36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 241
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 9, 1999
1400
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAUDI ARABIA
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOFTWOOD RECLASSIFICATION
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1405
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION SAVINGS GRANT PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WHITE ROCK, B.C.
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FERNAND SÉGUIN AWARD
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1410
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DE L'ACADIE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1415
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UKRAINE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SELECTED DECISIONS OF SPEAKER JOHN A. FRASER
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1425
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1430
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1435
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1445
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1455
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S FÊTE NATIONALE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1500
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENTARY PAGES
|
1505
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nav Canada
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARIJUANA
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1520
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Freshwater Exports
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Animal Abuse
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1525
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Red Hill Creek Expressway
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RU-486
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of the Unborn
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1530
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Dangerous Offenders
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Yugoslavia
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Scrutiny of Regulations
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1645
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1705
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1725
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-482. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1750
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1805
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-482. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1820
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1825
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1830
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-82. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1835
1840
1845
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1900
1905
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1910
1915
1920
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1925
1930
1935
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1940
1945
1950
1955
2000
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
2005
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
2010
2015
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
2020
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
2025
2030
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2035
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
2040
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
2045
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
2050
![V](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 241
![](/web/20071219091334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 9, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the centennial anniversary of the proclamation of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The leadership, vision and commitment of the Government of Saudi
Arabia and its people have created a society where education,
economic development and diversification have become priorities.
The development of infrastructure and the petrochemical industry
have transformed a barren land into one of the most advanced
nations of the world. The Saudi Arabian people have built a
moderate nation that is dedicated to promoting peace and
stability.
On behalf of my colleagues and all Canadians, I ask His
Excellency Dr. Mohammed Al-Hussaini, the Ambassador of Saudi
Arabia, to extend our warmest congratulations to the Government
of Saudi Arabia and its people, the people of this exceptional
nation. I would like to wish them a happy anniversary.
* * *
SOFTWOOD RECLASSIFICATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of Canadians work in the forest industry. This
government has failed them by allowing U.S. customs today to end
Canada-U.S. free trade on two more types of forest products,
reclassifying them into the softwood lumber agreement.
Lumber producers in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta will be hurt.
B.C. alone produces 61% of Canada's softwood exports. A
Vancouver forestry consultant says this change will cost 1,000
jobs in B.C. alone.
However, at the World Wood Summit in Chicago on May 19, a world
forestry analyst pointed out that the whole deal was based on the
false claim that Canadian forest products were not being fairly
exported, a claim not supported by share prices of Canadian
lumber companies. Instead, and I quote, “In my view the trade
dispute is all about politics and has nothing to do with `fair'
trade”.
The Liberal government must not only challenge this ruling, but
finally have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight for the
people in the forestry industry in Canada.
* * *
FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had the opportunity recently to witness the signing of the
memorandum of intent between Interport Development Inc. and the
China Development Industrial Bank of Taiwan. I was honoured to
join the chairman and CEO of Interport, Stephen Wu, as well as
the president of CDIB, Benny T. Hu.
This joint venture will develop a 450 acre light industry park
which will generate $500 million in capital investment over 15
years and provide 5,000 new jobs. These relations between Canada
and Taiwan are good for the B.C. economy, encouraging financial
investment and job creation in western Canada.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
EDUCATION SAVINGS GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for months now financial institutions have been sitting
on education savings grants from the federal government. In so
doing they have deprived children of several months of
investment income, no deadline having been set for the Canada
education savings grants program.
Financial institutions are keeping children's money in their
vaults and dragging their feet. They do not face any penalties,
so it is all the same to them.
The Government of Canada should give financial institutions a
maximum of five days to transfer the money from federal grants
into the education savings accounts of the children of Canada
and impose a penalty on those institutions that do not comply.
* * *
[English]
WHITE ROCK, B.C.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the city of White Rock suffered a
once in a lifetime storm when 70 millimetres of rain fell in less
than six hours.
This intense rainfall, coupled with a hail storm, was more than
the city storm drainage system could handle and, as the torrents
roared downhill to scenic Marine Drive, dozens of homes, cars and
businesses were flooded. The city and local RCMP detachment
responded quickly, rescuing a number of residents trapped by the
flash flood.
However, the people of White Rock are resilient. They
immediately began to clean up their homes, their businesses and
their city. Schools that were closed to flooding yesterday are
already open today.
The province of B.C. has promised disaster financial assistance.
I hope that those who suffered losses yesterday receive the
required support quickly so they can get back on their feet.
* * *
YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
youth entrepreneurship is alive and thriving in Canada. As chair
of the Prime Minister's task force on youth entrepreneurship, I
have witnessed firsthand these past months just how widespread
the determination to succeed and flourish is among large numbers
of our young Canadians.
Today I am hosting three such young business people who
epitomize successful young entrepreneurs. On Tuesday, May 25,
Albert Lai, Michael Furdyk and Michael Hayman, ages 16, 18 and 20
respectively, sold their computer on-line company for more than
one million dollars. What started out in 1996 as a hobby has
become a thriving business which not only enabled them to gain
experience in the competitive worlds of business and cyberspace,
but which has also ensured a future full of innovative and
creative opportunity.
My congratulations to Albert, Michael and Michael, who are with
us in the House today.
* * *
[Translation]
FERNAND SÉGUIN AWARD
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 27 was the
date of the 1999 Fernand Séguin award ceremony. This award for
journalism is presented annually by the Association des
communicateurs scientifiques du Québec and the Société
Radio-Canada. Its purpose is to encourage and stimulate careers
in science writing.
This year the jury's choice was Sophie Payeur, a master's
student at the Université de Sherbrooke. She wrote an excellent
scientific article about the brain's capacity to adapt. The
article explains that blind people have a heightened sense of
hearing that enables them to locate with considerable accuracy
the origin of sounds.
In addition to a $12,000 grant, she will benefit from a six
month internship writing about science, including three months
for the broadcast Découvertes.
My congratulations to Ms. Payeur, who has shown that the
complexity of scientific endeavour does not in any way mean that
it cannot be written about in a manner that any curious reader
or listener can understand.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are tremendously proud of the RCMP's work both in
Canada and abroad.
Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about sending
RCMP to help in gathering forensic evidence and establishing
infrastructure in Kosovo, but what about the RCMP infrastructure
in Canada?
This government has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from
the RCMP budget. The force currently has a shortfall of up to
20% of staff in B.C. detachments. The RCMP is stretched as thin
as Canada's military, and that speaks volumes.
The foreign affairs minister made commitments for the defence
minister and now he is making commitments for the solicitor
general. Why will the solicitor general not stand up for the
RCMP?
While RCMP officers place their lives on the line, very
frequently for free with no overtime, the solicitor general
slithers, dithers and talks about studies. Officers are
committed to combating criminal forces in Canada. What they need
is a commitment from this government to a strong and vital RCMP.
* * *
1410
MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have great news. Finally a member of the federal cabinet has
earned a University of Waterloo degree. Joining 106,900 current
University of Waterloo alumni, the hon. minister from
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will receive his BA in History on
June 17, 1999.
John English, former member of parliament for Kitchener, and I,
the first University of Waterloo grads to become MPs in 1993,
although yet to become honourable, wish to congratulate the hon.
minister and to welcome him to the club. This member has come a
long way from bussing tables upstairs at the parliamentary
restaurant. His regret of leaving school after grade 11 has been
rectified. Next week, after 11 years of correspondence courses,
all in relative secrecy, he will be convocating.
He exemplifies lifetime learning and stands as a symbol for
adult and correspondence education.
We are all very proud of this first ever cabinet minister to
graduate while serving in cabinet. I look forward to
participating in his convocation ceremony next week.
Congratulations.
* * *
MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY—PRESCOTT—RUSSELL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, BA. On
the 17th of June he becomes a graduate of the University of
Waterloo.
Our colleague has earned his degree by correspondence while
working as hard or harder than anyone in the House.
As many know, he began work on Parliament Hill in the
restaurant. Today he is the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons. This is an extraordinary example of lifelong
learning, an example to all Canadians.
In this case, I have to say that the degree, worthy though it
is, is in no way a measure of the level of education achieved by
our colleague. Through the university of life, he has achieved a
level of education that cannot be measured by letters after a
name. Our colleague has a fine intellect, honed through personal
study and through lifelong public service for all Canadians.
While my colleague's concern for the proprieties of the House
prevent my mentioning his name, I say, on behalf of all here,
congratulations D.B., BA.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the New
Democratic Party of Canada, like the CCF before it, is proud of
our roots in the deep and resilient faith of our founders,
leaders like J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles.
Today, together with my NDP caucus, I reaffirm our party's
continuing support for the inclusion in Canada's Constitution of
the preamble referring to the supremacy of God.
Our party supported inclusion of that preamble in 1981 and our
position remains firm. New Democrats stand together in
supporting this clear statement of our most fundamental belief
expressed across the country in a wonderful variety of faiths.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DE L'ACADIE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at the 80th annual assembly of the Société
Saint-Thomas d'Aquin held on May 15, the Acadians of Prince
Edward Island adopted a resolution calling for the Société
nationale de l'Acadie to be allowed to represent the Acadian
people at the Sommet de la Francophonie in Moncton. This would
allow the Acadians of Prince Edward Island and of Nova Scotia to
have a voice on the international scene, since New Brunswick, as
a governmental member of the Agence de la Francophonie, can
represent only the people of that province.
The Société nationale de l'Acadie already has co-operative
agreements with numerous countries, including France and
Belgium. Its recognition as spokesperson for the Acadian people
within the Agence de la Francophonie will enable the Acadians to
make their unique character known to the world.
1415
If the international Francophonie did not have any misgivings
about including governments such as those of Quebec and New
Brunswick, could it not recognize the Acadian people, the second
francophone group in America, as a participant in the Agence de
la Francophonie?
* * *
[English]
UKRAINE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada
and Ukraine have a long history together as upwards of one
million Canadians identify with some Ukrainian heritage,
including myself. Many of those who emigrated from Ukraine live
today on the prairie provinces.
Canada, under the leadership of the previous Progressive
Conservative government, was the first country in the western
world to recognize an independent Ukraine in 1991.
A notable program that has recently emerged to foster our
relationship with Ukraine is Premier Gary Filmon's decision to
establish a secretariat to foster linkages between Manitoba and
Ukraine.
Furthermore, I mention that the Institute on Governance has
developed a two week study tour which involves examining and
understanding the Canadian federal government and reflecting on
that which can be adopted by Ukraine practice.
I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa today Leonid Kravchuk,
Chairman of the State Commission on Administrative Reform, who
was the first president of Ukraine from 1991 to 1994. We in the
Progressive Conservative party wish Mr. Kravchuk a successful
stay in Canada and extend our wishes for Ukraine's continued
reformation.
* * *
SELECTED DECISIONS OF SPEAKER JOHN A. FRASER
The Speaker: We will make up whatever time we need at
the end of question period, but this is a rather special day for
us in parliament.
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
Selected Decisions of Speaker John A. Fraser.
[Translation]
This is a new reference document on parliamentary procedure. It
is the sixth volume in a series containing the rulings of the
Speakers of the House.
[English]
This present collection contains 193 decisions covering the
period from 1986 to 1993, when Speaker John Fraser presided over
the House from the second session of the 33rd Parliament to the
end of the 34th Parliament.
On this special occasion we are honoured today by the presence
in our gallery of the Hon. John A. Fraser, distinguished former
Speaker of the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past three weeks the Prime Minister has been
asked more than 50 times to answer questions concerning conflict
of interest. His refusal to answer these questions fully and
openly does a disservice to himself, to his office and to the
House.
During the Sinclair Stevens affair Judge William Parker ruled
that there is an obligation on the part of the public office
holder to avoid activities or situations that place him or her in
real, potential or apparent conflict of interest.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to address
parliament's concern about his real, potential or apparent
conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have replied to all the questions and the ethics commissioner
appeared in front of the committee on May 6. He has studied the
problem and reported on all the facts to members of parliament.
My assets, like those of members of the cabinet, are managed by
trustees. The trustee had discussed all elements of it and the
ethics commissioner confirmed that I sold my shares in November
1993.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to have answered his questions
about conflict of interest, but it is clear to many members in
the House that he has not.
For example, he has not even provided any documentary evidence
at all that he still does not own the Grand-Mère shares.
1420
The Prime Minister seeks to avoid answering the particulars of
this question by appealing to his lapdog ethics commissioner or
by engaging in—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to be very judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister
not see a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest in
funnelling federal contracts, loans and grants to business people
with whom he has a personal, business and political association?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is a clear no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected in 1993 on a platform
that called for renewing integrity in government.
The red book said “open government will be the watchword of the
Liberal program”, and for weeks this Prime Minister has twisted,
dodged and avoided every specific question about his personal
conflict of interest.
Does open government not imply full and frank answers to
questions about conflict of interest in the House of Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I gave my assets to the ethics counsellor according to
the regulations of the administrator who is a trustee. I did
that before I became Prime Minister. I sold these shares at that
time to make sure that there would be absolutely no conflict of
interest.
I am very proud that after six years all my cabinet has been
managed in a way that we have absolutely no problem with that. It
is because of my ethics since 1963 that I put all my assets in
the hands of the administrator or the trustee before I became
Prime Minister. They are managed there, not managed by me. That
is exactly what the ethics counsellor said to members of
parliament more than a month ago.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me quote from Hansard:
As long as he keeps silent on this issue, he gives every
Canadian...the impression that he himself, the Prime Minister, is
there to help his friends, the friends who helped him.
Guess what? That is a quote from the heritage minister back in
the days when she believed that prime ministers ought to be
accountable.
Why will the Prime Minister not at least uphold the ethical
standards of his heritage minister and announce to us all about
this conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my ministers and I have dealt with all the work I have
done as a member of parliament for Saint-Maurice. It is my duty
as a member of parliament to make sure that all the programs of
the government to create jobs are known, especially when the
riding has a 12% level of unemployment.
I would like to tell the hon. member that during the last
campaign my opposition tended to say that I had not worked enough
in the riding, but now the people of my riding know that I have
worked very hard for them.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister continues to say that he is just being a good
little MP to help friends get money. He said yesterday that he
has nothing more to add. Well, I do.
He had a business financial interest. That same business also
received a $1.5 million windfall from the recipient of a $6
million government contract.
I would like to tell the Prime Minister: get up and give the
name of one member of parliament who would ever do such a thing.
The Speaker: I would like all hon. members to address the
Chair both in their questions and in their answers.
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when a contract is accorded to a bidder that is $2.5
million less than the other, $6.5 million against $9 million,
there is absolutely no scandal about it. They should appreciate
that this bidder won the bid. They would have called it a
scandal if it had been the second one who would have had it for
$9 million.
Again, I have the list here of all Reform Party members who have
received grants in their ridings for helping their constituents
to create jobs. I just want to say that of course they have a
very big problem. They have 25,000 votes to count and they have
not even counted 25,000 votes.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec has just made public a series of studies
commissioned from independent experts to assess the consequences
and scope of the agreement on social union.
The general consensus is clear: the social union is a step
backward for the provinces, which handed over a portion of their
constitutional responsibilities to the government in exchange
for money.
Given this, does the Prime Minister still feel that the signing
of the social union framework agreement represents a great day
in Canadian history?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the Prime Minister of Canada and all the provincial
premiers, except one obviously, decided to work together to
ensure that all our efforts went to improving the quality of
life in Canada in social terms.
I think the ability to work together represents a great step
forward. I understand that one premier, who wants to have Quebec
separate, must ensure that Canada does not function. He is not
looking out for Quebec's interests, but is serving the interests
of his party, which lacks the courage to put an honest and clear
question in a referendum.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
for honesty and clarity, I will pass.
Professor Alain Noël of the University of Montreal says, and I
quote “Overall, the agreement represents a significant step
backward for Quebec...More importantly, the February 4 agreement
once again isolates Quebec, confirming...the desire of the other
governments...to redefine the country without attempting to win
the agreement of the government or even the official opposition
of Quebec”.
Does the Prime Minister realize that others beside the
sovereignists are rejecting this agreement, including the very
federalist Liberal Party of Quebec, which rejects the agreement
on social union?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not seen the studies involved. I would be pleased
to read them and comment after I have read them.
I do not think that the leader of the Bloc has had a lot of time
to read them. In any case, that is not the point. Other studies
have been made public.
The greatest architect of social programs in Quebec, Claude
Castonguay, said it was very positive. The leader of the
opposition in the National Assembly said he could improve on it,
but that it was positive.
I would like to quote the principal adviser, “cryptochief”
perhaps, of the Bloc. Jacques Parizeau said “Canadian federalism
is, with that of Switzerland, probably the most decentralized in
the world”.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to Laval University's Professor Guy Tremblay, “The
social union agreement tends to increase the centralization of
powers in Canada. Almost all the areas covered in the agreement
are exclusively provincial in jurisdiction. The federal
government sees the agreement as legitimizing its interference
in these areas”.
How can the government claim that the agreement is about areas
of shared jurisdiction, when leading experts confirm that, on
the contrary, it deals with areas that are exclusively
provincial in jurisdiction?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Yes,
Mr. Speaker. The agreement says that governments must respect
the Canadian Constitution.
The courts have recognized that federal spending authority is
legal, regardless of what the professor may think. It is legal,
and has been recognized by the courts. In fact, this authority
exists in all modern federations, but it has fewer conditions
attached and is used the least in Canada.
The agreement requires the Canadian government to meet
additional conditions before invoking the federal spending
authority. I fail to see how anyone can claim that this
agreement is a centralizing measure.
1430
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one of the experts consulted says the following: “Federalism
outside Quebec is now going its own way. In this sense, Canada
has separated from Quebec”.
Will the government finally understand what Jean Lesage meant in
1963 when he said that Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy
simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec,
autonomy was the specific condition for its affirmation as a
people?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the problems with Bloc Quebecois members is that
the arguments they come up with are never their own, but always
something someone else said. When we come back with other
arguments, they are unable to reply, probably because they do
not have a complete understanding of the issues.
There is a second problem I wish to mention, Mr. Speaker,
because you are very far away and you cannot always hear. Every
day the leader of the Bloc Quebecois hurls insults and nasty
remarks at government members. It is a disgrace and when
Quebecers find out they will want nothing more to do with the
Bloc Quebecois.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The Caledon Institute has released a report condemning the head
tax. Listen to what it says.
Canada has the dubious distinction of being the only country in
the world that charges fees to refugees seeking permanent
protection...Canada is in violation of the spirit, if not the
letter, of article 34 of the UN convention on refugees.
When will the government start reflecting the values of
Canadians and stop aping the values of the Reform Party? When
will it kill the head tax?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has no head tax. We are
one of the most generous as far as our policies concerning
refugees and immigrants are concerned.
There is a landing fee in this country, and no one has been
refused the protection of Canada because of inability to pay
that fee. Let us be perfectly clear: Canada remains a country
that is very open to refugees from every part of the world.
[English]
The Speaker: I am having some difficulty hearing both the
questions and the answers. I would appeal to members in this
regard.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, given
the odious nature of the term head tax, no wonder the Liberals
want to call it something else.
Here is what the Caledon Institute has to say:
Outside the federal government, the $975...fee is usually
referred to as the “head tax”.
Though the current fee is not racially targeted itself...the
inequitable impact of the fee on poor newcomers, most of whom are
people of colour from less developed countries, makes the
comparison appropriate.
If the government is so uncomfortable with the term head tax,
why does it not just get rid of the head tax?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we are uncomfortable with
the term head tax it is because of the history of this country.
Part of that history is that we had a head tax once for the
Chinese people. It was based on race. That is not the case any
more. We are proud to have a country without any discrimination.
It is a privilege for people who come here to share those values
with us.
* * *
1435
MERCHANT NAVY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I believe was one of the saddest days in my life as an MP on this
Hill when all of my colleagues whom I have a great respect for,
all of my Liberal colleagues, voted against a motion to
compensate the merchant navy men.
When those men were on the Hill on a hunger strike they were led
to believe that compensation was going to be looked at so they
went home.
Canadians from coast to coast want to know where the Prime
Minister stands on the merchant navy issue. Is he for a one time
ex gratia payment for these people or not?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously is
referring to a study that was conducted by the Standing Committee
on National Defence and Veterans Affairs into the compensation
issue for the merchant navy.
The committee is due to report shortly. She knows that it would
be improper for me to comment on a report that has yet to be
tabled.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
motion that I am referring to was dealt with not in camera but in
open session of that committee. The report that he is referring
to has already been leaked to the Ottawa Citizen and
everyone else.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like the hon. member
for Saint John to please put her question now.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know if
this government will offer compensation to the Canadian merchant
navy men as it did with the Hong Kong veterans, and rightfully
so at that time. We want the government to correct this
injustice. I ask the Prime Minister to please do so.
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, to the best
of my knowledge the report has not been tabled. Until the
official report is tabled any commentary on the contents of the
report would be strictly speculation.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's own conflict of interest code says: “Public
office holders shall not have private interests...that would be
affected particularly or significantly by government actions in
which they participate”.
The Prime Minister's continuing financial interest in the
Grand-Mère golf course breaches his own public code of ethics
since that course stands to gain from the awarding of government
grants and loans.
Why does the Prime Minister think that stonewalling will make
this conflict go away?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor replied to all of these questions. I have
followed the code that applies to all members. I put my assets
into a trust fund and it is managed by these people.
I have said, and I repeat, that I sold the shares in November
1993. Having sold the shares, I have no interest in the golf
course or anything like that. It was confirmed by the ethics
counsellor who examined the case with the person who is in charge
of administering my assets.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Once again I appeal to members. We want to
hear both the questions and, of course, the answers.
1440
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this “I know nothing” approach is not good enough for
Canadians.
The heritage minister used to rail against the Mulroney
government for not answering her questions. During the Sinclair
Stevens affair she said:
I think the actions of the Acting Prime Minister certainly do
bear some public scrutiny. I believe his intention right from
the beginning was to block the free flow of information in the
House of Commons by daily stonewalling.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to out-stonewall Brian
Mulroney?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 6 the ethic counsellor spent a long time in the
committee replying to all of the questions that were asked of him
on the issue. He confirmed that the shares were sold before I
became Prime Minister. It is very clear and very open.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says that he sold his shares in 161341 Canada Inc. and
did not receive any money.
The Deputy Prime Minister says that the Prime Minister's trust
tried to help Mr. Prince sell the shares and Mr. Prince states
that he does not have them, that they were returned. We are up
to our eyeballs in contradictions.
Today is Wednesday. The session is coming to a close. Is it
not appropriate to the Prime Minister's position that he
clarify this situation? The best way to do so would be to table
the contract. That will settle it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister has said.
On May 6 the ethics adviser testified before a committee and
answered all these questions. He confirmed that the shares were
sold before I became Prime Minister.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are playing
with words here.
Instead of hiding behind the ethics adviser, the Prime Minister
ought to understand that, in 1993, he managed to find a buyer in
six days, but has not managed to get paid in six years.
How can we not believe sincerely that this was a sale of
convenience? Why does he not clarify the matter by tabling the
record of sale? We will understand.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics adviser has examined the matter and reported publicly
on it before a committee of this House. One cannot ask for
anything clearer than that.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister keeps relying on the ethics counsellor. He says
that the ethics counsellor backs him up on this and said so in
the industry committee, but I was there and that is just not so.
The Prime Minister said he sold shares in 1993. The Prime
Minister himself said to the ethics commissioner “They came back
to me in 1996. What should I do?” In other words, the sale
never went through. There are no receipts. There is no bill of
sale that he has tabled in the House. There are no answers.
When will the Prime Minister just clear the air and give us some
answers on this stuff so we can leave the House this spring with
the answers here for the Parliament of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this was answered by the ethics commissioner on May 6.
I can tell the hon. member “that there was a sale free and clear
of the Prime Minister's interests in that golf course. There was
a sum of money that has been denominated and there was a
repayment schedule”. That is exactly what the ethics
commissioner said. The rest is administered by the trustee. I
have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister has chosen not to
answer fully and openly these questions about his conflict of
interest.
If the Prime Minister were in a court of law or before a public
inquiry and gave the answers that he has given here, he would be
found in contempt.
