are participating.
1405
We represent our communities. None of the residents in my
constituency are taking part in these debates. These are
industry debates.
The industry is protecting its interests. It has put its foot
down directly on what will impact on the Kyoto protocol but this
protocol is well on its way.
The scientific reality is this target is not even adequate
enough to address the economic disaster we will create for our
children to come.
Aside from employment and environmental opportunities, I think
what we need to do since it is a millennium project as well that
could be coined is to prepare our youth.
These buildings are age old, rusting, moulding. Let us recreate
the future for our children but have them do it. We have young
people who are represented through visiting this House, visiting
museums, visiting the many art galleries throughout the country
and these buildings are going to be renewed.
We have a new building up recently, the home of the Maple Leafs,
the gardens. It is the last of the old arenas from the original
six. These things cannot be retrofitted to a point that they
have to be rebuilt as well. They need to be completely redone.
That is the challenge here as well.
The hon. member has challenged us to extend the life of these
buildings by retrofitting them. It is a challenge to check out
new technologies so that when we get to building the new
buildings, when we build the new structures, the technologies are
tried and proven.
We went to Kyoto. Members accompanied our delegation. We were
shown in Japan the high tech initiatives of solar energy.
Anything that faced the sun had a photovoltaic cell. It captures
enough power to power all their computers when they operate. It
is continuous power to generate any power need they want in this
building as long as the sun is shining. Even though there are
clouds it still collects the power.
If we do not capitalize on these leading edge technologies, we
will be buying Japanese technology. Why can we not buy Canadian
technology, invest in it now so that we can sell it worldwide?
When I was growing up there was a concept in Popular
Science, geothermal energy. My vision of geothermal was that
someone sticks a pipe far down into the ground to the hot rock.
They could heat their water and get it up here. That was my
imagination, down to the centre of the earth. It came out in a
movie. Actually geothermal goes only a few feet below. It works
the same way a refrigerator works. There is a heat pump. It is
exchanged and then pumps can be run just below the permafrost.
In the farther north, they have to go a little deeper but it is
also available. It is just a few degrees. The heat can be
captured and circulated in the home.
We talked about Toyota coming on the Hill just before the year
was over and the Minister of Natural Resources was riding around
in a hybrid car built by Toyota. I challenged the minister to
bring up vehicle designed by a farmer in southern Saskatchewan.
He designed his own electrical vehicle.
Why does it have to be labelled Toyota? Why can it not be
Canadian made? Why can it not be made in Canada? It is. There
is one in Saskatchewan. We saw it on CBC. It woke me up during
the Christmas holidays. A man designed his own battery powered
car.
That is the creation.
That is the energy of Canada that makes our country great. We
have minds that have travelled to see the world. We have
technology, theoretical and academic experience in our
engineering departments of universities. Why do we not challenge
these as a Canadian leader since our budgets are in place for the
federal departments? The budgets are filled every year to
consume energy. Why not take a portion of the consumed energy
and invest it for retrofitting to save energy? As long as energy
is being saved there is investment into our youth to broaden
their minds and experience and to create a major job experience
for them into the future.
1410
Regarding district heating I want to address a federal program
that came through an initiative by a Cree community,
Oujé-Bougoumou. It will be a community highlighted for the
retrofitting and energy saving initiatives in northern James Bay
Cree. They will be the highlight of Bonn, Germany in the next
expo as a village of the future. Here is a northern community to
be highlighted internationally. It was initiated by a federal
department that listened to a community that wanted to address
its problems of high energy costs. Let us challenge ourselves
into the new millennium. I congratulate the hon. member for
bringing this worthwhile cause to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. 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.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 8, 1999,
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I must confess this is not
the usual practice but being Private Members' Business, whips
from all parties tend to respect the independence and autonomy of
Private Members' Business. Given that we have already agreed to
defer votes until Tuesday of next week at the end of Government
Orders, there might be agreement to further defer this vote as
well.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being effectively 2.30 p.m. the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.13 p.m.)