Therefore, the official opposition wishes to register its
profound objection. We find this Prime Minister in contempt of
this parliament.
[Editor's Note: Members of the official opposition withdrew]
* * *
1445
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
recent days a peace plan has been taking shape in Kosovo and is
sure to lead to the adoption of a resolution by the security
council. However, opinions diverge on whether bombing should
continue, including China and Russia, despite the imminence
of a political agreement.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he think bombing
must be stopped immediately to promote the adoption of a
resolution by the security council?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was agreement among all the countries present at the
negotiations, including Russia, and this is the course events
must take. First, the Serbs have to leave Kosovar territory.
There are currently indications of probable movement.
As soon as movement has been confirmed, and the troops have
taken to the road in order to return to Belgrade, under the
agreement the bombing will stop and, accordingly, the resolution
that was agreed to will immediately be put before the security
council.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, China
and Russia are making an end to bombing the condition for their
support of the security council resolution. In fact, this
morning they got the support of the Secretary General of the
United Nations, Kofi Annan.
If Kofi Annan is calling for an end to bombing, should Canada as
a member of the security council not support its secretary
general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no disagreement between the secretary general, Canada's
position and everyone else's position. There was an agreement
that soldiers were to leave Kosovo to return to Serbia. As soon
as their movement may be clearly determined, bombing will cease,
and the resolution will be automatically introduced in the
security council.
The resolution is being discussed at the moment by members
of the security council. They will vote on it once the soldiers
have begun to withdraw and bombing has stopped. There is no
disagreement between the UN secretary general and our position.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
himself admitted that EI reforms had resulted in problems
for young people and women.
Will the minister be announcing changes before the end of the
session?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have always
been extremely clear about this. Our government is committed to
keeping a very close eye on the impact on primary clients of our
EI reform.
1450
In fact, with the second monitoring report on the employment
insurance program, we noted that too many women did not have
access.
I have asked my officials to look very carefully at this issue
in order to determine why certain women were penalized, and we
will correct the situation as quickly as possible.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Back in March the member for London West asked the minister if
he was supportive of approving the medical use of marijuana. The
minister committed to clinical trials of marijuana, access to a
safe supply and guidelines for its use. Will the minister tell
the House what progress he has made to date?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
why does this somehow seem such a happier, such a saner place?
I am happy to tell the House this afternoon that a little later
today I will table the government's research plan for the medical
use of marijuana.
I am also happy to say that I will be exercising my power under
section 56 of the relevant statute to permit exemptions to two
very sick people to use marijuana for medical purposes.
Let us remember what this is about. This is about showing
compassion to people, often dying, suffering from grave and
debilitating illness. I want to thank the member and all the
members here for pushing this issue so that we behave properly on
behalf of those who are sick and dying.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a simple
question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Would she agree
that under the new Senate amendments to Bill C-55 and her vague
backgrounders which she calls regulations, the definitions of
Canadian content have been changed? Under the new Bill C-55 no
Canadian writer, editor, publisher, photographer or printer needs
to be involved for a magazine to now qualify as Canadian under
the deal as long as the material is original to our magazines.
Has the definition of Canadian content changed? All the
minister need answer is yes or no.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, prior to the tabling of the legislation, there was
no requirement for Canadian content, so obviously the Canadian
content requirements are new.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the made
in America magazine deal states that allowable Canadian content
means “created for the Canadian market and does not appear in
any other edition in Canada”. How can the minister have allowed
Americans to be considered Canadians under the law? The
definition of what is a Canadian is pretty simple to me: a
Canadian is a Canadian.
Why does the minister allow Americans to be considered Canadians
in the magazine deal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the regulations require that the content be original to
the magazine anywhere in the world.
* * *
AIR SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport on behalf of the new
fourth party.
A repeated request to the Minister of Transport has been denied
by Nav Canada and the Minister of Transport to produce previously
available safety documents. In particular two I am looking for
are dated May 27, 1998 and they refer to the Kelowna air traffic
control tower. Repeated requests have fallen on deaf ears.
Everyone suddenly seems to have something to hide.
I want to know if the minister has these safety reports dated
May 27, 1998 and will he produce them, or is he part of the
safety cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is usual courtesy in the House if one wants documents
that one approaches the department or minister. This is the
first I have heard about so-called missing documents.
If there are documents that are germane to the particular issue
of the Kelowna control tower that are available and in the public
domain, obviously they will be made available to the hon. member.
The Speaker: Before the hon. member continues, I might
caution him about imputing motive.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wrote the minister for these documents and he wrote back to me on
May 27 and refused to give them to me. He referred me to Nav
Canada. It has also refused to give them to me. These are
safety documents. They refer to an unsafe situation that has gone
on for 10 years. It has never been addressed. They are trying now
to hide it because they have never done anything about it.
1455
Will the minister produce the documents? Yes or no?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the documents in question are in the domain of
Nav Canada, it is for Nav Canada to release them. I certainly
will look into the matter because we want all hon. members to
have as much information as possible to make their jobs easier.
* * *
KOSOVO
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are all pleased with the discussions that are going ahead to stop
the conflict in Yugoslavia. However we also know that with the
withdrawal of Serb forces, they leave behind silent killers, live
ordinances and land mines.
Is Canada going to participate in the removal of these
anti-personnel land mines so that refugees can return to their
villages and to their homes?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
continuing interest in this serious matter.
Land mines have been deployed in large numbers in Kosovo by the
Yugoslav military. Land mine removal is crucial for the safety of
those who still live in Kosovo and those who are returning.
Canada will support a mission to be led by the United Nations
mine action services to assess the impact of land mines on Kosovo
and implement a victim assistance program. This initiative will
be funded by CIDA and supported by Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S FÊTE NATIONALE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I recently
wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to point out to her that
her 1999 theme calendar neglected to mention two important
dates: the Acadian fête nationale and the Quebec fête nationale.
Her office agreed to add on the Acadian national festival, but
not the Quebec one.
Since June 24 is the fête nationale of all Quebecers, why does
the minister refuse to recognize this reality in her calendar,
since she is doing so for the Acadians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find that, as usual, the Bloc Quebecois is out to
stir up a fuss.
The separatists ought to set a better example. This morning I
visited the Quebec Department of Culture web page. The cultural
events calendar of thematic days, weeks and months gives no
mention of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, there is nothing for June 24.
Harpsichord Day is there, but not Saint-Jean-Baptiste, while our
calendar at least had Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Next year we will
also add la fête nationale du Québec.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at last
Saturday's farm rally in Regina, elected Liberals were once again
conspicuous by their absence. There was a lot of concern not only
about AIDA, but about the severe flooding in southwestern
Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan. Since Saturday there has
been more heavy rain in that area making it most unlikely that
thousands of farmers will be able to plant any kind of a crop
this year. It is truly a heartbreaking story.
When the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in the region
on Friday, will he be announcing that farmers will be receiving
federal support similar to that received by Red River Valley
producers in 1997 including an acreage payment or allowance?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be touring and flying over the area
and stopping in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan on Friday. I have
had discussions with my counterparts in Manitoba and Saskatchewan
and the industry.
As I said and I will continue to say, we will look into this
matter and do everything we possibly can in order to see what
flexibility we can build into the NISA program and the AIDA
program to assist the producers in this unfortunate situation.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Devco
coal miners have been offered such a dismal pension package that
one miner with 31 years in the mines will not even receive a
pension. If these miners were employees of any other crown
corporation they would have received a 20 or 25 year service
pension long ago.
How is it that the Minister of Natural Resources can sell off
some Devco assets, spend $11 million on the Prince mine, which he
plans to sell, but he cannot find money enough to give the Devco
coal miners a proper pension package?
1500
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me repeat again that what we have put together in
respect of Devco is a package that totals more than $500 million.
It specifically includes $111 million for human resources
including pensions and severance arrangements, $68 million for
economic development, plus $80 million from the programming of
ACOA, plus another $140 million from the programming of HRDC.
The Government of Canada has put together a very responsible
package to deal with a very difficult situation.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period for today. I want to do three things before members leave
the House.
I have already introduced my brother Speaker and former
Speaker of the House, Mr. Fraser. I will be hosting a reception
in his honour in room 220 following question period.
I said this was a very special time of year. We have with
us today several former parliamentarians whom I want and
say “welcome home”. I invite these former
parliamentarians and Mr. Fraser to please stand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PARLIAMENTARY PAGES
The Speaker: Every year since 1976 we have gathered to
ourselves here in the House of Commons what I consider in many
ways to be the very cream of the youth in Canada. This year has
been no different.
[Translation]
We have chosen 40 young Canadians from all parts of our country
to be with us.
[English]
They have been with us now since September. They have taken
care of our needs and extended, they have taken care of the needs
of the Canadians who we in this House serve.
To say that they are an exceptional group is really sans dire.
To say that they have done excellent work on our behalf though
that must be said.
1505
We hope that you, our dear pages, have enjoyed your year in our
midst as part of our parliamentary family. You have indeed
served us well and you have served your country well.
We do not know where your careers will take you in the years to
come, but we invite you, as we have former parliamentarians, to
come home to us once in a while. Perhaps one day this House will
be fortunate enough to have one, two or many of you sitting in
these seats where the people, the servants of Canada, have come.
[Translation]
On behalf of all my colleagues from all parties here today, I
thank you for your good work. We wish you every success in
life.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
NAV CANADA
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to announce to the House that as of nine minutes
ago, the dispute between Nav Canada and the air traffic
controllers is over.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
relative to the announcement of the government just a moment ago,
I would like some clarification for the House.
As most people know, when we do have a tentative agreement there
is a ratification process. In the event that the ratification
process does not take place, how will the House deal with that
during the summer break?
The Speaker: This is an extraordinary circumstance, but
under the conditions, I am going to permit an answer from the
Minister of Labour.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Speaker, I am very confident
that the ratification is going to come through. If it does not,
the air traffic controllers cannot go on strike until the CLRB
tells us what are essential services.
If the House has to come back, I am sure every member in the
House will be happy to come back because we followed the process.
I must tell the House that the air traffic controllers cannot go
on strike until it goes in front of the CLRB for essential
workers.
This is a great day for the process in the labour department. I
want to thank everybody involved. The air traffic controllers
will not go on strike without the CLRB's approval.
1510
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, along with members on all
sides of the House of course, rejoice at this announcement that
has just been recently made.
I intend to get together, within perhaps minutes, with leaders
of other parties in the House in order to establish what could be
protocol should the situation be necessary of the kind that the
House leader of the opposition has just described. Perhaps
over the next few minutes some of these things will become
clearer and we will get together in the usual spirit of the way
we have done things around here.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the leaders of
all other parties in the House for their continuing interest
throughout the process, and particularly their patience, because
sometimes it was literally minutes ahead of time that I could
make information available to them.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
MARIJUANA
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an order of the House
made May 25, 1999, I have the honour to table copies of a
document entitled “Research Plan for the Use of Marijuana for
Medical Purposes: A Status Report”.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government response to the 13th report of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Industry, “The Year 2000 Problem—Canada's
State of Readiness”
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to the 23rd report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Preparedness for
Year 2000—Government-Wide Mission-Critical Systems”.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House
today to table, in both official languages, international
treaties that entered into force for Canada in 1994, a list of
which is also tabled.
I am also tabling two CD-ROMs that contain electronic versions
of these treaties. As soon as I have all 20 pounds signed, I
will deliver them to the table.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2),
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for 1998. I
ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8),
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
1515
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
Group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at
the 101st Parliamentary Conference held in Brussels, Belgium from
April 10 to 16, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the committee
undertook a study on sealing issues. Pursuant to Standing Order
109, the committee requests a comprehensive response from the
minister to this report within 150 days.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and Status of Persons with Disabilities.
[English]
This is the report of the subcommittee on children and youth at
risk, which I had the pleasure to chair.
[Translation]
FINANCE
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 108.1, I have the honour to present,
in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing
Committee on Finance.
In March the Minister of Finance gave the Standing Committee on
Finance the mandate to strike a standing subcommittee to
consider the tax system and the system of transfers to families
with dependent children.
[English]
The subcommittee travelled across the country to solicit many
views of Canadians. A number of individuals and organizations
participated in the hearings, including some of our very youngest
citizens.
The terms of reference were very precise. I would like to thank
the committee members for their diligent work on such a broad
subject. There were very different points of view, but we felt
that the government, as a first step, should take note of the
report. Those points are captured very well in the report
entitled “For the Benefit of Our Children: Improving Tax
Fairness”, which has been adopted by the Standing Committee on
Finance and which I am presenting today.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in response, pursuant to Standing Order
35(2), Reform members of the official opposition support some of
the recommendations contained in the report of the subcommittee
on family taxation. However, we are disappointed that its
recommendations do not go far enough.
The official opposition recognizes the value of parenting and
would like to ensure that the federal government treat Canadian
families fairly. Among other things, the official opposition
advocates extending the child care expense deduction to all
parents, converted into a refundable tax credit available to all
families, and that the spousal amount be increased from the
current $5,918 to $7,900, levelling the field. We would also
implement across the board broad based tax relief.
These measures are a start to addressing the unfairness in the
tax code with respect to its treatment of Canadian families.
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh
report of the Standing Committee on Health.
[English]
In accordance with its order of reference of March 8, 1999, your
committee has reconsidered Bill C-247, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), and has agreed to recommend
that Bill C-247 be not further proceeded with at this time as
comprehensive and integrated legislation is being prepared by the
department for introduction this fall.
A copy of the minutes and proceedings relating to this bill,
meetings Nos. 86 and 87 of the first session of the 36th
Parliament, is tabled.
I thank all committee members for their diligent study of this
bill, in particular the hon. member for Drummond who brought it
forward.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs proceeded to the
consideration of a study on veterans' issues and the merchant
marine. The committee has agreed to report to the House with
three specific recommendations. Pursuant to Standing Order 109,
the committee requests a government response.
For many months our committee studied what was an emotional and
complex issue. We had very full and fair hearings. Anyone who
wished to give any type of testimony whatsoever was welcome.
There were no remaining witnesses and the committee was seized
with the report.
1520
The three specific recommendations which the committee proposes
to the government, if followed, would go a long way toward
righting the wrong for the merchant marines collectively in terms
of their contribution to winning the second world war.
The title of the report is “A Story That Must Be Told: The
Canadian Merchant Navy and Its Veterans”. If these
recommendations are followed there will be a much more
comprehensive and accurate understanding of the very vital role
played by the merchant navy in winning the second world war.
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present the following
petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from a number of residents of Kamloops who
point out a whole variety of sound reasons for which they oppose
child pornography and they ask the Parliament of Canada to take
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that laws relating to the
possession of child pornography are never legalized.
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners point
out their concern about preserving Canada's fresh water.
The petitioners are concerned about the pressure building for
the possible export of bulk water to the United States and they
are opposed to it.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition quite a few
petitioners indicate their concern about the government's action
in terms of the pension fund for 670,000 current and future
retirees of federal departments, crown corporations, agencies,
the military and the RCMP. In summary, the petitioners do not
like what the government has done.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions.
The first petition proposes that Canada take the lead in working
toward a treaty banning nuclear weapons in accordance with the
recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade in its report to the House.
ANIMAL ABUSE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition calling upon the House to change the
Criminal Code regarding animals to ensure that abusive treatment
is more harshly dealt with in the Criminal Code and to ensure
that animals are not treated as the personal property of
individuals so they may be better protected.
KOSOVO
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition which asks for the House to call
upon the government to end the violence in Kosovo.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition which I would like to present today regarding marriage.
The petitioners, from around the riding of St. Albert as well as
Edmonton, pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill
C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we passed a motion to that affect in
the House last night.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from petitioners in Peterborough who pray
that the Parliament of Canada immediately amend the Criminal Code
to streamline the judicial process and provide sanctions that
better reflect the seriousness of drinking and driving by
introducing amendments that provide for tiered penalties for
driving with a blood alcohol count above .08% and to introduce
mandatory assessment and treatment for offenders who are
sentenced for impaired driving.
The petitioners ask the government to repeal the curative
discharge provisions and to authorize alcohol interlocks as a
term of probation for drinking and driving offenders.
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I table a petition from the residents of the
Magdalen Islands.
The signatories are opposed to what they term discriminatory
measures in the Atlantic groundfish strategy, particularly the
early retirement program.
In their petition they claim that the TAGS measures adopted by
the Department of Human Resources Development are insufficient
and not adapted to the needs of workers in the fishing industry.
They also claim that they were not consulted before the program
was implemented, particularly on the early retirement component.
They are therefore calling upon the government to give
consideration in the post-TAGS program to people who turned 55
after December 31, 1998.
1525
[English]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today in which the petitioners request
that parliament enact legislation to define marriage as a union
between a single male and a single female.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege for me on behalf of the constituents
of Calgary—Nose Hill to present two petitions today. The first
petition concerns the definition of marriage, oddly enough, since
we talked about that all day yesterday.
The petitioners pray that parliament ensure that marriage
continues to be such that it can only be entered into between a
single male and a single female.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is tabled on behalf of about 500 people from
my city of Calgary and from other parts of Alberta who are very
concerned about the nuclear threat that continues to hang over
the whole globe.
The petitioners pray that parliament support the government in
urgently making an unequivocal commitment to nuclear weapons
negotiations and in calling for immediate and practical steps to
de-alert and deactivate nuclear weapons worldwide.
RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to the House a
petition signed by over 5,000 constituents in my riding of Stoney
Creek and the surrounding area of Hamilton-Wentworth.
The petition calls upon parliament to recognize that the
majority of residents from the Hamilton-Wentworth area support
the proposed north-south portion of the Red Hill Creek
Expressway and that parliament remove all impediments to the
immediate commencement of this project.
CANADA POST
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the residents
of Wynn Park in Truro, Nova Scotia.
These residents wish to draw to the attention of the House that
the people of Wynn Park are opposed to the use of community
mailboxes, the current method of mail delivery in their area.
They contend that seniors must walk in very difficult
circumstances and it presents a danger to them and their
well-being. In a recent case an elderly woman fell and broke a
limb and was laid up for a long time.
The petitioners urge parliament to call on the minister
responsible for Canada Post to implement door to door mail
delivery for the residents of Wynn Park.
On behalf of these 42 residents, I respectfully submit this
petition.
KOSOVO
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of 175 citizens who call for an end
to the bombing in Kosovo.
These people actively oppose the participation of Canada in the
bombing. They oppose Canada's participation in the massacre of
civilians. They call for an immediate end to the bombing in
Kosovo.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present today the last in a series of
petitions representing some 5,000 Canadians who are very
concerned about the present state of our health care system. In
so doing, I want to acknowledge the work of the Save Medicare
Committee and, in particular, Russ Rak who is with the CAW Local
222, Retired Workers' Chapter.
The signators of this petition come from all over the country.
They express grave concerns about the erosion of our health care
system and about the slide in this country toward Americanized
two tier health care.
The petitioners call upon the government to enshrine in the
health care act a set of fundamental principles for this country
and to guarantee national standards of quality publicly funded
health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.
RU-486
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present petitions
from the citizens of Cariboo—Chilcotin, primarily from the city
of Williams Lake.
The first petition expresses concerns about effects of the drug
RU-486 on unborn babies and the danger to mothers. It calls upon
parliament to act to prevent the introduction of the drug RU-486
in Canada.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition deals with the sanctity of human life and
calls upon parliament to act immediately to extend the same
protection to the unborn child as that enjoyed by born human
beings.
1530
KOSOVO
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to present a petition to the House which was signed by members of
the Hellenic community of Montreal. The petitioners ask that the
government seek to unilaterally cease the bombing of civilian and
military installations in Yugoslavia and seek the safe return of
all people of Albanian Serbian origin.
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from residents in
Ontario and Quebec who say that sexual offences against children
harm some of the most innocent and vulnerable members in our
society.
Pardons are currently given in almost 100% of the cases reviewed
by the National Parole Board. Studies have indicated that sexual
offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sexual
offences and more likely to reoffend than a violent non-sexual
conviction.
The petitioners pray that parliament pass Bill C-284 introduced
by the member of parliament for Calgary Centre to ensure that a
record of sexual offence against a child for which a pardon has
been given is disclosed to children's organizations when they
perform a criminal record check on an individual applying for a
position of trust involving children.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
I would like to summarize two petitions from citizens of
Peterborough concerned about the bombing in Yugoslavia.
In the first petition the petitioners call upon parliament to
advocate that the Government of Canada withdraw its political and
military support for the bombing of Yugoslavia and press for the
bombing to be stopped at once.
In the second petition the petitioners call upon parliament in
the name of the hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav victims in
tears for wounds and the loss of their belongings. They beseech
parliament to do something so that the bombing will stop
immediately.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 237 and 239.
.[Text]
Question No. 237—Mr. Randy White:
How many incidents involving drug overdoses were recorded at the
Matsqui Correctional Institution in British Columbia between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Correctional Service Canada records indicate that no incidents
involving drug overdoses were recorded at the Matsqui Correctional
Institution in British Columbia during 1998.
Question No. 239—Mr. Jim Hart:
With respect to AIDA and the tree fruit industry: (a) what is
the percentage differences in gross margin levels among
commodities, e.g. perennials, tree fruits, vs. annuals, grains;
(b) can the government provide an example of the relative use
of eligible and ineligible expenses for two different commodities
such as grain and tree fruit; (c) can the government provide
an example of the benefits a tree fruit farmer would be entitled
to under AIDA, should back to back below average returns be
experienced in the base period, in comparison to that of a single
year of below average returns; (d) can the government provide
data which would compare the inclusion of negative margins in the
reference margins but reducing to zero in the claim year to that
of reducing negative margins, to zero for both
the base period and the claim year; (e) can the government
provide information to show if AIDA recognizes the special
problems of perennial crops such as the little flexibility to
switch commodities and varieties?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
(a) Agricultural income disaster assistance, AIDA, provides a common
basis of support to all commodities. The British Columbia whole
farm income insurance program, which essentially follows the same
rules as AIDA, has provided payments in different regions of the
province where different commodities predominate. This reflects
the fact that the gross margin can vary as much from farm to farm
producing the same commodities as between farms producing
differing commodities.
(b) An AIDA payment is trigerred by a change in a farmer's gross
margin. Adding a particular expense would have a small effect on
the AIDA payment, up or down depending on the producer, because it
needs to be done for both the reference period and the claim
year.
(c) A recent evaluation of the Alberta farm income disaster program
stated that the program payments have been concentrated in areas
with the largest decrease in farm incomes and that it responds
well to back to back disaster years. The impact of back to back
years of below average returns will depend on the magnitude of
the decline in the margins.
In any case, AIDA is designed to address extreme, short term
income declines; it is not the program's purpose to support income
in a manner that is not consistent with each farm's recent experience.
(d) Data are not available to show the impact on AIDA of altering
negative margins in the reference period. Artificially
increasing past income would raise the possibility of trade
actions as this would conflict with international guidelines.
(e) The British Columbia whole farm income insurance program has
provided payments in different regions of the province where
different commodities predominate. Besides farmers who have
planted perennial crops such as tree fruits, farmers who have
invested in essentially single purpose equipment or buildings
such as hog barns will also have difficulty in switching to other
commodities. These farms can be subject to high market risks
because their revenue is related to the price of one commodity.
These farmers should utilize all tools available to them to
mitigate these risks. These include the use of government
programs such as net income stabilization account and crop
insurance. Producers must also look for ways to mitigate risks
beyond utilization of government programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the
parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations
be granted authority to travel to Sydney, Australia from July 18
to July 24, 1999 to attend the Biennial Conference on Delegated
Legislation and that the necessary staff accompany it.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in,
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an act
respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical
publishers.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order concerning the amendments that the Senate has sent
to this House on Bill C-55.
I want to focus on amendment No. 3 that proposes to add a new
clause 21.(1). I submit that this amendment proposes to do what no
member of the House of Commons can do, which is to amend the bill
beyond its scope as was decided by the House at second reading.
This House sent to the Senate a bill which had as its stated
purpose, and I quote the minister in her second reading speech:
“Under the Bill introduced in the House of Commons, only
Canadian publishers will have the right to sell advertising
directed at the Canadian market”. Later in the same speech she
told this House: “Parliament is being asked to prohibit the sale
and distribution of advertising services directed specifically at
the Canadian market”—
1535
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary
secretary on another point of order. I am hearing a point of
order. I stress this.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that
what you are hearing is not in fact a point of order, it is
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova is
making a point of order concerning the admissibility of the
amendments before this House as I understand it. In that sense,
while it may be close to debate and he may be perhaps going on a
little long on his point, I think I need to hear his point if
there is some argument as to the procedural acceptability of the
motion before the House, which I understand the hon. member for
West Nova to have indicated at the outset of his remarks.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would like to finish
my point of order if I could. I was quoting:
Parliament is being asked to prohibit the sale and distribution
of advertising services directed specifically at the Canadian
market by non-Canadian publishers. Parliament is being asked to
put in place fines for foreign publishers that attempt to violate
these laws.
Those statements are clear and unequivocal. Prohibit, not
regulate. Prohibit. We all know that any similar amendment
proposed in the House to modify such a prohibition would not
survive for five seconds.
The Senate amendments, particularly the new clause 21.1, have
the effect of breaking the prohibition and turning the machinery
into a regulatory regime. To regulate is the opposite of
prohibit.
The Senate can send whatever message it likes, but so far as
this House is concerned, the issue of an absolute prohibition has
been settled by three readings and a committee examination which
was concurred in by the House.
Beauchesne's and Erskine May make reference to the long title of
a bill as being a factor in establishing the scope of a bill. If
this were the sole criterion, it would put great power in the
hands of those officials who draft bills and who are not
accountable to the House.
I submit that a minister in setting forth the concepts, as she
sees them at second reading, goes a great distance in setting out
the scope of a bill. In this instance we were told by the
minister that this bill was not about subsidies. We were told
that there was to be a prohibition.
The Senate amendments fly in the face of the decision of the
House and ask the House to swallow itself whole. Unless the
Chair intervenes to disallow the proposed Senate amendments,
there will be nothing to prevent a government from bringing all
its legislation to the House in a bland form, have ministers play
games with their credibility and then use the Senate to insert
all of the controversial measures, remitting them back to the
House for a one-shot vote under time allocation.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member but I am interested to know, and I know he is about to
conclude, whether he is suggesting in his point that the
financial prerogatives of the House have been in any way impaired
by the amendments before us. I would be interested in hearing
his views on that point.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I am not making reference to
the financial aspect. If you would let me finish I have but a
short period and you will see exactly where I am going with this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to assert the right of the House of
Commons to be able to believe ministers of the crown when they
address the House. I ask you to rule that these amendments
exceed the scope of the bill that was sent to the Senate. Sir,
assert the primacy of the House of Commons. Open the great doors
of the House and throw these amendments out.
1540
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair wishes to thank
the hon. member for West Nova for raising this issue before the
House.
I know it is an interesting point but one that has been dealt
with before.
1545
I would refer the hon. member to the decision of the Speaker of
this House made on November 19, 1996, in respect of a similar
argument advanced by the hon. member for St. Albert on a bill
then under consideration.
In that decision by the Speaker he indicated that there were two
amendments by the Senate for which concurrence of the House was
being sought. The member for St. Albert had asked the Speaker at
that time to rule on the procedural acceptability of changes made
by the Senate. The Speaker stated, and I quote from page 6411 of
Hansard:
My view is that your Speaker cannot stand as a procedural judge
on what is done by the Senate. What they do over there, they do
over there.
In his ruling the Speaker cited with great reverence the
decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser made on April 26, 1990, which is
published in the book whose publication we are celebrating today.
I refer the hon. member to the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser
which was made on an argument advanced on a bill to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act brought forward in 1990.
I can tell the hon. member that the hon. member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I argued something along the
lines he is arguing today, but with the additional argument about
financial measures. I can also tell the hon. member that at that
time we lost our argument as he is going to lose his today.
This argument in my view is not well founded. I quote from Mr.
Speaker Fraser's ruling on page 10723 of Hansard, April 26,
1990, where he said:
—the Speaker of the House of Commons cannot unilaterally rule
out of order amendments from the other place. I can comment, as
I am doing, but the House as a whole must ultimately make the
decision to accept or reject amendments from the Senate, whether
they be in order according to our rules or not.
As Mr. Speaker Parent said, it comes down to a decision of the
House.
I am afraid the hon. member may, by his arguments later, advance
arguments as to why the House should reject the amendments made
by the Senate, but in my view it is not the place of the Speaker
or presiding officer of the House to rule these amendments out of
order, at least on the grounds advanced by the hon. member for
West Nova.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Senate for
the work it has done. Many things have been said in the last
number of days about the Senate and its work or lack thereof.
However I have to say that here was one very strong case of how
the Senate took its responsibility very seriously, dealt in a
very conscientious fashion with a piece of legislation and
assisted ably in helping Canada achieve an historic agreement.
For the first time in its dealings with any nation, the United
States has finally accepted the right of Canadian content in
Canadian cultural industry.
I firmly believe that the concurrent work of the Senate while
the negotiations were going on actually helped to show the
Americans that we were serious about the legislation and that we
were serious that any legislation would include Canadian content.
That is the crux of this debate.
I congratulate the Senate on its very serious work on a piece of
legislation which will prove in the long term to be an historic
piece of legislation, not just for Canada but for our approach in
future international trade negotiations.
Let us look at where we were two years ago and where we are
today. Two years ago Canada lost a decision by the World Trade
Organization. We did not like it. Most of us thought it was an
unfair ruling, but it was a final ruling with no right of appeal.
There was no way around it, many people thought.
What did that ruling give the United States? It gave the United
States 100% access to our magazine advertising market. It gave
the United States the whole enchilada. It had everything. It
had a ruling which would have entitled it to crush the Canadian
magazine industry and decimate Canadian magazines. Those are the
facts. The United States won and we were left with nothing.
Where are we today as a result of these amendments?
The United States will have access to up to 18% of the
advertising market, not the 100% it got from the WTO ruling, not
the 100% it originally insisted it was entitled to, not 90%, not
80%, not 50% but 18%, and that only after a three year transition
period.
1550
[Translation]
We judge a tree by its fruit. We started from zero following the
decision of the World Trade Organization. We built this bill and
this agreement piece by piece. This is what the critics must
understand.
They are up in arms, saying that we have shortchanged Canadian
periodicals and even culture, whereas the very opposite is true.
Following the decision by the World Trade Organization, we went
on from zero to recover 82% of the lost ground.
To all those who predicted that we would end up in a trade war
with the United States, with all due respect, I am proud to say
that they were mistaken.
The road was long and exhausting. I want especially to
congratulate the Senate on its work. It gave us the push we
needed to get an agreement that recognized, for the first time,
Canadian content in a bill that will not be contested by the
Americans.
We reached a good agreement for Canada. We have before us a bill
that, with the amendments, protects the interests of all
Canadians. We have achieved an unprecedented agreement with the
Americans on Canadian content.
[English]
Let us make no mistake about it. This agreement and this
legislation will be at the forefront of future international
agreements which recognize culture and cultural content as
legitimate aspirations of any nation.
[Translation]
We got written agreement from the United States that it will
not appeal this legislation to a national or international
organization. We demanded that publishers wanting to exceed the
18% limit on advertising revenues publish a magazine with mostly
Canadian content.
[English]
What is more, should some Canadian magazines suffer we have the
capacity and the will to help, and we shall do so. Yes, it will
cost something but let us imagine the alternative. Let us
imagine if we had let the WTO ruling stand with no effort to find
a solution. The United States would have had everything and
Canada would have been left with nothing. Now we have claimed
back or clawed back 82% of what we had before we were deep-sixed
by the WTO ruling.
[Translation]
Naturally, the matter has been in the wings a long time. Issues
have sometimes heated up between the two countries, but Canada
has done a good deal.
We must have Canadian periodicals that speak to us of our
history and of our values, that bring together Canada's four
corners and that speak of Canadian issues of interest to
Canadians.
Was it all worth it? Absolutely, because culture is the soul of
a nation. A country does not abandon its cultural identity
simply because it has lost a case before the WTO. A country does
not abandon its cultural identity because its adversary is 10
times more powerful.
[English]
We like Americans but we are not Americans. We are friends with
the United States but we are different and we want to keep that
difference. We like American movies and we like Hollywood, but
we want to have our own cultural diversity.
We share North American values but we also have unique Canadian
values. We want to nurture the instruments that allow Canadians
to express our values, to speak to each other, to speak to our
children, to learn about our past, to engage in the present, and
to build Canada's future.
1555
We want to be able to share our ideas, our stories and our
values with the rest of the world. This agreement with the
United States and this law before the House of Commons today,
with regulations and the power to guarantee Canadian stories,
will allow us to do these things.
I had the privilege over the last couple of days of sharing a
unique experience with colleagues from all sides of the House.
Along with a member of the official opposition and two other
colleagues in the House, I went to recognize two very unique
sites in Canadian history. One was the beaches of Normandy, the
place where the D-Day sacrifice by Canadian Armed Forces was so
great, a sacrifice that guaranteed peace in our time.
From there we travelled to Belgium where we had the privilege of
declaring the medical site of John McCrae, the place where the
poem In Flanders Fields was written, as a Canadian national
historic site. Some day someone will write about that Canadian
national historic site, Flanders Fields. Some day someone will
write about the recognition of D-Day, the beaches of Normandy and
Juno Beach as part of our history.
As a result of these amendments which protect and enshrine the
concept of Canadian content in the law and which have forced the
Americans to the international table on the issue of content for
the first time in history, I hope we will continue to have the
opportunity to share the very important stories of our
grandparents with our children.
I believe that this legislation is good legislation. I believe
the support of all sides of the House will help us to move the
benchmark forward and be the first country in the world which has
brought the Americans to the table on the question of content and
won. I am very proud of this legislation and I hope and believe
that all members of the House will see the benefit and value of
Bill C-55 in its amended form.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55. We all know
it has been a long haul since the bill was introduced in the
House.
I agree with the PC member who raised a point of order that
there is no doubt that the intent of this bill has changed
substantially. Let me say at this time that the Reform Party
will not support the amendments as they have been presented to
the House.
Let me propose an amendment to the motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that
the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to
Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by
foreign periodical publishers, since the amendments allow the
bill to continue placing unreasonable limits on fundamental
freedoms such as freedom of contract, freedom of speech, freedom
of the press and the infringement on property rights as
guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian
Bill of Rights”.
Having listened to the minister of heritage—
The Deputy Speaker: I am trying to be helpful here. The
hon. member wishes to move an amendment. If he moves it now, he
will terminate his speech immediately. You do not move an
amendment in the middle of a speech.
Does the hon. member wish to hold off and move his amendment at
the conclusion of his remarks? I sense he wants to go on and I
sense he has made a very brief speech. I am trying to be fair.
1600
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is this an amendment that is receivable?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan
River appears to want to continue his remarks, having posed an
amendment. I have not put the amendment to the House and I am
prepared to refrain from doing so until later when it might be
moved when he has concluded his remarks. I think that would be
fairer. Otherwise, I will review the matter from the procedural
perspective and make a ruling. However, if I put the question to
the House at the moment, the hon. member will lose his right to
speak. Which does he prefer?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. I
did make an error in presenting the subamendment at this time. I
will certainly continue to debate the amendments from the Senate.
We heard the heritage minister indicate that there may have been
a victory on this bill, a rather shallow victory, if it is a
victory over the trade war; win, lose or draw or wherever we are.
Let us not forget that Bill C-55, with the amendments attached,
is really about trade. As I have indicated all along, the bill
really belongs to the Minister of International Trade and not to
the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I would remind the government that with our current status with
the United States, almost 85% of everything we produce heads
south. Our economy is closely linked with the economy of the
United States. I am sure our loonie would not be where it is if
it had not for the vibrant economy of the United States.
I would just remind the House that it was Reform that stood up
for Canadian jobs because we were concerned about a potential
trade war. It was Reform that stood up for the steel workers of
Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. We are the ones in the Chamber
who defended the jobs in the labour industry, the agricultural
industry as well as the plastics industry in the country. We
defended the jobs of the textile workers in Montreal.
We know, as Canadians, that we are different from our neighbours
to the south. We speak differently. We have a Canadian accent.
We say things in a Canadian manner. Our culture is very
different. We are much more receptive to other cultures. We are
a very diverse country. We are different from Americans, and
Canadians know that. Legislation is not going to make us any
more different than we already are. We know that we have a rich
culture and that we will celebrate that.
At this time, I would like to state for the record that
Canadians do read Canadian magazines and they prefer to buy
magazines that are Canadian. Even though the publishing
association said that 80% of magazines on the stands are foreign
magazines, they also said that 50% of magazines purchased in
Canada are foreign.
The latest numbers on readership, taking into account controlled
circulation, magazines distributed via bulk delivery, including
newspapers, show that only 4.9% of magazines read in Canada are
bought off the stands, which is a pretty small number; 35.7% of
magazines read are received by paid subscription; and 59.4% of
magazines read are received by controlled circulation. In other
words, 75% of all magazines read or received by controlled
circulation and 94% of these are Canadian owned. Why are we so
concerned that Canadians are not reading magazines produced in
this country?
I would like the House to hear what other people are saying
about this magazine bill.
1605
As I said at the beginning, this bill has run a long time. We
have probably been at this bill for over 12 months. It has
certainly developed a life of its own.
I will quote a fairly recent article in the May 26 edition of
the National Post by Jonathon Gatehouse. He states:
Less than a month after the bill was introduced, Gordon Griffin,
the American Ambassador to Canada, warned a blue-chip business
luncheon in Ottawa that the provocation would not go unnoticed
south of the border, calling C-55 “faulty public policy” and
spoke openly about a possible trade war.
As we have experienced, this potential trade war has created
this amendment that we are dealing with today in the House. In
fact, that same newspaper article states:
The Knives are out and as one senior Liberal told the National
Post last week, many in cabinet blame Ms. Copps for almost
dragging Canada into the worst trade war in memory with her
ill-timed rhetoric.
“Keeping on message has been a constant problem”, said the
source. “Every time Sheila would come forward and say something
particularly strident, the U.S. would fluff out their feathers”.
I will quote another article in the May 26 edition of the
Toronto Star written by Valerie Lawton. She states:
Split-run publishers who opt for that route, however would have
to go through an investment review process run by Canadian
Heritage.
Ultimate power to say yes or no to proposals would rest with the
heritage minister.
The Globe and Mail of May 26, in an article by Heather
Scofield and Shawn McCarthy, states:
Heritage Minister Sheila Copps and International Trade Minister
Sergio Marchi—who have often been at odds in recent months over
how far the government could go to meet U.S. demands—are
expected to argue the deal does not sacrifice the domestic
magazine industry even as it averts a trade war that would have
slashed access to the U.S. market for key industrial products
such as steel and textiles.
The article goes on to state:
The agreement provides significant less protection for the
Canadian magazine than Ms. Copps originally had promised. The
Heritage Minister will attempt to save face by announcing the
government's plan to shift responsibility to her department for
screening all foreign investment in Canadian cultural industries
government sources say.
That did happen in the week following.
The National Post article of May 26, written by Giles
Gherson, states:
But a senior magazine-industry representative bitterly complains:
“I can't believe the ignominy of the complete and utter cave-in
by the Canadian government. They've just capitulated”. This
representative said that the Canadian content win by Ottawa is
meaningless since few U.S. magazines will want more than 18%
Canadian ads, making Canadian content a non-issue.
Only two weeks ago, Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister, was
adamant that this so-called de minimis exemption would be
restricted to split-runs with no more than a single digit amount
of Canadian advertising—in other words 9% ceiling.
As we know, that has ballooned to 18% over three years.
I will continue the quote:
In the end, the feisty combative Heritage Minister settled on an
exemption large enough to drive a pick-up through. Crying
sellout, the Canadian magazine industry is privately livid at the
Chrétien government's backsliding.
On May 27 in the Toronto Star, in another article by
Valerie Lawton, she states:
But plans for a subsidy package to help ease the new pressure on
Canadian magazines still haven't been worked out. Copps said she
didn't know how much money will be available.
We still do not know how much this deal will cost Canadian
taxpayers.
The article goes on to state:
He predicted that even with subsidies—which the industry has
long said it never wanted to be dependent on—some magazines will
die.
We know that statistically even with the subsidization that is
currently occurring, one-third of English published magazines are
not viable and up to one-quarter of the French magazines are also
not viable.
I continue to quote the article. It states:
Copps said repeatedly that Canada had won an important concession
from the Americans—that for the first time the U.S. has
recognized Canada's right to protect and promote Canadian content
in magazines.
But the US suggested it had done nothing of the kind. This issue
has nothing to do with culture. It was simply a matter of
ensuring competition, said a senior trade official. The issue is
one of commerce... The key issue here has to be access to a
market.
1610
This essentially is what the amendment does to Bill C-55. It
gives access. It is about trade. The Reform Party has always
taken the position that Bill C-55 is really a trade bill and not
a bill that should come from the Canadian heritage department.
In an editorial in the Ottawa Sun on May 27, it stated:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan
River knows very well that he must refer to members of this House
by their title or their constituency name. I am sure he meant
the hon. heritage minister in his remarks. I know he will
want to use that expression in any future reference to the hon.
minister.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will comply. My
apologies to the heritage minister. I will refer to her as the
heritage minister, even though I am quoting from a magazine
article.
An article in the May 27 Toronto Star, written by Rosemary
Speirs, states:
In mitigation, (the heritage minister) is offering government
subsidies. The publishers had argued fiercely for a chance to
survive on their own—not on capricious government grants. Now
they'll have little choice but to accept an unwanted federal
largesse.
Yesterday, (the heritage minister) fought the perception that
she'd lost in cabinet. But in the last couple of weeks, (the
heritage minister) was sidelined while (the international trade
minister) and (the Prime Minister's) principal secretary, Eddie
Goldenberg, handled final negotiations.
It is quite obvious from the magazine articles that I have
quoted from that it was the trade minister who came to the rescue
to make sure that this country would not end up in a potential
trade war with the United States.
An article in the May 27 Globe and Mail, written by Shawn
McCarthy, states:
The American side not only objected to the magazine legislation
but saw (the heritage minister) as the leader of an international
effort to include cultural protections in trade deals and blunt
the growing U.S. dominance of global media and entertainment
industries.
Although (the heritage minister's) anti-American bravura might
have political appeal and cultural nationalism remains a
hot-bottom Liberal issue, neither was worth a trade war that
would hit steel, apparel, wood and plastic producers—and sour a
commercial relationship that often depends on the goodwill of
Canadians' giant neighbour.
(The heritage minister), unhappy about the government's
compromise, left the damage control to the Prime Minister's
Office, International Trade Officials and the Canadian Embassy in
Washington.
Relations between (the heritage minister) and (the international
trade minister) deteriorated to the point that their respective
staffs engaged in public slanging matches though not by name,
(the international trade minister) would sign anything just to
avoid a fight with the Americans, (the heritage minister's) staff
suggested, while trade officials characterized (the heritage
minister) as erratic and irrational.
I will continue on with what people have said over the last
several weeks about the current Bill C-55.
An article written by Valerie Lawton in the May 27 Toronto
Star states:
Trade officials were also frustrated with (the heritage
minister), saying she didn't fully appreciate U.S. threats of a
trade war.
“I don't know if there would have been anybody's hide to save
had there not been some extreme positions put out there”, one
trade official said. “Any sort of seemingly back-tracking on
her issues is her own making. She was the one who said some very
strong things at the beginning of the whole issue. It's just a
fact that she now has to live with some of the things she said”.
A source close to (the heritage minister) said the minister
would have preferred to give U.S. split runs less access to the
Canadian advertising market. But he said she'll be satisfied with
the deal as long as it follows up with an adequate subsidy
package.
1615
We can see that these amendments deal with trade over and over
again.
The last article I will quote was an editorial written in the
National Post on May 27.
Her posturing nationalism and xenophobic fear of English speaking
culture Canada shares with the U.S., Britain, Australia and a
quarter of the world are philistine absurdities and a national
embarrassment. They also amount to unforced folly at a time
when, as we have repeatedly warned here, the Americans are
looking for a pretext to throws bones to their own native
protectionism.
Is this the type of politician we want protecting Canadian
culture? Would you even take her advice on what movie to see?
Many people do not agree with the amendments made to this bill
because they really do change the intent of the bill.
The Canadian Magazine Publishers Association is led by François
de Gaspé Beaubien. To be fair, I know Mr. Beaubien is a
gentleman, and I would like to read into the record his
opposition point of view. It is not that I agree with what Mr.
Beaubien says regarding the amendments but I think his point of
view is relevant. As the House knows, Mr. Beaubien and the
Reform Party are on opposite sides of the fence, but in this case
Reform is in opposition to the amendments as is Mr. Beaubien.
Mr. Beaubien wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister. I will
quote the last page of his letter to make sure Mr. Beaubien is on
the record in opposition to the amendments to the bill:
First, acceding to the U.S. demand for a so-called de minimis of
20%, give or take a few points, would gut Bill C-55. It would be
a straight giveaway of a very significant portion of the Canadian
advertising services market without any requirement that the U.S.
publishers print one word about Canada. They would simply recycle
editorial content from their U.S. editions, capturing incremental
profits in Canada with virtually no costs. Giving away this
slice of our advertising services market to unfair and
insurmountable competition from U.S. publishers would mean the
death of Canadian magazines that Canadians want to read.
Second, giving Canadian tax benefits to U.S. publishers who
would enjoy this cost-free access to our advertising market is a
straight transfer of Canadian taxpayer dollars to further pad the
incremental profits of huge U.S. multinationals like Time Warner
with absolutely no return to Canada.
The last point I will make on behalf of Mr. Beaubien, whom I
disagree with, is he says:
Third, changing Canadian foreign investment rules to allow U.S.
publishers to establish their magazines as Canadian publications
with unlimited access to Canadian advertising revenues on the
basis of a vaguely defined and unenforceable content requirement
would be nothing more than the final sellout. Some have tried to
claim that the U.S. has made a concession by agreeing to such a
requirement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from
accepting a Canadian content requirement, the U.S. has agreed
to...legislation or regulation. This gives them free rein to
object in future, which they surely would, if Canada tried to
make such a requirement stick.
This reality would represent the last nail in the coffin of the
cultural policy in the magazine sector that has been pursued by
successive governments for over three decades.
1620
I read this as an example of objections to the amendments. As
this House knows this government went to bat for the publishing
industry. Here again we have the publishing industry objecting
to the Senate amendments.
Right from the very beginning Bill C-55 had two combatants, the
advertising industry and the magazine publishing industry. To be
fair to the advertisers, I must for the record state their
position in terms of the amendments and their impact on the bill.
The advertising industry has been kept out of the consultation
process right from day one. It is certainly not unreasonable to
expect problems when governments put together bills without
consulting the whole industry. It should not be a surprise that
the government has had all kinds of problems with this bill since
it was tabled in the House. This alone should send the bill back
to the drawing board as I have echoed many times during the debate
on Bill C-55.
I will give the position and point of view of the Association of
Canadian Advertisers which I believe is only fair at this time.
The Association of Canadian Advertisers believes that market
conditions should prevail. It is the association's considered
view that the Canadian magazine industry would be best served
through the disciplines of the market system.
The association does not subscribe to the doom and gloom
scenarios of those who argue that the unfettered market is
anathema to a vibrant and dynamic Canadian magazine industry. It
indicates that one needs only to look at the great success story
of the Ontario wine industry following the implementation of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Remember the dire predictions for the survival of the Canadian
wine industry in the face of a flood of cheaper priced wines from
the United States. As history has shown to the contrary the wine
industry in Ontario has flourished in an unfettered market.
Moreover it has become a source of national pride as the industry
garners one prestigious national award after another.
Another concern the advertising association has is that there
needs to be a framework for acceptable intervention. It is the
association's understanding that the government may deem it
necessary to intervene in the market on behalf of the Canadian
magazine industry on the grounds that the Canadian magazine
industry as a public good merits assistance. Should this be the
case, it is its view that such intervention is best accomplished
through direct payments to publishers out of general government
revenues, preferably based on Canadian content performance
milestones.
Support for the Canadian magazine industry should not be borne
either directly or indirectly by taxation or subsidy policies
that ultimately target Canadian advertisers. We are still
waiting to hear how much the subsidy will be on this magazine
deal.
Punitive interventions are unacceptable according to the
magazine advertisers. Any regulations that restrict advertising
dollars to magazines meeting certain Canadian content
requirements is also unacceptable to the Association of Canadian
Advertisers. This is a dangerous road to go down. It would
provide an indirect subsidy to the Canadian magazine industry
which would effectively be borne by advertisers rather than the
public. Initially it is fundamentally inconsistent with the very
basic notion of commercial free speech.
1625
Finally, any such regulations would be inconsistent with the
World Trade Organization appellate body ruling and the GATT,
1994.
My belief is that the Association of Canadian Advertisers
welcomes any new vehicles through which advertisers can convey
their commercial messages. Advertisers need more mechanisms to
inform consumers as they become more discerning and sophisticated
in their reading and buying habits. This is clearly a void in
the Canadian marketplace that is being filled by some U.S.
publications. Consumers buy them. In order to effectively reach
consumers Canadian advertisers require unrestricted access to
those magazines that best deliver their messages. This set of
amendments certainly restricts access to the marketplace.
As we are hopefully debating this bill for the last time, we
need to review how we got into this mess in the first place. As
I have indicated, we have been at this for at least 12 months and
we still have not gotten out of it. How did we get here in the
first place? For the record I need to talk about some of the
background to this legislation.
In 1997 the United States successfully challenged Canada's
protectionist magazine regime at the World Trade Organization.
The WTO panel found three components of Canada's magazine
policies to be illegal under the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, GATT, a key trade agreement administered by the WTO. The
panel condemned a ban in place since 1965 on imports of magazines
with advertising directed at Canadians; a 1995 special excise tax
on so-called split-run magazines; and discriminatory postal rates
for imported magazines. After Canada appealed the panel's report,
the WTO appellate body found a fourth violation, Canada's
discriminatory postal subsidy program for Canadian produced
magazines.
Effective October 30, 1998 Canada terminated its longstanding
ban on split-run imports, eliminated the 1995 special excise tax
on split runs and modified its discriminatory postal rates and
postal subsidies for magazines. However, Canada introduced Bill
C-55 which simply accomplished the same results as the import ban
and excise tax and would have kept U.S. and other foreign
produced split-run magazines from competing in the Canadian
market.
Bill C-55 would have prohibited U.S. and non-Canadian publishing
companies and ethnic publications on pain of criminal fine from
using the magazines they produce to advertise directly to
Canadian readers. Among the four measures the WTO condemned was
the compensatory 80% tax imposed by the Canadian government on
imported magazines carrying this type of advertising. The tax
put U.S. and other imported magazines at a significant commercial
disadvantage in comparison to Canadian produced magazines.
Having finally agreed to eliminate the tax on these
advertisements, the Canadian government proposed to ban them
altogether. Canada will continue in a slightly modified form its
postal subsidies for Canadian produced magazines and the United
States will monitor closely the effect of that modification.
Beyond everything, Bill C-55, inclusive with the amendments, has
shown over and over again a lack of consultation and planning.
Even on the issue of subsidizing magazines, basic questions
needed to be asked.
In terms of subsidization, should it have been short term? What
are the needs of the readers in this country? Were the readers
in this country even asked? We are dealing with amendments that
have come back from the Senate which has indicated that the
intent of the bill has changed substantially and I agree.
It basically is a trade bill.
1630
What determines success? The survivability of magazines that
are not viable. As hon. members know, we spend considerable
funds subsidizing magazines today. What will happen with this
set of amendments? We already know that this deal will cost a
substantial amount, perhaps up to $300 million will be given to
the magazine publishing industry. I raise the question, why are
we doing this? How long will this occur? Will the magazine
publishing industry continue to receive upward of $300 million
from here on in, year in and year out? Again, it will cost
taxpayers a lot of money.
There are split-run editions in this country today. As we
informed the House months ago, there were ethnic split runs in
this country of which the government was not aware. I would like
to inform the House that there are actually national magazines in
this country that do split runs in the Canadian marketplace.
Again, that is more information that the government probably did
not come across.
I would read into the record a letter written by Ruth Kelly, the
publisher and editor of the Alberta Venture Magazine. Her
comments were published in the Marketing Magazine. Her
letter concerns split runs within her own borders. We are trying
to deal with split runs outside our borders, but at the same time
we are not even aware that there are split runs in this country.
Her letter reads:
The pros and cons of Bill C-55 have been strenuously debated in
the pages of your magazine, among others. As the publisher and
editor of a business magazine that serves a regional audience, I
thought long and hard about the ramifications of this
legislative firewall. Ultimately, I decided that I could not
support Bill C-55. The hypocrisy of a business magazine taking a
stance that advocates protectionism for its industry, at the
potential expense of others, was untenable for me.
Obviously, Paul Jones, publisher of Canadian Business and
spokesperson for the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association,
has experienced no such qualms. I am not sure how he has
reconciled his stance with the free trade gospel so fervently
espoused by Canadian Business editor Arthur Johnson. That,
however, I am willing to leave up to his conscience—and the judgment
of his readers.
I am somewhat more curious as to how Jones can speak so
persuasively about the evils of split run editions even as he
comes into my market and poaches my advertising dollars with nary
a hint of guilt.
I emphasize this point:
For decades, regional magazines have faced the same kind of
competitive practices about which Jones moans. Nationals like
Maclean's, Canadian Business and Chatelaine
create regional editions which are designated as such for the
purpose of advertising sales only.
In other words, they are split runs.
They offer only a token, if at all, amount of editorial coverage
to the regions, do not invest in the publishing infrastructure in
that region, and do not participate in the cultural or business
lives of the regional community. Feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe that adequately describes the bugaboo of
American split run magazines.
She concludes by saying:
Regional magazines have learned to compete against Canadian
split runs by developing strong relationships with our readers
and ensuring that advertisers benefit from that relationship. If
Jones and his national brethren fear the spectre of competition,
I would suggest they give me a call. I would be happy to run a
seminar on Competition 101—but it would have to be held in
Alberta. Hopefully, most of them know where that is.
1635
That was the letter written by Ruth Kelly, publisher and editor.
The government did not rush in to give regional magazines a
subsidy to help fend off the national magazines when they were
doing their split runs. Obviously, as this letter shows, our
national magazines, which the government has gone to bat for,
have done the same thing that they are complaining about, which
is that they are being preyed upon by our neighbours to the
south, the American split runs. Where is the justice?
The biggest question that has not been answered with all of
these changes and amendments is how much this deal will cost the
Canadian taxpayer. We have asked the minister in the House the
same question, but we have received no answer.
Who will be the beneficiaries and for how long? As I have
indicated, the government has gone to bat for the publishing
industry, principally two large corporations. We have read in
the press that a deal has been made and magazine publishers will
receive subsidization. This amendment points to this very fact.
How can we support these amendments unless we know the costs
associated with them? The government refuses to divulge that
information to let the people of the country know what this will
cost.
What has been agreed to between the United States and Canada?
That is another question we have received very little answer to
in this House.
I would like to deal with some of the key points that the
government has agreed to with our American counterparts. The key
amendments to Bill C-55 include the following key provisions.
Canada agreed to amend Bill C-55 to narrow its scope by
exempting foreign-owned magazines that are published in Canada or
exported to Canada and carry advertisements directed primarily at
the Canadian market within the permissible level.
Initially foreign magazines exported to Canada that carry less
than 12% of Canadian ads will not be subject to Bill C-55
penalties. After 18 months the level grows to 15%. After 36
months it will grow to 18%, as we have read in the amendments to
the bill.
The terms incorporated in the agreement will provide new
opportunities for foreign investment. Very little of this
information has been discussed in this House. Effective 90 days
after the signing of this agreement Canada will permit up to 51%
foreign ownership in the establishment and acquisition of
businesses to publish, distribute and sell periodicals, except
for the acquisition of Canadian-owned businesses. After one year
Canada will permit up to and including 100% foreign ownership.
Partnerships of foreign investors with majority Canadian
ownership will be permitted.
Investments will continue to be subject to a net benefit review
under section 38 of the Investment Canada Act. Under the review,
among other things, Canadian investment officials will consider
contributions to the Canadian economy, the effect of the
investment on competition and compatibility with cultural
policies. Publishers may be asked to undertake substantial
levels of original editorial content in periodicals published in
Canada.
The original editorial content means non-advertising content
that is authored by Canadians, including, but not limited to,
writers, journalists, illustrators and photographers; or created
for the Canadian market and does not appear in any other edition
of one or more periodicals published outside Canada.
1640
The question I ask is, who won this contest? Did we win this
contest or did our neighbours win the contest? Or was it a draw?
The key tax provisions of concern to U.S. publishers include the
following terms, again as impacted by the amendments to this
bill. Within one year of the signing of this agreement section
19 of the Income Tax Act will be amended so as to allow
advertisers deductions for advertisements in periodicals
regardless of the nationality of the publishers or the place of
production.
Canada will further amend the Income Tax Act to modify the
amount of the allowable deduction in the original editorial
content requirement to permit half the deduction of advertising
costs for advertisers in publications with zero to 79% original
editorial content, and a full deduction of advertising costs for
advertisers in publications with 80% or more original editorial
content.
Current tax deductions were not available to advertisers if the
foreign-owned magazines were published under a licensing
agreement with a Canadian. As a result of the agreement,
periodicals published under such licensing arrangements will not
be excluded under the Income Tax Act.
Another term of reference is that a consultation clause is
included in the agreement so that Canada and the United States
can consult annually on any matter regarding the agreement.
It is unfortunate that we have not debated the terms of the
agreement in the House.
The Reform Party will not support these amendments as they
basically deal with trade and not culture. It is unfortunate
that governments tend to wrap themselves around a flag and try to
sell trade issues as culture. Even with the amendments, it would
be interesting to see how this amended bill would stand up to a
charter challenge.
With all the changes in technology that are currently occurring
in the world, governments all have to realize that they need to
thoroughly evaluate all of their grants and subsidies. We have
heard that the Internet will have a huge impact in the future,
not only in terms of culture, but also trade.
I believe that Canadian culture should be promoted, as many
people have indicated, and promoted front and centre on all
international fronts. Canadians do things well. We know that.
We have a great track record. We need to seriously believe that
promotion is the way to save our rich and diverse culture. We
are not Americans. We are Canadians and we should not give in to
protectionism which costs taxpayers dearly.
I move:
That the motion by amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that
the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to
Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by
foreign periodical publishers, since the amendments allow the
bill to continue placing unreasonable limits on fundamental
freedoms such as freedom of contract, freedom of speech, freedom
of the press and the infringement on property rights as
guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian
Bill of Rights”.
1645
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is now on the amendment.
Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre, health care; the hon. member
for Mississauga South, human resources development; the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville, agriculture; the hon. member for
Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, employment insurance.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising
services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
This bill was originally introduced by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for the purpose of limiting access to Canada's
advertising market to Canadian magazines only. Unfortunately,
as we see, the Canadian government has given in to pressure from
the United States. In effect, it has decided to open the
domestic advertising market to foreign publishers by authorizing
them to publish in Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that by giving in to the Americans
like this the federal government is giving them ammunition in
their fight to reduce cultural protection measures.
In fact, the Canadian government's concessions with respect to
magazines are merely the latest in a series of such concessions
that began the day after the Liberal government was elected in
1993.
Many in the House will remember the well-known case of Ginn
Publishing and Maxwell-Macmillan. Contrary to Canadian cultural
policy, cabinet authorized the handover of these Canadian
publishing houses to American interests when there were
Canadian publishers prepared to buy them.
The CRTC also gave in to the Americans in the case of the
country music specialty channel. The Americans had threatened
$1 million in reprisals if the CRTC decided to cancel the
American station's licence, in accordance with its policy at the
time, because a similar Canadian station was already licensed in
Canada.
The objective of this CRTC policy was to counteract American
broadcasting competition. After the Country Music Network
affair the CRTC abandoned the policy.
In the DMX affair the minister also gave in to the Americans.
In this case, we will recall, the CRTC gave a broadcasting
licence to DMX although it did not meet quotas for Canadian and
French language content. The entire artistic community rose up
in arms over this.
It is quite obvious that the Americans are nibbling away, and
successfully, at the scope of Canada's cultural policies.
We had obtained assurances from the present Minister of Canadian
Heritage and from her predecessor that Bills C-103 and C-55 in
their original versions would conform on all points with
international trade treaty requirements. The ability of the
Governments of Canada and Quebec to defend the rights of
citizens has been jeopardized considerably by the federal
government's errors, not on just one occasion, but two.
1650
It is the Canadian and Quebec governments' ability to adopt
cultural protection measures that is being questioned here.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the periodicals issue is a clear
demonstration of Canada's inability to defend its own culture in
a bilateral and single-sector negotiation.
Quebec's culture is the focal point of the sovereignist project.
Quebec must therefore be at the negotiating table for the
coming millennium talks, starting next fall at Seattle, under the
auspices of the World Trade Organization.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill.
It is vital, before explaining the reasons for this opposition,
to speak to the procedure followed in this matter for the
benefit of those watching.
The federal government simply improvised in this most important
matter. Bill C-55 was intended to keep the advertising market
exclusively for Canadian magazine publishers.
As usual, the bill was sent to the Senate for ratification, but there
the usual procedure came to a halt.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage, the senators and the
witnesses who appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on
Transport and Communications debated the bill, which limited
access to the advertising market to Canadian publishers only.
There was an unusual occurrence in this matter.
In fact, on the last day of hearings by the Senate committee,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage tabled amendments to reflect
the agreement she had negotiated with the Americans. The result:
the Liberal majority passed Bill C-55 in its amended form, which
now gives foreign publishers access to the domestic advertising
market.
Today, before this House, the government is asking us to ratify
its legislation. Clearly, no committee was in a position to
evaluate the impact of the amendments the minister made to the
bill. No witness was heard on these amendments, which give
foreign publishers access to Canada's advertising market.
It is fairly unusual, indeed surprising, to have the Minister of
Canadian Heritage table these amendments in the Senate.
The House of Commons has always been the place for Quebecers and
Canadians to debate legislation. The members comply with the
rules. How did the Minister of Canadian Heritage dare to
circumvent these rules and the spirit of this House?
I cannot support this bill when I have not heard witnesses speak
to the measures the government brought to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage. This is an unprecedented and unacceptable
improvisation on its part. It would be more
reassuring if the improvisation were left to the Ligue nationale
d'improvisation, a Quebec cultural invention that enjoys
worldwide success.
Order must be established so that the government will comply
with the rules of the House of Commons. Cultural legislation
will have a bearing on Quebec and Canada's cultural future.
The main purpose of the bill was to limit advertising revenue to
Canadian magazine publishers only. This measure was introduced
last October in place of Bill C-103, which the World Trade
Organization considered incompatible with Canada's international
commitments proposed by the previous Liberal government.
It is important to remember that, at the time, the government
told anyone who would listen that its bill was consistent with
our international commitments. Unfortunately, that was not the
case. The federal government was proven very wrong indeed.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the original bill
was consistent with the government's commitments. She claimed
that it was still consistent with WTO and NAFTA rules.
Why did the minister decide to give in and open the publishing
market to foreign magazines?
1655
A number of questions come to mind. Did she have doubts about
her ability to convince a NAFTA dispute tribunal? If so, why
did she then introduce Bill C-55 in its original format? And, if
she was certain of winning, why did she cave in?
The bill that has come back to us from the Senate is very
different from the one it received. It unfortunately opens the
door to foreign publishers interested in the domestic
advertising market. Foreign publishers who decide to publish
their magazines in Canada, by recycling editorial content, will
be able to sell up to 18% of their advertising space to Canadian
advertisers.
The bill then allows U.S. publishers to set up shop in Canada,
provided their investment application is approved by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. If they publish 50% or more
Canadian content, these U.S. publishers, like Canadian magazine
publishers, will be able to grant Canadian advertisers tax
breaks.
The amendments water down the rules limiting foreign ownership
in the magazine industry. Now a Canadian magazine could be 49%
foreign owned.
Representatives of the Magazine Association of Canada have
expressed their disappointment with this agreement between
Canada and the United States.
They expressed it as follows, and I quote “In our opinion, the
agreement puts the magazine industry at risk by allowing
American magazines to take over an unacceptable proportion of
the Canadian advertising services market through unfairly
lowered advertising rates”.
These concessions are unacceptable. The Bloc Quebecois cannot
support the bill.
In an interview given to the Globe and Mail—and I repeat the quote
given by my
colleague from the Reform Party—François de Gaspé Beaubien said
that the United States has 19 women's magazines, containing 19,000
pages of advertising. If these foreign publishers sold 18% of
their magazine pages in Canada, they could sell 3,400 pages.
The principal Canadian magazines for women, however, contain a
total of 4,800 pages of advertising.
That means that 18% of the pages set aside for advertising by
the United States represent 63% of the pages of advertising in
Canadian magazines.
The threat is serious. Some have estimated that the Americans
could go after some 50% of all advertising revenues in Canada,
approximately $300 million, with the authorization given them to
sell 18% of their advertising pages to Canadian advertisers.
The Bloc would like to know what resources will be allocated to
administer the new proposed rules.
At this point we know very little of the support measures.
What form will they take? How much money will be spent on them?
Where will this money come from? Will programs be set or
proportional to the loss incurred by the Canadian publishers?
Will they be adaptable if, in the coming decade, the proportion
of revenues taken away from Canadian publishers by foreign
publishers turns out to be greater than expected? Will there be
one office responsible for ensuring that foreign publishers in
fact meet their quotas? Will there be resources allocated to
ensure that foreign publishers authorized to set up in Canada
meet the conditions for setting up on the Canadian market,
namely that of publishing over 50% of Canadian editorial
content?
However, quite apart from the publishing industry, the minister,
in negotiating this agreement with the Americans, though she was
convinced she was in compliance with all the international trade
agreements, simply reinforced the Americans' habit of
challenging our existing and future cultural measures.
1700
How, then, will the Americans react the next time a government,
generally the Government of Canada or Quebec, takes some step
to protect the development of its culture when we have already
backed down in one area in which we felt we were right? Do the
Americans just have to raise their voices a bit to scare us, to
make us backtrack, to make us not apply our cultural measures?
Multilateral and multisectorial negotiations will be starting
this fall, under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, in
Seattle. If Canada has given in on such an important issue,
what will it do in the WTO negotiations?
Incidentally, we no longer know what the government's position
will be on the place culture will take in international trade
agreements. Does Canada favour a general cultural exception
clause, defined by us, as it did at the time of the MAI? Or
does it intend to initiate negotiations on culture in some
context other than the WTO?
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned. We would like to see Quebecers
at the international negotiating tables representing our
interests.
We are seriously wondering, if Canada is not capable of
defending its own cultural measures, what will become of ours,
particularly our Charte de la langue française?
Quebec must be at the WTO negotiating table. This is only
common sense.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-55, an act
respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical
publishers.
I have been on my feet many times over the last year on this
bill. I have been asking questions, making statements and
following it very closely. This is kind of the 11th hour on this
debate and I will try to say some things that mean something to
me at this time.
I am very concerned about the direction the bill has taken. I
will speak personally as a new rookie MP. I have watched the bill
with great interest from its inception around a year ago. I
remember watching a press conference on television. The
ministers of heritage and industry were tanned and confident as
they talked about this wonderful bill which had been crafted,
which was WTO-proof, dragon-proof and was going to be able to
defend us in the big, wide world of mega-magazines and split runs
and all of that.
We all felt good about that in our hearts. We thought it
sounded good. It sounded like a net benefit to Canadian culture,
as we see so much stuff coming across our border that is not
Canadian.
The New Democratic Party and I gave our cautious consent because
there were things in it that we did not really agree with. We
would have liked to have seen it go further, but we did believe
in the spirit of it. We believed that it was an effort to say
that we can work within the trade agreements and protect our
culture at the same time.
We are now a year down the line. The bill that was put forward
that day was digested and picked over by all of us.
I will talk about some of the contents of the Canadian-made Bill
C-55 just for the record. It is no longer there, but these are
some of the ideas we were supporting.
1705
Bill C-55 was to make it an offence to provide Canadian
advertising services aimed at the Canadian market to be placed in
foreign periodical publications, except for those currently
receiving Canadian advertising. For people who do not understand
anything about this business and are probably sick to death of
hearing about it without understanding it, the whole basis of
this is that there is a certain amount of money out there for
magazines to use to create their product. It is the Canadian
advertising industry which Canadian magazines are dependent on
for their survival, along with government subsidies and the
enormous support they get from the people who buy the magazines.
The bill is all about advertising. It is about trying to
protect this pool of advertising, this amount of moneys that is
available to support our industry, our writers, our editors, our
publishers, our photographers and all of the people who want to
read our stories. That was the intent of Bill C-55 that sunny
day many months ago.
There was an offence, which would have been enforceable by
Canadian law, after an investigation was ordered by the Minister
of Canadian Heritage. This would have happened if foreign
periodical publications used Canadian advertising. The penalties
would have ranged from the maximum of $20,000 for an individual's
first offence on a summary conviction, to $250,000 for a
corporate offender on indictment. Offences that took place
outside of Canada by foreign individuals or corporations would
have been deemed to have taken place in Canada for the purposes
of enforcement of the act.
I am using the past tense because this is no longer the bill
that we are talking about.
The government would have collected unpaid fines levied upon
conviction in the same manner as a civil judgment. The cabinet
would have made regulations relating to the investigators, the
conduct of the investigations and the definition of the Canadian
market.
The whole bill was based on the fact that we were going to
protect the Canadian advertising market for Canadian magazines.
The minister of culture had her dukes up. She was ready to
fight. She was ready to stand up to the American bully. We
heard this over and over.
Before I go on, I will say that I like American magazines. I do
not want to say that they have no place in this constellation. I
like them a great deal and I have tremendous admiration for
American writers. I like a whole lot about the United States and
its talent and its spirit. A lot of its talent and spirit
managed to manifest itself in this deal but it was not to our
benefit. It was to the American's benefit.
It is not the talent and spirit of the Americans that I do not
like, it is the velocity and the volume of the American product
that just overwhelms our shores. I think that Bill C-55 was an
11th hour effort to protect the Canadian magazine industry from
being swamped by thousands of shiny, glossy, sexy American
magazines which we see row by row, bicep by bicep, cleavage by
cleavage in our airport bookstores and in chains of American
bookstores, which we now have all over our country.
What we were hoping was going to happen was that we would have
some control over this wave, which was what the Canadian version
of Bill C-55 was all about.
However, what we have seen is a complete collapse of the
government's will to stand up to the American bully in the final
analysis. In one of my first experiences as a rookie MP, it was
a very sad day when I heard that the deal, which we had taken
through the House in a democratic process, had collapsed.
1710
When I look around the room, I see others who might feel the
same; that we were doing some good work in terms of looking at
this legislation and really trying to make some amendments to
make it as good as it could be. We voted on Bill C-55 and sent
it to the Senate.
What I was not aware of was that the democratic bills in the
House of Commons go somewhere else. They go to Washington where
they are really worked on. That was quite a shock to me. I think
it would shock most Canadians to realize that there is actually a
four stage journey or maybe five. It goes from the House to the
Senate, from the Senate to the United States, back to the Senate
and then it comes back to the House to be rammed through.
The bill that has come back here, which went to the Senate from
the United States in the last couple of weeks, is a very
different bill. It is one which I will run through right now and
then tell the House what it means to the people in the magazine
industry, to the people who like to read Canadian magazines and
to the cultural workers in the country.
The made-in-America deal, which has just been penned and signed,
commits Canada to amend our foreign investment policy so it falls
under section 38 of the Investment Canada Act, allowing for the
cabinet to regulate and prescribe what and how much foreign
ownership Americans can have in our industry. The agreement also
forces Canada to allow for increased ownership, up to 51% after
90 days, and up to 100% within a year.
The new made-in-America Bill C-55 also commits Canada to change
the Income Tax Act to allow advertisers to receive deductions for
placing ads in American publications aimed at the Canadian
market.
The new made-in-America Bill C-55 contains a “without
prejudice” section to diminish the agreement's ability to set a
precedent under the WTO, NAFTA, Investment Canada Act or under
Bill C-55.
One of the central issues that I am concerned about is that this
deal sets out the surrender of our market by prescribing the
formula to allow for American split runs to invade our market
with a total of 12% of total Canadian ad content immediately,
rising to 18% within 36 months.
The tax act shall also be amended to allow for one-half
deductions in magazines with up to 79% original content and 100%
for publications with more than 80% original editorial content.
The definition of Canadian content at this point in time is one
that I am extremely concerned about because it has now
metamorphosed into a completely different meaning than the one we
all knew it to be, and that is one of being material written by
Canadians or having some involvement by Canadians. One of the
questions I asked the minister today in the House of Commons
dealt the issue of Canadian content.
The new wording for Canadian content means that as long as it is
original to a split-run magazine in Canada then it is considered
Canadian content. It no longer has to be written or published by
a Canadian or have a Canadian theme. Nothing like that is
important any more, as long as it is created originally for the
Canadian market and has not appeared in another edition in
Canada.
The idea of Canadian content is watered down so significantly
that I fear very much the precedent it is setting for all of the
other Canadian cultural industries which are also very much
dependent on the idea of Canadian content.
1715
I would like to mention right now some of the impact this is
going to have on our industry. We have over 900,000 Canadian
workers in culture. This is a 1997 UNESCO figure. We have a
responsibility in the House to protect these workers along with
the idea of Canadian content.
We were told by the government that we had a chance to stand up
to the American entertainment monolith. We had a chance to defend
this at the WTO but we did not do that. We did not use our
cultural exemption contained in NAFTA. We ignored our own legal
advice regarding Bill C-55 being WTO proof. We basically showed
the Americans that we had no interest in protecting culture.
I think that is coming right down to the bottom line.
We have simply said “It is all right, this is just one more
product we will negotiate with you and we will in fact give in to
you”. The only lesson the Americans have learned here is that if
they threaten a trade war with the Canadians, do not worry
because the Canadians will surrender.
By refusing to use the existing trade rules to protect our
magazines we are saying we will allow the Americans to make up
international rules as they go along. It is therefore only a
matter of time before American interests go after Canadian
content on television, ownership levels in our broadcasting
industry, support for our book publishing industry, support for
our feature films and so on.
The creation of this new fund, which is going to be a fund to
augment the deathblow to the Canadian industry, is suspect. This
government reduced direct cultural support by over $500 million
between 1993 and 1998. That is in the official estimates. Any
new fund will not necessarily restore money and there is no
indication at this point where the money is coming from.
In closing, I would like to read into the record a motion that I
was going to put forward. It is interesting that the Reform
member put forward a motion which said the new made in America
Bill C-55 did not go nearly far enough. I was going to put
another motion forward. I will read it into the record.
The motion we would have moved would have been:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words following
“That” and substituting the following:
—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-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by
foreign periodical publishers, for the following reasons:
The Senate amendments subvert the intent of Bill C-55 to protect
the Canadian periodical industry in the face of American based
split-run magazine editions and actually threaten the future of
the Canadian periodical industry by
(a) granting a substantial amount of Canadian advertising
services to foreign periodical publications aimed solely at the
Canadian market;
(b) giving incentives to new foreign periodical publications to
be created and aimed at the Canadian market that were not
foreseen or discussed by the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage in their study of the bill;
(c) granting sweeping powers to the Governor in Council to
define revenue levels and determine Canadian content especially
but not exclusively in section 20 of the bill.
In closing, we believe that American made Bill C-55 is a craven
bill and a tragedy for Canadian culture.
1720
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I commend
my colleague from Dartmouth for her tireless efforts and hard
work in doing what unfortunately our heritage minister has been
unable to do and that has been to remain committed to maintaining
our Canadian culture and heritage. I think that is a real shame.
I was in the House on quite a number of occasions when I heard
the minister make reference to this bill. I remember one day
specifically she made reference to the fact that she wanted to
guarantee that her 10 year old daughter was able to continue to
read her magazines.
Similar to the minister I also have a 10 year old daughter. I
would like to hope that when my 10 year old daughter picks up a
magazine and reads about Canada, that she is reading it from a
Canadian perspective and not from the perspective of somebody
sitting on a warm beach in Los Angeles. I differ with the
minister with respect to wanting to guarantee what type of
literature my daughter has access to.
My colleague from Dartmouth talked about the number of concerns
she and the New Democratic Party have with respect to Bill C-55.
Could she tell us what she feels is the most important issue, or
what is the most important thing we as Canadians are losing with
respect to Bill C-55?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, the most important thing
that we are losing is our ability to protect our culture. We are
losing our ability to keep those Canadian titles in the
bookstores, specifically to keep those Canadian titles on the
magazine racks.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage will say that there was 100%
of advertising revenue and we have given away 18% and that it
could have been much worse. If 100 new American split-run
magazines come in here and each one of them has 18% of its
advertising revenue Canadian, I would say that that valuable pool
of Canadian advertising revenue would dry up very quickly.
There will be Canadian magazines out there. There will continue
to be Canadian magazines, but there will be fewer of them. Many
of them will go under. We will begin to see magazines which
purport to be Canadian but in fact are American knockoffs of
Canadian magazines that have no heart or soul or particular
interest in this place as an experience, as a land to live in and
to fight for, but in fact a market in which they can extract more
revenue. That is the central tragedy of this bill.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is with
a profound sense of regret that I rise to debate the amendments
to Bill C-55 which the government introduced in its attempt to
appease American discontent.
Members of this House have explored the merits of Bill C-55 for
well over six months. We met with countless individuals who
voiced their opinions on how this piece of legislation could help
ensure the long term viability of Canada's magazine industry in
light of the increased presence of periodicals coming in from our
international trading partners. We also heard many dissenting
opinions from those who stood to be most adversely affected by
the implementation of this piece of legislation. Throughout these
deliberations, one thing remained constant: the Minister of
Canadian Heritage's supposedly undeterred conviction that Canada
must stand up to U.S. pressure by continuing to protect Canada's
magazine industry against unfair trading practices associated
with U.S. split-run magazines.
We can all recall the minister's impassioned pleas calling upon
all Canadians to rally against the bullying tactics of the U.S.
and stand up for Canada's magazine industry so that her daughter
would have an opportunity to read Canadian stories that are
actually written by Canadians.
I must admit that I was even convinced that the minister was
sincere in her commitment to protect Canadian culture. Like so
many other Canadians, I found out that putting faith in the
minister's convictions was indeed a mistake.
1725
Despite serious threats of U.S. retaliation and the subsequent
pressure all MPs must have received from concerned constituents,
all federal political parties, except the Reform Party, agreed
that Canadian culture was indeed worth standing up for. It is
ironic that the minister who so vociferously criticized the U.S.
bullying tactics during this dispute is the very minister who
would succumb to their pressure.
What is now truly unbelievable is the fact that the minister is
claiming victory with this agreement with the U.S. when in fact
we all know she has effectively sacrificed Canada's magazine
industry because she did not believe strongly in Canadian
culture. Not only did the minister tell her own daughter that
Canadian culture is worth sacrificing if it means keeping
American interests happy, she has sent a message to the rest of
Canada that what we once held as sacred in this country has now
become just another commodity worth trading in the open market.
[Translation]
The decision to support Bill C-55 was not an easy one. We all
feared possible reprisals by the Americans against Canadian
industries. No one was interested in a war with the Americans.
We nonetheless supported the bill because we thought it was
important for us, as an autonomous country, to safeguard our
culture.
We are really disturbed to see the federal government abandoning
our Canadian publications when, in the past, lawmakers worked so
hard to preserve them.
[English]
When it became painfully apparent that the government was
wavering in its commitment to Bill C-55, representatives of
Canada's magazine industry suggested to the federal government
that allowing U.S. magazines anything above 10% Canadian
advertising without having to produce any Canadian content would
seriously imperil a number of Canadian periodicals. Despite this
warning the federal government agreed to provide U.S. magazines
with 18% free access to Canadian advertising before having to
produce any Canadian content.
In light of the government's capitulation on its original
commitment to stand by Bill C-55 as passed in the House of
Commons, it should not have come as any surprise to our magazine
industry that its government would give U.S. interests a major
portion of Canada's advertising revenue. Even the government
recognizes the huge impact its decision is going to have on our
Canadian magazine industry, so much so that it has announced its
intention to provide magazines that are most affected with some
kind of a subsidy.
No one knows any of the details associated with this subsidy.
How much money will be available for our Canadian magazine
publishers? Who will qualify for this subsidy? On what basis
will the government allocate funds to the industry? How long can
our magazine industry depend on having access to this subsidy?
Questions addressed to the minister have resulted in the
response that the government is working on it. Basically the
government is asking us to trust it. It all comes down to
credibility.
I think it is obvious the Minister of Canadian Heritage has lost
credibility within her own cabinet. She has certainly lost
credibility with Canada's magazine industry. More specifically,
she has lost credibility among Canadians across the country. It
is plain and simple. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has
turned her back on Canada's magazine industry and more
specifically on Canadian culture.
I look back to when the minister stood before us in this House
and gave impassioned speeches on how we must protect Canadian
culture. I find it very difficult to comprehend that this was
indeed the same minister who most recently sat before the media
to announce that her government had succumbed to U.S. pressure
and that she was prepared to sacrifice our Canadian magazine
industry to appease U.S. demands. Perhaps I was a little naive.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I regret to
interrupt the hon. member. When the bill is
debated again he will have about 14 minutes remaining in
his time.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
that Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to present a private member's bill before the
Chamber. It is the first opportunity I have had to do so since
being elected two years ago, almost to the day. It is the first
time I have been successful in winning the lottery and being able
to propose a course of action for parliament.
Given that it is my first opportunity, I am pleased that I am
able to present a bill today which deals with a matter very close
to my heart and of grave concern to members on all sides of the
House. It is a matter pertaining to the question of children's
health and well-being and the question of ensuring that we work
now to ensure that our children are healthy today so that they
can contribute to society in the future.
Bill C-482 is designed to introduce changes to the Hazardous
Products Act with the specific purpose of safeguarding our
children from toxic additives in toys and other children's items.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to introduce a private member's bill that would
prohibit the sale of children's toys containing lead, cadmium or
phthalate.
[English]
We are here today dealing with the matter of children's health.
We are also here today dealing with the matter of the fundamental
responsibility of our government and, in particular, the
fundamental responsibility of the health protection branch.
Over the past number of years we have raised numerous concerns
about the very serious question of whether or not this aspect of
government is doing its utmost to ensure that the food we eat,
the water we drink, the drugs we have to take and the toys we
play with are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have raised many concerns about whether or not the health
protection branch is fulfilling that fundamental objective. We
have also raised many concerns about its apparent readiness to
offload that responsibility on to consumers without adequate
information and on to industry, which is obviously concerned
first and foremost about promoting its products.
We are here once again this evening trying to fill what would
appear to be yet another gap in our health protection system
created by the government's failure to stand up for children's
health.
This is not the first time New Democrats in the House have
spoken about toxins in children's products. This is one of the
first issues I brought to the attention of the government after
being elected to the House and have raised repeatedly since then,
particularly as evidence mounted about the dangers to children's
health.
About two years ago the member for Acadie—Bathurst introduced a
motion that would have required a label so parents could tell
which items contained harmful substances. Despite broad support
for that motion it was unfortunately defeated by a majority of
Liberal members.
The question today is why those members did not want to step in
to protect children's health. It used to be that the argument of
ignorance could be made. We used to be able to plead ignorance
because many did not realize there were toxins in children's
products, but for some time now we have become acutely aware of
what dangers are in store for children when they play and chew on
certain toys and products.
We have become acutely aware of three dangerous toxins: lead,
cadmium and phthalates, which is a softener used in PVC plastics.
1735
Lead is a well known neurotoxin which scientists have been
studying for many years. We know from all the studies that there
is no safe level. Cadmium is an even more dangerous neurotoxin.
It is also a renal toxin and a carcinogen. Phthalates have been
linked in animal testing to liver and kidney damage and to
reproductive developmental problems. All these toxins pose a
special threat to children and are addressed in the bill.
[Translation]
The devastating effects of these substances on children are well
documented. With new information and improved testing, we can
no longer plead ignorance. There is no excuse for exposing our
children to these risks.
This bill would do what the government has not done to date:
protect our children.
[English]
Rigorous independent science, truly independent science not paid
for by any manufacturer, has found that lead and cadmium are so
toxic that even low levels can cause irreparable harm to
children's intellectual and behavioural development, including
attention levels.
Children are quite obviously smaller than adults and what may be
a safe level for adults can be too much for a child. Phthalates
as well seep or leach out of products when subjected to normal
treatment by young children.
I am not just talking about babies or infants. With infants
everything goes into the mouth where it is chewed and sucked on.
With older children necklaces and other objects get mouthed more
as a habit. In this normal mouthing toxins, and phthalates are
particularly vulnerable to this, seep or leach out of the product
into the saliva and are consumed and absorbed by the body.
As I said, this is not news any more. Health Canada has
actually recognized the danger of these substances. In June 1996
it issued a warning about household vinyl mini-blinds out of
concern that children would ingest dust as these products broke
down in the sun.
In April 1998 there was another warning of children's jewellery
that contained a high 1,002 parts per million of lead. In
November last year there was another warning of phthalates in
children's items. In that same month the European Union
authoritative scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and
the environment also warned about phthalates.
There is no secret about toxins, but like virtually any subject
there are opposing views. We need only think back to the reams
of scientific studies financed by the tobacco industry over the
years proving conclusively that there were no links between
smoking and cancer.
What do leading children's advocates have to say on this matter?
In acknowledging the words and support of some of these
organizations, I want to pay a special tribute to individuals and
organizations that have been particularly helpful in putting
together the necessary research and proposals which led to the
bill before us today.
In particular I acknowledge the work of Greenpeace which has
certainly been front and centre of the issue. Members will be
fully aware of how many times representatives of that
organization brought independent scientific advice and
information to members of the Chamber about the toxicity of lead,
cadmium and phthalates.
1740
I thank the individuals from Greenpeace who have been so
helpful, as well as a number of other organizations that have
been particularly concerned about the impact of toxins on
children and have been active in raising these matters.
Let me acknowledge the Canadian Institute of Child Health which
stated as recently as June 9:
Given the demonstrated scientific evidence of damaging effects
that phthalates, lead and cadmium have on children's health,
products which contain these chemicals must be prohibited and/or
regulated as is outlined in the proposed amendments to the
Hazardous Products Act.
The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada indicated
support for the bill or for any initiative on the part of the
government to take action to prohibit the sale of any products
containing dangerously high levels of cadmium, phthalates and
lead.
The Canadian Child Care Federation has written expressing
concern for the safety of Canada's children. It said:
Legislation to protect children from exposure to toxic toys is a
necessary first step in providing a safe, healthy environment for
our children.
Let me also mention the contribution by the Canadian Association
of Physicians for the Environment which expressed support for the
legislation and urged us to be vigilant on the matter. I am sure
it would like to leave a message with the government to support
the bill or take immediate action.
We know the evidence from scientists. We know the concerns from
groups involved in ensuring health and well-being for our
children. Now it is time for action.
Some people would like us to believe that there are no
alternatives, but that is no longer a valid excuse. Alternatives
exist. We now know that while 80% of new toys on the market
contain plastic, only 4.5% of these use the type containing
phthalates. Substitutes are readily available.
Where does all this lead us? It leads us to acting. It leads
us to the political will to protect the health and safety of our
children. We have a consensus that we want to keep our children
as safe as possible. We have the most up to date independent
science available and children's advocates telling us that it is
time for urgent action. All that remains is for us to act
decisively. Is that not why we are here after all?
I want to emphasize to all members that the bill is before the
House as a constructive proposal. It is based on the principle
of doing no harm. It rejects the notion of allowing products on
the market, particularly products that are used and played with
by children, on the assumption that they have not been proven to
be harmful. We take the view on this side of the House, and I
believe members of all parties do the same, that it is incumbent
upon us as legislators, as members of the House, to ensure that
products which are played with and chewed on by children are safe
beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is why I presented to the House a bill which attempts to do
just that. Without legislative backup we will continue to muddle
along with piecemeal, after the fact voluntary warnings such as
the situation last fall when after finally testing selected
products Health Canada recognized a danger from phthalates and
issued a warning. That warning was so piecemeal and ad hoc that
it presented more confusion than actual assistance on this very
critical issue.
Other countries have taken action. I do not need to go into
great detail about the efforts of Denmark to ban products
containing lead or Austria that has banned products containing
cadmium. There is a solid record on the international front of
countries prepared to say that enough is enough.
1745
It should be noted that even some toy manufacturers have been
responsible in many parts of the country and the world for taking
action to remove products that contain these toxins and have
committed to producing all future toys using reliable and safe
alternatives.
Prompt action by our government, as well as protecting
children's health, would encourage an opportunity for the
fledgling Canadian toy industry to produce safe products that are
marketable worldwide to health conscious consumers. Continued
inaction risks turning Canada into the dumping ground for the
world's supply of toxic toys.
I urge all hon. members to give serious consideration to this
bill, to consider it a very constructive proposition for the
House, a very realistic way in which we can remove from children
any threat of risk pertaining to the very dangerous contact with
any kind of toxic carcinogenic material such cadmium, lead and
phthalates.
On that note, I look forward to the debate. I look forward to
the suggestions and hope that we can move forward.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on Private Members' Bill C-482, an act to amend the
Hazardous Products Act. This bill is intended to limit the
allowable limits of lead and cadmium in consumer products and
also ban outright the use of phthalates in products likely to be
used by children under the age of three.
I would like to digress for a minute to let members know that I
am a grandmother. I have four grandchildren, the youngest of
whom is just one year old. As all parents and grandparents with
young children and grandchildren, I believe it is very important
for us to be knowledgeable about these issues and always assure
everyone that our priority is the health and safety of Canadian
children.
I would like to focus on the issue of phthalates. In recent
years several organizations worldwide, including Health Canada,
have informed the public of the health risks associated with the
use of phthalates in products used by very young children. I
would like to take a moment to review some of the action already
taken before I speak directly to Bill C-482.
As members of parliament may recall, in November 1998 Health
Canada issued a warning to parents and caregivers regarding the
use of teethers, soothers and rattles containing phthalates.
Industry was asked to immediately stop the production and sale of
soft teething rings and rattles made of soft vinyl which included
phthalates. The success of this action led to the elimination of
a major source of exposure to phthalates for young children in
Canada.
For those people watching, phthalates is the chemical included
in some but not all soft vinyl products.
Health Canada is currently reviewing industry's response to a
voluntary phase-out of phthalates in toys and is examining new
scientific information which was not available in 1998.
As with other provisions within the bill concerning lead and
cadmium, Bill C-482 provides the government with an enforcement
mechanism for controlling the use of phthalates instead of
relying on voluntary measures. I want to point out that we
believe to this point in time that the voluntary measures have
been successful in dealing with an issue of concern for the
Government of Canada and of concern for all knowledgeable parents
and grandparents as well.
With respect to lead, Health Canada has initiated a lead
reduction strategy which will ensure that no lead is added in the
manufacture of products for children. As part of the strategy,
including not only extensive consultation but also scientific
research, it has been determined that the best indicator for
determining if lead has been added to a product is to set a
maximum level of 65 parts per million on a mass basis. With
respect to cadmium, its presence in the environment and in
consumer products is not as ubiquitous as it is in the case of
lead.
1750
The government could support Bill C-482 if it included the
following amendments: one, limit the scope of included products
from all products to products intended for use by children; two,
change the 15 parts per million total lead to 65 parts per
million total lead; three, limit the scope of the phthalate band
to teethers, rattles and other toys intended for children under
the age of 12 months and likely to be mouthed or chewed by them.
I would like to commend the member for Winnipeg North Centre for
her continuing interest in this very important public health
issue. I hope that all members of the House will consider the
issue carefully and support the amendments to Bill C-482 that I
have suggested.
It is my view that it is very important when we have these
discussions and debates that we not rely on rhetoric, that we not
engage in fearmongering, but that we rely on valid scientific
evidence. That is essential if we are to act in the public
interest, because our goal, which I believe is the goal of all
members of the House, as it is the goal of the Minister of
Health, Health Canada and this government, is to protect the
health and safety of Canadians, especially the health and safety
of Canadian children.
Canada is not alone in the world in its concern about product
safety, particularly product safety as it relates to toys,
rattles, teethers and the sort of thing that children chew on,
but when we draft legislation we want to ensure that legislation
will do the job in a way which will protect the interests of all
Canadians.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take this opportunity on behalf of the people of
Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-482.
The private member's bill being proposed by the NDP member of
parliament would prohibit the sale, advertisement and importation
of consumer products which contain a certain level of lead or
cadmium. This bill also seeks to ban toys used by children under
the age of three which contain phthalates.
This seems like a fair enough bill and I will support it. The
intention, the protection of our children's health, is a noble
cause. We commend the hon. member from the NDP for bringing this
matter before the House because the government does not and is
not going to bring these matters to the floor of the House of
Commons.
We know that the government has cut $23 billion from our health
care and education systems. While Canadians are trying to
protect the health of our children through efforts such as the
one we are debating today, the Liberals are working against us.
They are balancing the books of our federal government on the
backs of taxpayers. They are heavily taxing families with little
children. It is a wonder that young families even have the money
to purchase these toys which may harm the health of their
children.
The health critic for the official opposition over the years has
met many times with the Canadian Toy Manufacturers' Association,
the Vinyl Council of Canada, Irwin Toys and many other groups and
individuals concerned about this matter.
It is indeed a matter of great concern when we hear that toys
may contain toxins or dangerous chemicals. We have all seen
little children with plastic toys in their mouths or in contact
with their skin.
In October 1997 the health protection branch of Health Canada
released a report on its investigation into lead and cadmium in
certain vinyl toys and other consumer products. The government
has done absolutely nothing about establishing guidelines as a
result of that report. In fact the Liberal majority on the other
side of the House even voted down a private member's bill
requiring warning labels to be placed on PVC toys.
The report dismissed the risk posed by lead and cadmium. This
was met with charges that the report was a disservice to the
Canadian people. The branch has yet to release a report on the
risks posed by phthalates which it promised. Canadians are still
waiting for the report.
On the other hand, Denmark, Austria and Sweden are countries
that have banned phthalates in infant toys. The U.S. government,
our neighbour, has told manufacturers to eliminate the use of
lead that may be accessible to children.
1755
Canada has no limits on phthalates, lead or cadmium in plastic
consumer products. The Liberals are allowing our nation to be an
international dumping ground for these toxic, hazardous and
dangerous toys, as well as other products.
The Liberals have allowed us to be a dumping ground for
terrorists and other violent offenders because they have refused
to fix our flawed, broken immigration and refugee system.
The Liberals have caused British Columbia, where I come from, to
not only become a dumping ground but a distribution point and a
clearing house for child pornography because they have refused to
support our laws concerning the possession of child pornography.
The Liberals have also caused British Columbia, particularly the
lower mainland area of Vancouver, including my home town of
Surrey, to become a dumping ground for international drug dealers
and cartels which send bogus refugees to our area to sell drugs
to our children or smuggle themselves or drugs into the U.S.
Our solicitor general leaves our RCMP, which has its largest
detachment in Surrey, underfunded and understaffed. In Surrey we
have only four police officers patrolling the border between the
U.S. and Canada. Our police officers must handle problems
associated with a major port of entry along with their domestic
policing duties.
We are waiting for a review from the solicitor general on our
RCMP service, just like we are waiting for a report from the
government on the risks posed by phthalates.
On behalf of my constituents I am tempted to support the bill,
for no other reason than I can sympathize with the frustration of
the NDP member, who sits with me on the health committee, who is
trying to do some work and instead gets stonewalled by the
Liberal government.
Some Canadians cannot wait for the Liberals. Hepatitis C
victims are dying while fighting the Liberal government in court.
They cannot wait. The Liberal health minister tried to close the
file and ignore the conclusion of a royal commission on tainted
blood which recommended compensating every person affected by
federally controlled tainted blood.
There have been accusations about the toxic level and the safety
of certain toys. The problem is in making sure that we are not
hearing spurious representations on the danger of toys. We must
be sure that the problem actually exists and is rampant to the
extent that we have to take legislative action.
I have heard that some claims are not so accurate. One
complaint declared that a child teething on a particular toy was
actually at risk from material in the plastic of the toy because
of dangerous and hazardous chemicals. I then heard that science
proved that the child would have to have the toy in its mouth
constantly for years to suffer any bad effects. On the other
hand, in the research I have done concerning this bill, one
manufacturer maintained that a child would have to have a toy in
its mouth for three hours before it would suffer a health hazard.
All parents, and I am also a parent, know that it is easy for a
child to have a toy in its mouth for three hours. The toy is
even more likely to be in contact with the skin. It is not as
though the child has a full time job, goes somewhere and does not
have time to put these toys in its mouth.
We need good scientific studies to be accurate about what toys
and which chemicals are threatening the health of our children.
We have two sides of the spectrum. The onus is on the accuser
to provide evidence of the harmful effect of anything; all of
those hazardous chemicals and products that we are talking about.
The accusers need to have strong scientific evidence. Canadians
need to see independent, peer reviewed, double-blind studies
which clearly conclude that something is harmful.
The health minister should have the health protection branch do
the report on phthalates. We cannot rely on the studies
performed by the manufacturers which declare their toys safe.
It would be like relying on the fox to mind the chicken coop.
1800
During my research for today's debate I found a toll free
telephone number to be used by parents who want to check out the
PVC safety of their children's toys. The health minister has
shut down that toll free number. The service was only set up to
run during the big PVC toy scare of 1997. Now the government
acts as it if all went away and nothing happened.
As a result of all the shenanigans—did I say Shawinigans—that
I have encountered while preparing for today's debate, I will
support the bill on behalf of the parents, the children who are
defenceless, and all consumers of plastic products in Surrey
Central. My heart goes out to the private member who introduced
the bill and fought hard to bring it forth. The weak, arrogant
Liberal government has refused to do it.
I know how difficult it is to work with the arrogant, weak
Liberal government which has absolutely no vision of where it is
going. It is not trying to do anything to protect health and
education.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among the House leaders of all parties and I would like to seek
consent to put the following motion to the House:
That Bill C-84, an act to correct certain anomalies,
inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a
non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of
Canada and to repeal certain acts that have ceased to have
effect, be deemed to have been read a second time, considered in
and reported from a committee of the whole, concurred in at
report stage and read a third time and passed;
That the House continue to sit between 6.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
this day to consider Government Orders and that adjournment
proceedings be taken at 8.30 p.m., provided that during that time
the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions;
and
That Bill C-82, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired
driving and related matters), shall be disposed of as follows:
(i) the question shall be put for disposal of the second reading
stage after one or two members from each recognized party has
spoken for a period of not more than twenty minutes per party;
(ii) after being read a second time, the bill shall be referred
to a committee of the whole and it shall be an instruction to the
said committee of the whole (a) to amend the bill by deleting
section (2) of clause 3 and (b) to permit one Member from the
Bloc Quebecois to propose an amendment and to dispose of the said
amendment, provided that the committee shall report the bill
after not more than fifteen minutes consideration;
(iii) immediately upon being reported from the committee of the
whole, the said bill shall be considered at the report stage and
at the third reading stage without debate or amendment.
And that any time left between that time and 8.30 p.m. shall be
utilized for consideration of Bill C-55.
1805
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I have a question I would like to ask
of the government House leader for the assistance of the Chair.
In the debate on second reading of Bill C-82 there will be 20
minutes per party, which presumably could be divided into two 10
minute periods, but there will be no questions or comments on any
debate and there will be no 40 minute speeches. Is that correct?
Hon. Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to clarify that for the
House. 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)
* * *
[Translation]
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-482, an
act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
explain the position of the Bloc Quebecois with respect to Bill
C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.
I congratulate and thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre
for raising this issue once again in this House on behalf of her
party. We want to tell her that we support her bill.
This bill is intended to prohibit the advertisement and
importation of consumer products that contain a certain level of
lead or cadmium, unless they are excluded by regulation. It also
bans the advertisement and importation of toys containing
phthalates and intended for children under the age of three.
Members will agree with me that we do not hear about phthalates
every day, and yet we are probably in contact with them
almost daily.
Phthalates are chemical agents representing a family of
synthetic compounds used in polyvinyl chloride or vinyl,
commonly know as PVCs. For example, we can think of plastic
covers, food wrap, furniture, floor coverings, plastic bottles,
knapsacks, raincoats and so on, all seemingly very innocent to
us.
What is of concern to us today are the properties of this
product used in toys for children to make them more flexible,
softer and transparent.
Phthalates are often used in the manufacture of toys intended
for newborns, such as pacifiers, teething rings, rattles, and
other soft objects intended to be gummed and sucked by babies.
Most of these toys for children contain between 10% and 40%
phthalates.
The risk to health that these toys pose is easy to understand.
Phthalates do not bind to polyvinyl chloride or vinyl, which are
the toys basic material. Phthalates remain mobile, in
suspension, and may separate from the PVCs. When a child chews
on toys, for example, the phthalates may escape. Young children
could therefore directly ingest phthlates.
As for cadmium and lead, a Health Canada study released last
year concluded, and I quote:
Both lead and cadmium are toxic substances that are hazardous to
the health and safety of children. Lead is especially hazardous
to children's health. The latest medical and scientific research
has shown that exposure to even very low levels of lead may have
harmful effects on the intellectual and behavioural development
of infants and young children.
1810
In this same study, Health Canada went on to state that the
levels of lead in certain toys far exceeded what they should be.
It could well have added, and rightly so, that lead can damage
the nervous system. Lead is known to be neurotoxic, and has the
capacity to cause permanent, irreversible brain damage.
One might argue that there are regulations on lead, which is
true. However these apply only to paint, ceramic or glass
products, pencils, crayons and artist brushes. The Canadian
government's altruism has led it to regulate paint more
stringently than children's toys.
In response to a question from my colleague from Drummond last
November 16, the Minister of Health stated here in this House:
Today as a precautionary measure Health Canada announced as a
warning to all parents that they should remove from the home
certain objects that are made of vinyl and that are used or
designed for use in the mouth of infants and young children. We
are co-operating with the Retail Council of Canada to remove
those objects from the shelves of stores across the country.
We know that Austria, Sweden and Denmark are much stricter and
have already regulated children's products, because they felt
that children's health required more than a simple warning from
the health department.
There is still more, however.
PVC containing lead, cadmium and phthalates is used not only in
toys, but also in the manufacture of medical devices. However,
we feel that, even though scientists are divided on the real
impact of using phthalates, we cannot take risks with the health
of Quebecers and Canadians, particularly children.
The government has a responsibility, and that responsibility is
not to sidestep the issue and attempt to discredit people
concerned about these issues, but to ensure that all the
scientific evidence is provided and that medical products and
toys are safe.
In 1998, for instance, Health Canada investigated intravenous
transfusion and injections bags that gave off phthalates. The
department's conclusions were cause for concern.
Health Canada has announced that the benefits of the current use
of phthalates in transfusion bags outweighed the risks that
might be associated with exposure to this product.
This is a far cry from scientific evidence that the product is
safe and risk free. Health Canada is merely saying that the
risks to health of transfusion bags are not as great as the
product's benefits. The benefits would outweigh the risks, but
Health Canada admits that risks do exist.
In fact, phthalates used in medical products would be even more
toxic than those used in children's toys. According to Health
Canada, phthalates used in intravenous transfusion and injection
bags would be six times more toxic than those used in toys.
Is it not ironic that in Canada phthalates are labelled as
hazardous products when they are to be shipped in barrels, but
considered totally harmless and even edible when they are in the
mouths of our children or in the veins of our patients? Let us
be clear. Phthalates are as harmful in the hospital and in the
home as they are in barrels.
While the Liberal government is twiddling its thumbs, the
private sector seems to have engaged, although very partially,
in a self-regulation process. Baxter International, a major
manufacturer of IV bags, is in the process of replacing PVC in
its products. Nike, Deutche Telekom, Ikea and LEGO have all
adopted plans to gradually reduce the amount of PVC in their
products.
1815
The world's largest toy manufacturer, the American company
Mattel, is doing the same thing. I refuse to believe that all
these companies are taking these measures because phthalates are
harmless.
Would these companies, and many others, have scientific
evidence that Health Canada does not have? Should we let less
scrupulous companies fall through the cracks?
On April 30, 1998 the Liberals used their majority in the House
to defeat a motion requiring that manufacturers indicate on the
label when toys contain phthalates.
Knowing that young children are a lot more likely to be affected
by toxic substances than adults and knowing how lead, cadmium
and phthalates can be hazardous to our health, one can see how
the government is being totally irresponsible.
It is high time the government started to take this issue
seriously and modernize its legislation on phthalates, lead and
cadmium.
With this bill, we are calling on the government to be
proactive. It is a government's role and duty when it comes to
public health. Will the government wait for tragedies to occur
before taking action?
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
With Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, she
is telling us that government should always err on the side of
caution. That is what this bill is about. We have heard members
of the House talk about the present difficulties with high levels
of lead, cadmium and phthalates in some of the toys and even
medical devices being used in today's society. The member has
directed her bill primarily at young children.
When talking about lead and cadmium, we are not talking about a
very high exposure having a detrimental effect on children. A
very low level of exposure can seriously interrupt intellectual
and behavioural development in infants and young children. It is
in our best interests that we consider anything within our power
in the House to limit the exposure of those products to young
children. That is exactly what the bill does.
I want to focus on two or three of the main points in her bill.
It would prohibit anyone from advertising, selling or importing
the following: any toy, equipment or product made with
phthalates that is likely to be used by a child under three years
of age in learning or in play; any consumer product that contains
more than 15 parts per million weight to weight of lead; and any
consumer product that contains more than one part per million
weight to weight of cadmium. Again we are talking about very low
levels, but enough to harm the intellectual development of a
child. It does not take very much to hurt a young child.
I am not sure if it is enough for the member but the government
in its generosity at least is looking at some movement on this
issue. In somewhat of an unusual move, the parliamentary
secretary suggested three amendments to the bill that might
entice the government to support it.
I want to go through those because they are worth consideration.
1820
The parliamentary secretary mentioned three amendments to the
bill. One was to limit the scope of included products from all
products to products intended for use by children. Another was
to change the 15 parts per million total to 65 parts per million
of lead.
It is interesting to note that the European standard for this is
90 parts per million for extractable lead and 75 parts per
million for extractable cadmium. The key word is extractable.
Many products could contain levels above that, but is that lead
extractable from that very product.
Mr. Speaker, I would say you would be high risk because watching
you in the chair, I often notice you chewing on that plastic pen,
almost devouring it from time to time. It is a habit, Mr.
Speaker, you are going to have to break because you are going to
exceed the limits.
The key to this whole thing is extractable. I suppose we could
say that children would be safe if they did not eat the toys, but
who knows. The scientific evidence is not clear enough to
determine whether or not that is being extracted and there is no
question they are being exposed to high levels.
The third amendment the parliamentary secretary suggested was to
limit the scope of the phthalate ban. Phthalate is a plasticizer
in layman's terms. It is a product that actually makes plastic
pliable. So when you devour those plastic pens, Mr. Speaker,
with a little more phthalate in them they would be easier to
digest.
We are hoping the member may consider these amendments because
they are interesting. And at least it shows some movement on the
side of the government.
The suggestion was to limit the scope of the phthalate ban to
teethers, rattles and other toys intended for children under the
age of 12 months and likely to be mouthed or chewed by children.
The other point which I think is worth mentioning is that the
bill would not affect uses of lead and cadmium in industrial
products or equipment, or phthalate used in consumer products not
designed for children under the age of three, an important
distinction. The member's bill also provides for consumer
products with lead and cadmium content to be excluded from the
bill by regulation so as not to ban legitimate use of products
that are unlikely to harm children.
It is a very commendable bill. I encourage the member to work
with the government. At the end of the day every one of us on
this side of the House can and will support this bill. However,
if we do not have the majority of the members in the House and
that means the government supporting it, we know what will happen
to the bill. The parliamentary secretary has left the door open
just a little bit and I am encouraged by that.
I am encouraged by the member's bill. She has put a lot of work
into it. As a party we are prepared to support it. I have a
little bit of advice for the member. Knowing that a private
member's bill can meet sudden death when it comes to opposition
by the government, I am hoping that in some way she can pick up
these negotiations with the government and find some common
ground so that the basis of the bill can be passed by the House.
On the basis of what we see before us now, we are prepared as a
party to support it.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that when
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks, she will close
the debate.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members who
participated in today's discussion on Bill C-482, in particular
the support from the members for Surrey Central, Laval East and
New Brunswick Southwest.
1825
I also want to put on record my thanks to the organizations that
have been vigilant on this topic. They have performed a valuable
public service by raising the concerns around children's health
and well-being as it relates to access to toys that contain
fairly high levels of cadmium, lead and phthalates. I want to
acknowledge the work of the Canadian Institute of Child Health,
the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Greenpeace, the
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the
Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs and the Canadian
Child Care Federation.
I listened carefully to the words of the parliamentary
secretary. I also listened to the words of advice from the
member for New Brunswick Southwest. I will certainly give the
amendments serious consideration once I have read them.
At first blush and on hearing the proposed amendments by the
parliamentary secretary, I have to express an initial
disappointment over the proposals. In my estimation the
amendments being proposed drastically gut the purpose of this
bill. In fact they allow the government to continue its approach
of what I classify as one of inaction, of voluntary regulation,
of the waiting for someone to get sick or die approach.
I do not find the suggestions particularly helpful. The
reference to changing the levels of lead from 15 to 65 parts per
million flies in the face of significant scientific evidence
about what is a safe level in terms of toys played with by
children. The suggestion of limiting this to children under the
age of 12 months and making restrictions in terms of teethers and
rattles in my estimation does not take us any further than where
we are right now.
I wish one could use props in the House so I could demonstrate
just what it means for a child to have access to products that
would not fall under the definition as proposed by the
parliamentary secretary. I wish I could bring in the backpack
which contains 321 parts per million of lead and 654 parts per
million of cadmium that would not fall under the minister's
definition. The department will tell her that we are not talking
about extractable lead.
I wish she could understand that a backpack like that would be
out in the hot sun. It could be placed in a hot car. It would
always be put in the mouth of a child. I have seen my children
do it. I wish I could show the member how my 10 year old son
will always put in his mouth the Sega Genesis cable that is part
of a toy he plays with which has over 5,000 parts per million of
lead.
We are talking about serious incidents of those toxins in toy
products that do not but should fall under the minister's
definition. We have to adopt a do no harm principle, not allow
products on the market and only react if something tragic
happens.
The purpose of this bill is to call upon the government to do
something far more proactive in the interest of children's
health.
I assume from the parliamentary secretary's remarks that she
will not support this bill. I urge her to look at it more
seriously and to recommend to her government that it be
considered in a serious way. I think that Canadians want to see
a government play that kind of proactive role.
We are dealing with such a fundamental issue involving the
health and well-being of children. Since there is obviously an
interest on the part of members in the House and a deep concern
from all parties and still a lack of indication from the
government that it is willing to act, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to make this bill votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
bill be made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1830
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-82, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving
and related matters), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment all House leaders for having arrived at a decision to
expedite through the House as quickly as possible a very
important piece of legislation.
A unanimous report was presented to the House by a committee.
This is the first time, in my experience as a parliamentarian, a
committee had the opportunity to draft a piece of legislation.
I know I am the parliamentary secretary to the minister, but I
compliment the minister and the government for having had the
vision to make this bill drafted by parliamentarians of all
political parties in the justice committee into government
legislation.
I also congratulate all members of the justice committee. I am
one of the members, but I want to say that the level of
co-operation and collaboration was of very high calibre. I thank
all members for their collaboration and co-operation. We worked
together to do something which all Canadians wanted us to do.
They want us to stop the carnage that is taking place from coast
to coast in Canada and to stop what we believe is a scourge on
society.
Bill C-82 implements the spirit and the intent of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights as expressed in the draft
bill appended to its 21st report entitled “Toward Eliminating
Impaired Driving”. The report was tabled on May 25, 1999 in the
House of Commons.
The Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-82 on June 7. Taken as a
whole, the bill confirms for the vast majority of Canadians who
never drive while impaired the wisdom of their choice. It also
sends a very important message that impaired driving is an
avoidable criminal act which carries unacceptable risks of injury
and death.
If one is convicted of an impaired driving offence, the criminal
law consequences will be onerous. When we also consider legal
costs, insurance costs and provincial measures, no one should
entertain the thought of drinking and driving. For anyone who
has not yet figured this out, the introduction of Bill C-82
signals that the time has come for major attitude adjustments.
Since 1981, the year in which impaired driving charges peaked,
very significant progress on drinking and driving has occurred
through the combined efforts of governments and public and
private organizations. I especially single out the hard work of
MADD in Canada and congratulate it on the educational role it has
played in informing all of us. Families have also had important
roles to play as have individuals who have lived this tragedy.
This needs to continue and the report of the justice committee
reflects that.
Criminal law is an important tool with which a combination of
efforts is needed to make further progress on impaired driving.
Where the criminal law can be improved, it must be. The measures
found in Bill C-82 will assist in the battle against impaired
driving. However, it is important to stress that only through a
combination of criminal and non-criminal measures will we
eradicate impaired driving in Canada.
Canadian Centre for Justice statistics indicate that impaired
driving offences have the highest conviction rate of any Criminal
Code offence at about 80%. However, as recent surveys by the
Traffic Injury Research Foundation have indicated, it takes 200
impaired driving trips to result in one impaired driving charge.
Obviously much impaired driving crime goes unreported and
undetected.
While the general public believes that the risk of apprehension
for impaired driving is relatively high, the hard core impaired
drivers by comparison do not share this belief.
1835
Experts in the field warn that impaired driving legislation must
be accompanied by other efforts such as public information and
increased visibility for police enforcement of impaired driving
laws in order for legislative change to have its maximum impact.
While estimates vary, it appears that there were some 1,300
deaths due to impaired driving in 1997. Information from the
Traffic Injury Research Foundation study in Ontario suggested
impaired drivers comprised 55% of the fatalities from impaired
driving.
The Canadian Centre for Justice statistics note that 90% of impaired
drivers are male, which is similar to the gender representation
in crime generally. Not surprisingly the vast majority of
fatally injured impaired drivers are males.
The 1999 report by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
indicated that in each of the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 more than
80% of the impaired driving deaths in British Columbia were
comprised of impaired drivers and their passengers. The
remaining fatalities were other road users in motorized vehicles,
on bicycles, or on foot.
Across Canada impaired drivers are playing Russian roulette, and
they are killing themselves, their passengers and other road
users. That is unacceptable to the government and to all members
of parliament.
The message in the standing committee's report and in Bill C-82
is that Canadian society will not tolerate impaired driving.
[Translation]
Like the bill drafted by the committee, Bill C-82 comprises eight
amendments relating to sentences contained in the Criminal Code
and one amendment on investigations relating to impaired driving
charges.
Together, the changes to sentences strengthen the message that
impaired driving will not be tolerated. Bill C-82 increases the
dissuasive powers of penalties, ensuring that impaired driving
penalties reflect the serious nature of the offence.
[English]
Among its penalty changes Bill C-82 includes changes for two
crimes which are sometimes directly related to impaired driving.
The first is the offence of leaving the scene of an accident to
escape civil or criminal liability. Bill C-82 would amend this
provision to add the elements of bodily harm and death, which
would increase the gravity of the offence. That in turn should
signal to the courts that more severe sentences are required.
The bill that was appended to the standing committee's report on
impaired driving had the unfortunate effect of requiring the
crown to prove that the offence of leaving the scene caused
bodily harm or death. As we now recognize, it is not the leaving
that causes the injury or death. It is rather the collision or
the crash itself.
The new formulation in Bill C-82 preserves the intent of the
committee. Three levels of leaving the scene are created. Each
contains different essential elements. Under subsection 252(1.1)
a person who leaves the scene of an accident where the damage
does not amount to bodily harm or death will be liable where the
crown proceeds by indictment to five years imprisonment or to an
offence punishable upon summary conviction.
Under subsection (1.2), where the person knows that bodily harm
has been caused to another person involved in the accident the
offence is indictable and punishable by a maximum of 10 years
imprisonment.
Subsection (1.3) in part reads:
(a) the person knows that another person involved in the accident
is dead; or
(b) the person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another
person involved in the accident and is reckless as to whether the
death of that other person results from that bodily harm, and the
death of that other person so results.
The maximum penalty under Bill C-82 is life imprisonment. To
the extent that penalties can discourage those who might leave an
accident in order to evade getting caught for impaired driving,
the changes to the offence of leaving the scene will send the
message that running away from a collision where someone is
injured or killed is egregious behaviour that carries a serious
penalty.
Driving while disqualified is the other offence that is
sometimes related to impaired driving. The original
disqualification could be in relation to an impaired driving
offence and sometimes the person driving while disqualified is
also driving while impaired.
The driving while disqualified offence is found in subsection
259(4) of the Criminal Code.
At present the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment.
1840
Bill C-82 follows the committee's recommendation in raising the
maximum penalty to five years imprisonment. This will allow
judges to deal more severely with the worst offenders and the
worst circumstances. It will be an incentive to persons who are
disqualified from driving to abide by that disqualification,
including those who were originally disqualified for an impaired
driving offence.
The remaining six penalty changes in Bill C-82 would amend the
impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. Prior to 1985
in a drinking and driving case where there was a death the crown
had to prosecute under the criminal negligence causing death or
the manslaughter provisions of the code. In both cases the
maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
In 1985 parliament added the offences of impaired driving
causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death to the
Criminal Code, with maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment
where the result is death and 10 years imprisonment where bodily
harm is caused.
Bill C-82 would raise the maximum penalty in subsection 255(3)
for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to
life imprisonment. This provision has become quite
controversial. It is the government's intention to deal
immediately with those parts of Bill C-82 that did not arouse
controversy and to place this controversial provision in a future
bill. There has been all party agreement to that effect.
[Translation]
The minimum fine for a first impaired driving offence, that is,
for driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 80 mg, or
refusing to provide a sample, would increase from $300 to $600.
The minimum fine was raised from $50 to $300 back in 1985. It
is therefore quite acceptable for this bill to increase it.
There was a consensus on this by all members of the committee.
[English]
Bill C-82 will add a new provision after section 255 to specify
that a judge must consider evidence of a blood alcohol
concentration that exceeds 80 milligrams as an aggravating factor
when sentencing for criminal offences dealing with impaired
driving.
This provision will codify what many sentencing judges already
do in practice, but it will bring uniformity in setting the point
at which a sentencing judge looks at a BAC as an aggravating
factor. This is a key aspect of the message that impaired
driving will not be tolerated.
Another strong message is being sent by Bill C-82 to impaired
drivers. If convicted of an impaired driving offence, whether it
be driving while impaired, driving with a BAC that exceeds 80
milligrams, or refusing to provide a breath or blood sample, the
person will be prohibited from driving anywhere in Canada.
The bill raised the present minimum driving prohibition on the
first conviction from three months and makes it a one year
minimum. The maximum prohibition on the first offence will
remain three years.
On the first conviction only there will be a possibility to
replace part of the driving prohibition, where a provincial
program for an ignition interlock device exists, with the use of
an ignition interlock device by the offender, something that does
exist in the province I represent, Quebec. The device would
render a vehicle inoperable unless the breath sample on the
vehicle mounted testing device gave a pass reading.
On a second conviction Bill C-82 raises the minimum driving
prohibition from six months to two years, with the maximum being
raised from three years to five years. On a subsequent offence
the minimum driving prohibition goes up from one year to three
years. As for the maximum driving prohibition for those
subsequent offenders, it would rise from three years to a
lifetime ban.
These driving prohibition provisions are sanctions that will
make an impression—and all members of the justice committee were
in agreement—on every person found guilty of impaired driving.
Experts in the field have indicated that driving privilege
consequences, along with the treatment for harmful involvement
with alcohol, are very important in reducing the incidence of
impaired driving.
1845
The standing committee has recognized the importance of the
driving prohibition and has recommended these very significant
increases. Bill C-82 implements the recommendations of the
standing committee.
The standing committee also recognized that the sanction for
driving while prohibited needs to be sufficient to deter
prohibited drivers from ignoring the prohibition from driving.
Where an offender has a driving prohibition order and breaches
that order the maximum period of imprisonment under subsection
259(4) of the Criminal Code for driving while disqualified will
be raised from two to five years by Bill C-82.
The Traffic Injury Research Foundation indicates that a small
percentage of drivers is responsible for the large majority of
impaired driving in Canada. The hard core drinking drivers
operate their vehicles with a very high blood alcohol
concentration or BAC level, or they repeatedly commit impaired
driving offences. These individuals are very difficult to reach.
We heard a lot of testimony before committee to that effect.
A defence lawyer appearing as a witness before the standing
committee pointed out that the public is only protected from
certain of these hard core impaired drivers by a period of
lengthy incarceration. Others may respond to treatment and
driving consequences.
Bill C-82 further specifies that a judge may make a probation
order requiring a person convicted of impaired driving to attend
a program for assessment and curative treatment related to
alcohol or drugs. Experts who testified before the standing
committee stated that the literature shows that curative
treatment may be more important than penalties in altering the
behaviour of hard core impaired drivers. We have highly
recommended that in our report.
The bill also specifies that a judge may make a probation order
requiring a person convicted of an impaired driving offence to
use an ignition interlock device, something that is done
routinely in the province of Quebec. This type of order may be
made in a province where the provincial government has
established, as has Quebec, a program for the use of ignition
interlock devices.
A Traffic Injury Research Foundation study of the Alberta
experience indicated that ignition interlock use significantly
reduced reoffending and increased the survivability of those who
were enrolled in the ignition interlock program over the study
period when compared with convicted impaired drivers who did not
use this device.
Canadians agree that impaired driving should be condemned. The
standing committee has presented with its report a draft bill
that clearly says impaired driving will not be tolerated in
Canada. Bill C-82 delivers this message. The criminal law is
society's strongest sanction against behaviour that society is
unwilling and unable to accept.
I wish to thank all members of the justice committee for having
worked very hard to arrive at a unanimous report and to come
before the House to present draft legislation. I applaud the
Minister of Justice and the government for having decided to
adopt it as government legislation under Government Orders.
I wish to thank MADD and the other organizations which came
before our committee for their testimony and their hard work. I
want them to know that we all listened and we all acted on what
we were asked to do as parliamentarians.
I want to tell all Canadians that this government would like to
see zero tolerance on our streets, that there be no Canadians who
choose to drink and drive and end up killing other Canadians.
That is the message this bill wants to reflect. We also want to
reflect Canadians' condemnation of a very serious crime in this
country.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I very much appreciate the words of the parliamentary secretary.
I would like to correct something. I am not quite sure what she
means by zero tolerance. There is a different connotation in
this country of what zero tolerance means.
1850
I suppose we will all stand to take a bit of credit for this
measure. I wish to start, as I do in all discussions concerning
drunk driving, by saying that whatever I say is in memory of my
niece Sheena who was murdered by a drunk driver, and also another
niece, Christa, who is at home suffering permanent brain damage
as a result of a drunk driver who disabled her when she was 24
years old. That was three years ago. This has not escaped my
family.
That being said, I too congratulate many people in the country
who have persevered in their attempts to change the drunk driving
legislation. It has not gone as far as some would like.
However, I am positive enough about this system, and a believer
in this system, to know that regardless of what government is in
the House of Commons changes will be forthcoming to this
legislation in the future to reflect at least where victims of
drunk drivers insist we head.
I can recall at the justice committee hearing the testimony of
Sharlene Verhulst, whose sister Cindy who was murdered by a drunk
driver, as well as Ken Roffel, whose son was murdered by a drunk
driver. I will read a bit of the testimony which Ken gave to
give members an idea of why we have to go on from here.
The Reform Party brought this to the House on an opposition day
on October 30, 1997. We had been pushing for this since February
29, 1996. I am not here to take credit for the impetus of this
bill, although the impetus did come from our party, but it is
important to say to all members of the House that we all
participated and we did what was right.
It was not too long ago when we stood in the House to pass a
bill concerning something very near and dear to my heart, victims
rights. I wrote that legislation in 1994. It took a long time
to get it done, but it got done. It is incumbent upon parliament
not to rush things but to consider things in detail and that is
what committees are for.
I am sharing my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville.
One of the things that is left undone is the issue of blood
alcohol content. I think that is for another day. When the hon.
parliamentary secretary talks about zero tolerance, I think that
is what many people relate zero tolerance to, blood alcohol
content, whether it should be .08 and so forth.
While that is not in this bill, I think there is room. We will
be back in the House talking about this eventually, but right now
we have to celebrate to some extent our perseverance, even
through late hour negotiations, as late as last night when we
thought this issue was dead and would not come to the House of
Commons.
We all persevered. My colleague, the House leader for the
Conservative Party, was as concerned as we were, as was the
parliamentary secretary for the Liberals. All of us were
concerned that we had to do the right thing now and that we would
worry about other things later, and we will deal with the issue
of life imprisonment in the fall.
I also agree with my hon. colleague across the way that impaired
drivers must get the message that impaired driving will not be
tolerated. That is an important message. Impaired drivers
willingly and knowingly drive impaired. It is not a mistake when
impaired drivers get behind the wheel. It is not a plot to drive
impaired. They become drunk and they drive. It is a wilful act.
When members hear me call it murder, it is murder in my mind. I
am not the only one who says that. That is something that a
young lady told me. She wanted me to change my phraseology as to
whether it was an accident or murder.
She convinced me that it is murder and that is why I refer to it
as that.
1855
A gentleman by the name of Ken Roffel is listening to this
debate. He comes from the lower mainland of British Columbia.
He is a friend of mine. He became a friend after I was involved
in trying to help him go across Canada to convince people about
zero tolerance.
I want the House to know just how Ken feels about what has
happened in his life and I also want the House to know, after
listening to what I have to read, which came from Ken
unsolicited, that there are things left to be done. The justice
system, the legal industry, has to understand how severe drunk
driving is. I want to read this letter to the House.
On March 13th 1996 a drunk driver with a blood alcohol level
double the legal limit killed our oldest son Mark William Roffel.
On Friday April 23rd 1999 three years later the Judge handed a
not guilty verdict to Dangerous Driving Causing Death to Todd
Minich the driver of the vehicle that killed Mark. This driver
had also testified to an earlier alcohol related accident that
very same day.
That evening at the hospital March 13th 1996, the RCMP took a
blood sample from Mr. Minich and forgot to read him his rights.
That one single mistake by the RCMP changed the outcome of the
trial. Mr. Minich should have been charged with Impaired causing
death under the Criminal Code of Canada instead of Dangerous
Driving Causing Death.
At the trial witnesses came forward describing how Mr. Minich
had driven them off the road, how he went through a stop sign on
232nd in Langley and how minutes later they came across the
carnage caused by Mr. Minich. The Crown had done an excellent
job in presenting the evidence collected to show that Mr. Minich
had driven dangerously and caused the death of Mark.
The Judge in his final statements said “no reasonable person
would do this and Mr. Minich appears to be a reasonable person”
end of quote.
We were shocked at his remarks. There was a fatality here with
the death of Mark....The Law failed Mark on March 13th 1996 by
not keeping Mr. Minich off the roads due to his past criminal
record and activities.
On April 23rd 1999 the Law failed my family and other Canadians
when it failed to convict Mr. Minich of causing Mark's death.
As you know we have always taken the high road—
—and I can assure the House of that—
—and tried to turn a negative into a positive. The outcome of
the trial means that we will continue to work toward a Zero
Tolerance goal for Canada with no drinking and driving...
Nothing can be more devastating than the call we received at
10:05 p.m. on March 13th 1996 informing us of Mark's death.
I wanted to read that into the record this evening because I
think it speaks a lot to what I am saying about the future of
drunk driving in this country.
We have come some way. I believe we have further to go. I
believe the judiciary, the lawyers in our country, have to
understand that this is indeed a much more serious issue than
just plain drunk driving.
In conclusion, the Reform Party tabled this motion in the House
of Commons. We got unanimous consent and I am very thankful to
the House and all members for that. I am deeply appreciative of
all those people who are victims of drunk drivers who have come
before the House to tell us about their very difficult situation.
I am also saying to the House of Commons that there is a way to
go yet. We are not through with this. We will be back. That is
the process of democracy in this country.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last year impaired driving caused 1,300 deaths in Canada
and 90,000 injuries, in one year. It is astounding the evidence
and the gravity of the situation.
The law, up to now, has been lax on the offence. It is time to
act and time to send a message to those who drink and drive. I
see the message contained in Bill C-82, as we are debating it
here tonight: If we get caught we will not beat the charge. It
will cost us a lot of money and we may go to prison for life.
That is the message we want to go out from this Chamber.
1900
It took a long time to get to this point, and the justice
committee should be commended for getting the bill to parliament.
I realize we, as Reformers, have been pushing this for quite
some time, but it took many other people co-operating to get the
bill to this point in the House and hopefully passed before we
break for summer.
What are we getting in Bill C-82? Right off the top, we are
finally treating impaired drivers like anyone else who kills
somebody. Impaired driving causing death would now face life
imprisonment just like manslaughter rather than the current 14
year prison term. What is wrong with that? It is manslaughter
and the weapon of choice has been too much of the bottle, too
much alcohol and then getting into a two tonne vehicle, which is
a deadly weapon, driving it with abandon and with no concern for
human life.
It is time to send a message that society will not tolerate this
behaviour. If we offend, we will pay a heavy price. Impaired
driving is not funny or acceptable in our civilized society.
If we look at the experience of other countries, when they got
tough the negative results of impaired driving declined
dramatically.
As well, we have in Bill C-82 a new maximum 10 year jail term
for causing bodily harm while driving impaired. This puts some
teeth into the act and is another signal to offenders that their
behaviour has consequences, not just a slap on the wrist.
Bill C-82 will double the mandatory minimum fine for a first
impaired driving offence to $600 from $300. The Reform Party is
still of the persuasion that this is not enough and our minority
report called for a fine of $1,000 for the first offence.
However, we are moving in the right direction and that is why we
are supporting the bill. Let drunk drivers know we are serious.
Bill C-82 imposes longer prohibitions on driving for those
convicted of impaired driving. First time offenders would be
banned from driving for up to three years, up from the current
pathetic three month ban, which did nothing to deter repeaters. A
second conviction for this behaviour could net the offender a
five year prohibition, and a third time repeated would get a
minimum of three years. The maximum disqualification for
repeaters would be five years and this sends a signal to them.
Currently the maximum is only two years.
Bill C-82 gives police some tools to deal with that. Up until
now it was an easy rap to beat. Police now have up to three
hours to take a breath sample after a suspected impaired driving
offence. Currently, samples can only be taken up to two hours.
The Reform Party would also argue for the police to be given
tools like the new alcohol sensors which give them a better
chance of determining impairment. This also would send a message
to those who drink and drive that their odds of getting caught
are better.
Like my colleague just before me, I believe that some of these
things that still need to be improved in the bill will hopefully
happen in the future.
Bill C-82 would give judges some further discretion. Judges can
now impose ignition locking systems as a condition of probation.
This would deter the repeater at the outset. As well, judges
could impose mandatory treatment of alcohol abuse as a condition
of prohibition. Furthermore, judges have further discretion in
imposing a stiffer sentence on drivers found to be two or three
times over the legal limit.
In court right now the two beer defence is taken to the extreme
and the defence is becoming an absurd mockery of the system. Too
many are beating the rap with this defence and the entire issue
of these technicalities needs some further attention.
1905
However, we have some positive and powerful first step tools in
the bill. The message, I believe, to repeat offenders is a
powerful deterrent to their behaviour. After all, repeaters are
the main problem in this scenario. Stopping individuals who
normally do not drink and drive from getting behind the wheel is,
I believe, effectively dealt with in the bill.
Bill C-82 enhances deterrents and, I believe, the new penalties
reflect the gravity of the crime of drinking and driving, in
particular the life imprisonment provision for causing a death. I
know my Bloc colleagues do not like this aspect. I would simply
ask them what the difference is in killing someone with a car and
doing it with another weapon. The results are the same. The
family loss and grief are the same. It is about time we called
this vehicular criminality for what it is and dealt with it
appropriately.
Life imprisonment, like that for other manslaughters, is fair.
If someone wants to drive their vehicle while impaired with such
wanton disregard for human life then the consequences should be
tough.
The Reform Party is disappointed that the legislation does not
reflect a zero tolerance policy for impaired driving. When we
get to that point I think we have completed the task. For now,
we are pleased we got the legislation to this point. We want to
see the legislation passed before summer when the profusion of
drinking and driving increases.
Grant it we have some first steps on the road to zero tolerance.
The Reform Party again thinks that incremental changes are the
way to go. With this, as the Reform Party has argued, we would
have like to have seen .05 as the alcohol limit. This is the
first step on the road to zero tolerance. I think all parties
should be reflecting on the next steps on this road to recovery.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of MADD in
its request to bring some rationale and acknowledgement to the
offence of impaired driving. The founders of this organizations
are the victims of the crimes of drunk driving. Their message is
getting heard and acknowledged today in the House. The acronym,
by the way, stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
We should not allow alcohol to be an excuse for unacceptable
behaviour and breaking the law. That is the point that needs to
be made to the general public. We should not allow alcohol to be
used as an excuse for breaking the law.
In conclusion, we have moved a major step today. The Reform
Party is pleased to have played a major role in pushing for these
changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the committee took a very serious look at the issue of impaired
driving. To echo the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice, and I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights since 1993, this was the first time
since I joined the committee that I really felt that all parties
were working together on a common cause, which was to try to
improve the legislation.
My own objective was to come up with a way to reduce, as much as
possible, the trauma of accidents involving drunk driving,
accidents that often culminate in injury or death.
We had to find some way of reducing this trauma as much as
possible.
I have concluded that there is no perfect legislation. No bill
will prevent these sorts of tragedies, but we must continue to
look for ways of attaining our objective to the extent possible.
1910
I said earlier that I really felt that all members were working
together and that politics had been set aside. I must say that
this is probably the last time I will support tabling a
unanimous report with the government and opposition parties on
such an issue. I say that because of the wording of the report,
particularly with respect to what members, such as the member
for Témiscamingue and I, were supposed to have said. I think
this is the last time I will be persuaded to support tabling a
unanimous report. The next time I will be tabling a dissenting
report, and that is that.
How can the legislation be improved? Not through repressive
measures.
It is not with tough sentences. It is not with life sentences
for offenders that we will achieve our objective.
Perhaps members opposite find that funny, but I would invite
them to read what commentators and experts in the field have
written. There are not many people that agree with the government
and the opposition parties that a life sentence should be imposed
for such offences.
I have, for a long time, understood this approach in the field
of criminal law. I am lawyer and I have studied this issue. We
will not achieve our objective of public safety by handing out
exaggerated sentences.
One man in my riding brought this home to me, and I take the
opportunity to thank him for his sound advice. He is Dr. Clément
Payette, a physician in Saint-Félix-de-Valois, who, last December,
lost his wife, Diane Olivier, in an automobile accident in which
the driver was drunk. I had a number of discussions with this
man, who has looked at the issue. He is now vigorously lobbying
the Government of Quebec to have it change some things, but he
said that life sentences or coercion would not ensure public
safety on the road. It would be through prevention and
education. There are now a number of things under way, and I
will come back to this later.
After looking into the matter, I asked myself this question:
What is the real problem with impaired drivers? The real
problem is the repeat offenders. The real problem is not
somebody's uncle who takes to the road with a glass or two too
many under his belt. True enough, this is not right, and
measures should be taken to prevent him from driving off.
The real scourge is the repeat offenders. We have to find a way
to change the habits of these repeat offenders. What in the bill
applies to them? It contains a notion—a Bloc Quebecois
gain—called ignition interlock. I believe it is a device that
can cause a driver who drinks and drives to change his habits. I
congratulate the government, which included this in Bill C-82 for
an initial offence.
This is not enough, however. We would have liked the provinces
to have had more leeway to impose it on repeat offenders. The
battle is not over. We will naturally be keeping at it, and
examining the matter more closely. Probably we will have a look
at first offender statistics.
I am convinced that, in the long term, it will be beneficial for
the federal government and the provinces to pay for ignition
interlock devices to be installed on offenders' vehicles, since
millions of dollars are being spent—in Quebec some $200 million,
I believe—on the victims of impaired driving accidents. I
believe that, in the long term, there will certainly be a
financial benefit.
1915
The Quebec MPs who have addressed this issue realized that there
is another problem, that of hit and run drivers.
I remember that there was the Taschereau case in the riding of
the hon. member for Témiscamingue. The first time the
committee raised the issue of hit and runs, members on the
other side looked at each other in amazement, as if there were
no connection between the two. It is true that there is no
obvious relationship right off. We saw, as the bottom line,
however, that there was indeed too great a disparity between
sentences for impaired driving and sentences for leaving the
scene of an accident and that the legislator needed to do
something about it. I will return to this point a little later
on, as the Bloc Quebecois had some success in this area as well.
The last point is on information and the message to be sent to
the population. Here again, I believe that a message will be
sent to the public with Bill C-82, and with the comments we added
to the report. That is a positive point.
The first point has to do with the ignition interlock
devices. When the bill is passed, subsection 259(1.1) of the
Criminal Code will provide a judge with the possibility of
imposing such a device for a first offence. This is an
extremely significant advance.
The key point I wish to make today concerns hit and runs. Right
now, in the case of a hit and run accident causing death, if
someone leaves the scene of the accident knowing that someone has
been killed, the Criminal Code provides for a maximum five year
sentence.
As the Criminal Code now stands, an impaired driver who hits and
kills someone can be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois members raised this point in
committee. We said that there was a disparity between the two
that had to be corrected.
We won out in the report, which contains the following: “Given
that greater harm gives rise to greater penalties for impaired
driving, the committee suggests that section 252 be amended to
provide for similar penalties in those circumstances where the
collision leads to injury or death”.
This is a direct reference to a hit and run.
The report calls for similar penalties. What does this mean?
It means that impaired driving causing death should carry the
same sentence as a hit and run accident causing death. I am not making
this up. It is in the report. The committee wanted similar
sentences.
Following the Bloc Quebecois' comments, we won on one point. The
minister decided—or she will later in the evening—to withdraw
the section of the bill providing for life imprisonment for
impaired driving causing death. It will stand at 14 years.
However, this does not change the thrust of the report, which still
seeks similar penalties. The opposition parties, the wind from
the right—sometimes it comes from the west, sometimes from the
maritimes, but a wind from the right always blows in from
somewhere—refuse to include the similar penalties sought in the
report.
In committee of the whole I will move an amendment.
What we are looking for is equivalence, nothing more and nothing
less than what the report says. It is a unanimous report of the
committee, which I signed.
Today it is being interpreted in such a way that I am being
told, “No, the bill provides for a life sentence. You will have
to live with that, hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm”. But
that is wrong. We fought for equivalence. We settled the issue
of equivalence.
I am very happy the minister finally understood from the
comments I made and from the pressures that came from the Bloc
Quebecois, and decided to withdraw the section on life sentences,
to which crown attorneys are opposed. The great majority of
litigators and those who follow court cases are against a life
sentence for such an offence.
1920
They applaud the fact that the minister is withdrawing the life
sentence and leaving the 14 year sentence, but the principle of
equivalence must be applied, otherwise the opposite will occur.
The maximum sentence will be 14 years for impaired driving
causing death. However, with Bill C-82, a person leaving the
scene after hitting someone with their car will be liable to
imprisonment for life. It does not make sense.
I hope members of this House will wake up when I move my
amendments and will adopt them, even if it means reviewing all
sentences together in September.
If the House decides that it is prison for life that is required
in the case of impaired driving causing death, and if voters in
all ridings in Canada and Quebec agree with that, it will mean
equivalence with a hit and run accident causing death.
I had a professor who used to say that the Criminal Code read
like a story, that it held together from beginning to end. It is
true. However, with the bill before us there would be different
sentences for two similar offences. That does not hold together.
As a lawyer, I cannot agree with that. Members might think that
I am not in a good mood this evening, but I have done a lot of
work in this area. I understand that everyone wants this bill
passed. I also know that there were negotiations among the House
leaders, but each party is represented by a House leader.
Perhaps the elements of sentence concordance and equivalence in
the sentences were not put on the table.
I hope there are people of goodwill who understand the
importance of having this equivalence between the sentences for
impairment and hit and run accident so that the amendments I will be
making may be accepted.
I am pleased with the work done by members, including the member
for Temiscamingue, who gave me a hand on the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights.
I am pleased to have pushed the government to do its homework on
some points of law. I am happy to have succeeded in convincing
the minister to remove from clause 3 of Bill C-82, for the time
being, a life sentence with respect to impaired driving
resulting in death.
I am also pleased to have sold the government on the idea of including the
new concept of ignition interlock devices in the Criminal Code.
It was not easy to get the idea across to the government or to
the other parties, but it was finally included in the committee
report.
As I said earlier, I am pleased to have been a kind of deflector
to the wind of the right, which blows in sometimes from the
west, and sometimes from the maritimes, and to have cautioned
members against going overboard. The Criminal Code needs to
be looked at as a whole, and sentences must be appropriate to
the offence.
I feel I was successful in several areas of the mandate given to
me. It is not over, however. The debate will continue.
I hope that all those listening to us in debate now, or who will
follow part of the debate in the House this evening, the lawyers
and other specialists, will make their demands known and
clearly indicate to members of this House if they feel they
are on the wrong track in some areas.
When we address this issue again, I trust that all hon. members
will be well informed and will have some understanding of the
common sense that lies behind the Criminal Code.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this
evening's debate. It is probably one of the finer moments of
this parliament. We hear voices from all corners of the House,
all political parties saying that they want serious steps taken
to remove people who drink and drive from the streets of Canada.
This has to be one of our finer moments.
1925
What we are debating and what will be passed later today will
result in lives being saved in our country. The sooner we pass
this legislation the better it will be. For that reason I will
keep my remarks brief, but I do want to say a number of things.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how old you are, but I suspect you
are at least close to my age. I remember when I was growing up
that it was considered to be macho or manly to drink alcohol and
drive a car or a truck. That was the rule of the day and pretty
well everybody I knew did it.
I grew up in southern Alberta. I do not know whether it is that
different from most parts of Canada but a lot of people made a
lot of money by going up and down the highways collecting beer
bottles out of the ditches. Imagine how many people must have
been driving and drinking with beer on the seats of their cars.
They would finish their beer and throw the bottle out of the car
window and people would go up and down the highways collecting
beer bottles. I suppose they collected pop bottles too, but from
what I can recall most of them were collecting beer bottles.
There must have been thousands and thousands of people driving
up and down those streets drinking while they were driving and
chucking the empties out of the window. If they were eventually
stopped by the police they would not have an empty case of beer
sitting in the car.
It is fair to say that those days are over. I would not say
that it never occurs or that people do not drink and drive in
that fashion any longer. But I know how unpopular it is now to
see someone who has been drinking prepare to drive away from a
house party or a gathering. People actually say “I do not think
you should drive. Are you okay to drive? Should you be
driving?” In some cases they stop other people from driving.
It has not even been one generation but we have come a long way.
We are a much brighter society today when dealing with drinking
and driving. This legislation will take us a whole lot further.
I am delighted to be part of this debate and part of this
process. I want to pay tribute to one of my colleagues, the
member for Sydney—Victoria, who has worked on this legislation
with representatives from all political parties to bring us to
this point today.
In order to move this legislation expeditiously through the
House of Commons we have had to make some changes to the bill.
One of the major changes is to take out the provision that says
that a person who is convicted of impaired driving and takes
someone's life will end up spending the rest of his or her life
in jail. That is a pretty strong statement and a lot of people
think we should talk about it a bit more. We decided to take it
out of this piece of legislation and we will revisit it in the
fall. When the House of Commons returns we will reconsider
whether we should proceed along this rather harsh line.
I am familiar with other countries that have taken steps we
would normally consider to be quite harsh. A few years ago I
visited a family in Norway. There was some drinking going on at
the dinner parties but there was always one person who did not
drink a single ounce of alcohol. That person was the designated
driver for the group. There were probably two or three people in
the group. That person would drink pop and if somebody else in
the group wanted to have a couple of glasses of wine or whatever,
that was fine because they were not driving.
I said to them that they were obviously very serious about the
issue of drinking and driving. They told me “If we get caught
driving with alcohol on our breath, we do not have to be
impaired, just with alcohol on our breath, we will go directly to
jail for three months”. They go directly to jail and that is it.
They do not go to court or anything. The policeman drives them
to jail and there they are for three months. I suspect for most
of us to disappear to jail for three months would cause us a
problem with our jobs. People say “The risk is just too much, so
I am not drinking and driving”.
Does it stop every single person from drinking and driving? I
suppose not, but it certainly acts as a deterrent for most
people. We could say that it is almost zero tolerance for
drinking and driving. People who drink and drive in Norway do
not even have to be intoxicated, they do not have to be impaired,
they go directly to jail. That is for the first offence. I
forget what the punishment is for the second offence. Maybe it
is torture, I do not know, but it is obviously pretty serious
stuff. We are not going quite that far with this legislation.
We are saying that we have listened to the police forces across
the country. We have listened to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
We have listened to our constituents. We have listened to
victims rights groups. We have listened to groups across the
country.
They are all saying that they want parliament to send a clear
message to the courts of Canada, to those people involved in our
legal and justice systems, to get tougher on those who drink and
drive and therefore take a lethal weapon into the communities of
Canada.
1930
That is what it is all about. If an intoxicated person who is
not totally in control of his or her facilities jumps into a
typical car or truck, it is like driving around with a great big
cannon. It is a dangerous object.
On the tragic side, I suspect most members of parliament know
someone close to them, either a family member, a close friend or
a neighbour, who has been impacted by someone who was drinking
and driving. I can think of personal friends who have lost
children, spouses or partners as the result of someone else
drinking and driving and ending up killing them as the result of
an accident.
Perhaps even worse, they are those people who have been involved
in very serious car accidents because of some else's drinking and
driving and have ended up spending the rest of their lives as
quadriplegics or being severely injured with a head injuries or
something else. They live very difficult lives through no fault
of their own but because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and someone who was drunk and driving a vehicle struck
them.
This is something that society ought not to accept. We do not
condone, but we have to get a little tougher and say to folks
that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. This legislation will
act as a deterrent.
I acknowledge the hard work done by the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the report
entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. I recognize
the work of the committee in listening to people who are
knowledgeable about this area, both in terms of victims and in
terms of people who work in the courts, the legal and justice
systems, and deal with people involved in these types of
offences.
What are some of the amendments to the code we are considering
tonight? It will increase the mandatory minimum fine for a first
offence to $600. For some people that is a deterrent but for a
lot of people it is not much of a deterrent. It is not that big
a deal if an average income earner has to pay a fine of $600.
It will increase the driving prohibition order of not more than
three years and not less than one year for a first offence or a
prohibition of not less than three months, with the balance to be
served by complying with an alcohol ignition interlock program
where available. That is a pretty serious.
It will provide for a driving prohibition order of not more than
five years and not less than two years for a second offence and
not less than three years for a subsequent offence. That is
getting serious and I like that a great deal.
There is one point we can all agree upon. If we look at an
average community paper in Canada, there is always a section on
court news which reports what has happened in the local court for
that day. I am always struck by the number of people up on
drinking related offences, in particular drinking and driving
related offences. We have to say as a society that we will not
tolerate this kind of behaviour.
The legislation will ensure sentencing judges consider a blood
alcohol concentration level of two or more times the legal limit
to be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. In other
words, if a person had three or four glasses of wine and is
caught, that is one thing. He or she is obviously kind of a
dangerous person. However, if a person has had a whole case of
24 beer that is something else. It is obviously a more serious
situation. This legislation will recognize that.
It will allow the sentencing judge to require the use of an
alcohol ignition interlock as a condition of probation where
available. It will allow the sentencing judge to order persons
convicted of impaired driving to undergo assessment and to
recommend a treatment as a condition of prohibition in those
jurisdictions where treatment is provided.
1935
It will increase the maximum penalty available upon indictment
to five years. It will increase the penalty to a maximum of ten
years imprisonment where the accident causes bodily harm, and
life imprisonment where the accident causes death. This is where
we have some further work to do.
It will allow a police officer to demand a breath or blood
sample from an individual on reasonable and probable grounds that
he or she has committed an impaired driving offence within the
preceding three hours.
If we walk up to a person who has been drinking we can normally
figure that out pretty quickly just because of the smell. Alcohol
has a certain smell. We can tell if the person has been drinking
scotch, beer or wine. The people drinking probably cannot tell
because they have consumed the stuff. For those people who are
not drinking, like a police officer, it does not take much to
figure out that a person has been drinking. If a police officer
thinks a person has been drinking and can clearly smell alcohol
from the vehicle, the legislation say that the officer has the
grounds to request a breath or blood sample.
I could talk about this matter all night. I feel very strongly
about it, as do all my colleagues. We are anxious to get the
legislation passed. It is time for society to say we are
sophisticated enough that we will not tolerate people who put the
lives of other people at jeopardy because they drink. It is as
simple as that. To do that we have to increase the penalties
very severely so that if a person is convicted he or she is
penalized severely, and if the person takes someone's life he or
she will be very seriously penalized.
One point in the legislation that I worry about is that many of
the treatments or suggestions in terms of appropriate sentencing
refer to where available or where possible. If one of the
conditions of sentencing is the seeking of treatment for an
alcohol problem, some alcohol treatment facility has to be
available. If we tell people they have to do this or that as a
way of breaking the habit, it behooves us as a society to ensure
that those treatment facilities are available. That is another
challenge we have to confront.
I conclude by saying that we are into the graduation time of
year when a lot of young students from high school, college,
university and other institutes graduate. A fair bit of drinking
often occurs around these celebrations. For years and years we
cringed at graduation time because we knew that one morning we
would wake up and there would have been a horrible car accident
with a number of young people killed because of drinking and
driving while celebrating graduation.
It was as regular as clockwork year after year after year. A
number of schools have taken a dry grad approach and made a point
of the whole issue of drinking and driving. As a result it
occurs a lot less today than it has in the past. Thank goodness
for that but it still occurs.
It occurs in the summertime because people are out celebrating,
enjoying themselves and partying. When a lot of people party
they drink excessively and they are out driving boats and
Sea-Doos. In Kamloops they actually drive Ski-Doos in the
wintertime on the river, but that is another story. They are
impaired and intoxicated when they do a lot of things and that is
wrong.
On behalf of all parties we are trying to send a clear message
to people that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I am
pleased to be part of this discussion tonight and look forward to
expeditious passage of the legislation so that it becomes law as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the heels of the previous
speaker and all speakers who have participated in the debate. I
commend each and every one of the participants who have taken
part tonight and those who have taken part in the extensive
consultations and efforts that were made to bring the legislation
to fruition.
1940
It is truly a very important response to what can only be deemed
a national tragedy. It has been a very long and arduous process
to arrive at the point where we are today. More important, it
has been a long and arduous process for victims and groups like
MADD, the Canadian Police Association and many others that
constantly kept this issue at the forefront. Finally there has
been a legislative response.
I acknowledge those groups and the efforts they made. The
Victims Resource Centre was another group that was instrumental
in bringing forward important issues at the committee level. It
was very helpful in facilitating the testimony of many victims.
The victims themselves were those who had the most impact and
had the most direct testimony to give. It was helpful and
extremely useful in the formulation of many of the legislative
initiatives which will be very instrumental in helping to protect
Canadians and hopefully in helping to prevent some future
tragedies on our roads and highways.
There have been many references to the fact that there are few
members, and in fact few Canadians, who have not been touched at
some point in their lives by some tragedy stemming from impaired
driving, such as the hon. member for Chicoutimi, our party whip
and the deputy leader of our party from Saint John. This tragic
list goes on and on. Senator LeBreton is another example of
someone who was very directly affected in this regard. She has
been a very strident advocate of necessary changes to this
legislation.
The remarks of my hon. colleague from the NDP were quite apt.
Summer is approaching. Celebrations are afoot. Families are
spending time together. I understand the House will be recessing
soon and people's thoughts turn to vacation. Sadly a lot of
drinking is often involved in those occasions.
If we can give any gift to Canadians, if we can participate in
an effort to educate and respond in a responsible way to drinking
to prevent tragedies and further carnage on our highways, this is
perhaps the best and most telling thing we can do.
The efforts that have been put into the legislation hit some
snags. The non-partisan nature of this legislation is very much
borne out by the comments we have heard today. It is the
implicit and intrinsic good found in the legislation which allows
us to pass it quickly and to deliver it to Canadians in a
meaningful way, which is what will happen.
Much has been said of the statistics that attach. One of the
most chilling statistics I heard during the deliberations was the
fact that 13,000 deaths and 90,000 injuries yearly were related
to impaired driving. That breaks down further to 4.5 Canadians
killed or 125 severely injured daily on our roads and highways as
a direct result of impaired driving.
The statistics go further. We know that the human effects are
not borne out by cold statistics. It is much like the sterile
atmosphere we find in a court room where victims are often
sitting there trying to make some sense of what has happened,
some semblance of understanding of the effect it has had on them.
These statistics are useful in demonstrating the need for a
legislative response, the need for a strong deterrent message
borne out by the legislation.
Changes have been brought about as a result of legislative
initiatives and tougher sanctions. When I speak of sanctions I
am talking of monetary penalties, periods of incarceration and
periods of suspension or prohibition on driving. All three are
very important cornerstones or underpinnings of the legislation.
Because of the statistics and the need for a speedy and
expeditious response, I believe the provisions we see before us
will have an effect. I suspect their impact will be immediate in
the sense that some of these provisions in particular empower
police officers to do their job in a more efficient and
protective way when it comes to dealing with the problem of
impaired driving.
1945
I am speaking specifically of the ability now for a police
officer to take a sample outside of the two hour time limit which
was a static period of time that often left officers, victims and
Canadians generally feeling very frustrated that police were
being curtailed in their efforts to deal with impaired drivers on
our roads and highways. There is obviously more that can be
done. There have been lengthy discussions about some of the
changes that we will not see as a result of Bill C-82.
It is very important to highlight some of the very positive
aspects. Those aspects have been touched upon by previous
speakers, such as the increases in fines and in prohibitions.
Some provinces in their provincial jurisdictions have taken
their powers to the point where they are now seizing vehicles. I
believe that this is a very important step. By taking away the
car it removes from the offender the actual instrument of death.
I believe that also sends a very important message. It is a
message of deterrence and a message that this type of activity
will not be tolerated because the stakes are too high. The human
cost, the loss of life, the injuries and the life altering end
results of impaired driving, is what all of these provisions are
aimed at attacking.
There are increased penalties and an increased ability for
judges to mete out sentences that are more reflective of
society's abhorrence of this type of offence. It is also
reflective of an overall attitudinal adjustment or shift in the
way we have viewed this type of offence. For some reason, for
far too long this has been somehow an acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps acceptable is casting too broad a net, but it has been
tolerated by our courts and our judiciary. Generally, we have
not viewed this in the serious light that we should.
Previous speakers have touched on an important point. When a
person's life is snuffed out through a careless act and a
preventable crime occurs, the responsibility is there for our
judges, our judicial system and our legislation to respond in a
very strict way. That is what the legislation attempts to do. It
puts more teeth into the Criminal Code. It is a more
proportional response to the offences that alter people's lives
and leave people dead, injured and shattered as a result of these
types of offences.
We seem to have a much different tone in the debate here in the
House of Commons than the very arduous one that took place at the
committee level. The emotion that was invoked in those
discussions and deliberations was quite reflective of the
response and the need to respond on this particular issue.
Sentencing judges now have very proactive tools at their
disposal. They have the ability to require a convicted impaired
driver to have an interlock device. This is a very innovative
approach. It will take away the ability of drivers to start
their vehicles unless they provide a breath sample through an
instrument that will be attached to their vehicles. The car will
not start without the provision of a breath sample. That
technical device interprets and reads the blood alcohol
concentration in a driver's breath before the car will actually
start. This type of approach is very innovative and positive in
terms of allowing impaired drivers to get on with the
rehabilitation.
We talk a great deal about the deterrents, the need to
annunciate this type of offence and the need to respond in a
harsh way. However, we cannot lose sight of the rehabilitative
steps that have to be taken because this affects so many people.
We can attend any provincial court in any province or region in
the country and time and time again, when those arraignments are
read, a disproportionate number of those offenders will be before
the courts for impaired driving offences.
Statistically, we know that these offences are still occurring at
an alarming rate. One can only hope and pray that the steps we
are taking here with the legislation that is now before the House
will in some way start to curb those numbers.
1950
I think the numbers bear out that we are starting to see a
decline. It is a slow decline but it is steady. The attention
that has been brought to bear on this issue and the efforts that
have been made in committee go a long way to achieving some of
these gradual steps that are occurring.
The interlock devices are but one attempt at this rehabilitative
process that I spoke of. Another step is the mandatory treatment
aspects that are now in the hands of a sentencing judge which
gives a judge the ability to mete out a sentence that requires a
person convicted of impaired driving to submit to counselling.
This counselling aspect ties in with what is an obviously
inextricable element to impaired driving because many of the
offenders have an alcohol addiction problem or a drug addiction
problem. This is another often overlooked element of impaired
driving. Many of those who take a risk and get behind the wheel
are impaired by other substances which may be prescription or
illicit drugs. These substances still have a very impairing
effect on the driver which often results in tragedies; accidents
and deaths on the highways.
Drunk drivers should be required to submit to a form of
counselling wherein they would receive treatment for what is
sometimes and has been deemed on many occasions to be an illness
and an addiction problem. It is the repeat drunk driver, the
hard core drinker who repeatedly takes a risk, who is responsible
in the majority of cases for the death, carnage and loss of life
and limb on the highways.
There are very proactive attempts and very deterrent oriented
effects found within the legislation. Mr. Speaker, you are very
aware of the issue and have spoken in this place on occasions on
this issue as well. I think it is something that Canadians have
waited a long time for. We are hopeful.
I commend all members of the committee and the Minister of
Justice for recognizing that this as a priority issue. We are
thankful that now, through the co-operative efforts and the
negotiations that are literally, as the House leader of the
opposition has said, taking place at the 12th hour, that we are
able to bring forth this legislation in a timely fashion.
One of the elements that is missing from this legislation that
was previously included in the report and in the draft
legislation is the ability of a judge to hand down a sentence of
life imprisonment where a person's impaired driving causes a
death. I personally have strong feelings about the deterrent
message that this would send.
We know that the sentencing range for this type of offence was
previously punishable by incarceration of up to 14 years, but the
benchmark appears to have been in the range of 8 to 8.5 years. I
suggest that if we raise the ceiling to life imprisonment, we
will see judges respond appropriately and proportionately across
the country and ratchet up those sentences to reflect society's
abhorrence of this. This would also send the message that this
type of offence is no different than murder.
When I say murder, I am talking about the current murder
provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for and permit
sentencing judges to impose life periods of incarceration for
manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and second degree
murder which do take into consideration culpability. Alcohol, of
course, is obviously the mitigating factor and, I would suggest,
an aggravating factor in the determination of an appropriate
sentence.
Because of the shocking statistics and because of the human cost
and human element to this, I feel that empowering judges with
this range of sentencing is an important part of the legislation.
Sadly, we were not able to include that in the current
legislation. However, I have the written and verbal assurances
of the government House leader and the Minister of Justice that
all efforts will be made to have this included.
If we are not able to pass legislation in this session, which
appears unlikely, we will enter a stand alone bill that would
permit the insertion of this particular section into the Criminal
Code empowering judges with the range of sentencing up to life
imprisonment.
We will introduce that this week and then return in the fall to
again have an opportunity to bring that section to fruition and
have a debate here in the House of Commons.
1955
One expression I believe that was used by the parliamentary
secretary was a reference to Russian roulette and the obvious
risk that congers up in one's mind when one talks of impaired
driving and getting behind the wheel while impaired and the
endangerment to others' lives. It is an apt statement.
There was a provincial court judge of Sunnybrae, Pictou County,
Judge Clyde F. MacDonald who sits in the Glasgow provincial court
who often used to say to impaired drivers who appeared before him
that their actions were no different when they got behind the
wheel of a car and drove down a highway than pointing a loaded
gun at every car that came on to meet them.
I think that graphically illustrates the danger that is
involved. One only has to pause for an instant and think about
that scenario when we are driving home at any time of day and
thinking that the car that is coming to meet us at a high rate of
speed, speeding down the road, that several thousand pound piece
of metal could veer off into our lane and take our life or the
life of a loved one. Sadly, that is the reality of what takes
place in far too many instances.
At the justice committee we heard from a young woman by the name
of Sharleen Verhulst who lost her beloved sister in a tragic
impaired driving accident. She has turned the negative energy
that would flow from that and the absolutely tragic circumstance
into a very positive action. She has taken her message, her very
powerful presentation, to the committee, to high schools and
groups across the country. She has made very useful suggestions
to us, as did many other groups and individuals who appeared
before the justice committee. They all made a very positive
contribution which is reflected in the legislation and in the
report that we have before the House.
The death of a victim is final, chilling and culpable. There
needs to be greater accountability and responsibility on behalf
of those who are willing to take the risk. This legislation is
extremely positive. I have very little to say about it in a
negative way.
The only criticism I have is that in some instances it may not
go far enough and in some instances I question the resources that
will be allocated to allow for the enforcement of some of these
provisions. I speak mainly here of a lack of resources that are
currently available to our municipal and federal police
enforcement agencies.
There is also a degree of semantics and a degree of language
that surrounds this discussion. Many of the victims, including
Ms. Verhulst, were insistent that we do not refer to impaired
driving accidents as accidents because they are not accidents.
There is this degree of culpability. There is this degree of
intent when a person recklessly consumes alcohol, gets behind the
wheel of a car and assumes that risk. They do so at their own
peril and at the peril of any innocent bystander who may then
come into contact with them.
Vehicular homicide is perhaps a more appropriate phrase and a
more appropriate way to describe this type of offence. This
legislation is going to come into effect this summer, and we are
thankful for that. However, as has been previously stated, there
is still more work to be done. There is more work to be done in
empowering police to respond appropriately.
We in the Conservative Party would very much like to see police
officers being given the ability to take an automatic breath
sample at the scene of an accident where there is reasonable and
probable grounds to believe that alcohol is involved. We would
like to see a greater emphasis and experimentation for alcohol
sensors and that type of technology. We would also like to see
greater training for police officers to recognize drug
impairment.
With all that said, I believe this is a positive step that we
have seen. It is a non-partisan issue that we have all
anticipated in and embraced. I am very thankful to have been a
participant in bringing the legislation this far. We look
forward to working with the groups that have been so instrumental
in the introduction.
2000
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: Order, please. The House is now in committee of
the whole on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(impaired driving and related matters).
(On clause 1)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, as
I said earlier in my speech, I would like to propose an
amendment to clause 1.
I move:
That Bill C-82, in clause 1, be amended by substituting, at line
16, page 3, the following:
With this amendment, line 16, which currently reads “offence and
liable to imprisonment for life if”, would be replaced by
“offence and liable to imprisonment not exceeding 14 years if”.
As I said earlier, this would mean parity between drunk driving
causing death and a hit and run accident when an individual is killed.
This is all in keeping with the unanimous report of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The report indicated that an effort was being made to find
similar sentences and penalties, given that the death of a
person is the death of a person, whether it is caused by
impaired driving or results from a hit and run.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed the amendment is negatived?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 1 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[English]
(On clause 3)
The Chairman: It is an instruction to this committee
that the bill be amended by deleting subclause (2) of clause 3.
Accordingly, I declare subclause (2) of clause 3 deleted.
Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 3, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
2005
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers,
and of the amendment.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying earlier, perhaps I was a little naive. After all, why
should I have believed that the minister was sincere about
protecting Canadian culture when she had already abandoned her
own principles with regard to the GST?
The minister said that she was determined to rid the country of
GST or else she would resign. Now we find her in collaboration
with her government colleagues defending the GST as if it was
their own initiative. Yes, she did resign and win in a
byelection, but is that the whole point of the exercise? Like so
many other Canadians, I believe that she opposed the GST as a
matter of principle. Obviously she was not as opposed to the GST
as we were led to believe.
That begs the question about what exactly this minister stands
for. We now know that she does not stand for Canadian culture.
Perhaps I am being a bit hard on the minister. Perhaps she does
believe in protecting Canadian culture. Perhaps it is the rest
of her cabinet colleagues who have fettered away our Canadian
magazine industry just to satisfy American interests.
We must remember that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was
purposefully excluded from the final negotiations that were
conducted by our Minister for International Trade and his staff
with, of course, the direct involvement of the Prime Minister. So
determined was the Prime Minister to exclude the Department of
Canadian Heritage from the further negotiations with the U.S. he
even sent the deputy minister to see greener pastures.
On the surface it would appear that by giving in to American
demands we have averted an illegal trade war that could have
affected the livelihoods of many Canadians. I say illegal trade
war because that is exactly what the U.S. retaliation would
amount to.
During question period I specifically asked the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade
whether Bill C-55 would respond to international trading
obligations. Both of these ministers indicated that this was
indeed the case. Therefore it begs the question as to why we
would have sacrificed so much of our Canadian magazine industry
when in fact we were simply creating legally acceptable
legislation that would protect this vital industry.
Did these ministers purposefully mislead the House with their
responses or did they suddenly find out that Bill C-55 was in
fact a violation of the WTO or NAFTA? Perhaps we have avoided a
trade war with the Americans but at what price to our Canadian
cultural industries?
For well over 30 years successive governments imposed strict
regulations intended to protect Canada's magazine industry. These
elected officials recognized the importance of this industry to
Canadian culture.
Most recently the former PC government insisted that Canada's
cultural industries be excluded from any free trade or NAFTA
negotiations. Although the U.S. was very much interested in
having Canada's cultural industries brought into the
negotiations, the former Progressive Conservative government
resisted those overtures.
It recognized the importance of maintaining our own distinct
culture for generations to come.
2010
The decision to capitulate to the Americans on this issue is
going to have long-lasting negative effects for this and any
future government that might want to oppose the U.S. during
discussions on cultural issues. In future negotiations with the
U.S. we can try to insist that we are serious about protecting
our culture, however this Liberal government has now set a
precedent.
Why would the U.S. or for that matter any other international
trading partner take us seriously when we try to convince them
that culture is vitally important to Canadians and that it
deserves protecting? They will simply look back upon this
agreement as an example of how everybody has their price. In
this instance the Liberal government's price was $300 million in
U.S. or possible U.S. sanctions, a mere one hour of trading
between Canada and the U.S.
What exactly is contained in this agreement? No one has
adequately explained what was the finally negotiated settlement.
Now we know the Minister of Canadian Heritage has insisted that
majority Canadian content is a prerequisite to allow foreign
investors complete access to Canada's advertising revenue. For
their part, the Americans have insisted on a substantial level of
original editorial content. What is the definition of
substantial? If we have never had any Canadian content in the
past, I guess 20% Canadian content would be considered
substantial depending on one's point of view.
The minister's office has indicated that the signed agreement
between the two countries specifically states that a substantial
level of original editorial content will be required. This is a
far cry from the minister's insistence of majority content. I was
told however that Canadian regulations indicate it is majority
Canadian content. Which one is it? Substantial or majority
content? If questions or disagreements should arise with regard
to the level of Canadian content within a particular magazine,
then which definition are we to follow?
The Liberal government is going to compensate Canada's magazine
industry by giving it some kind of subsidy. It is too early to
predict whether this will have any long term benefits for our
industry.
Should Canada's magazine industry feel secure in believing its
federal government will continue to provide it with these
subsidies well after the furor over Bill C-55 has been forgotten?
I certainly would not feel confident with the present government
at the helm. After all, it has shown its willingness to
sacrifice this industry through its amendments to Bill C-55.
What has this sudden turnaround in our cultural policy meant to
our international reputation? We remember that during the MAI
debate the Minister of Canadian Heritage stood up with her
counterparts from France to denounce any negotiations that would
weaken each other's cultural industries.
Last year in Ottawa our heritage minister invited
representatives from throughout the world to discuss ways of
protecting our cultural heritage. I wonder how these
representatives are viewing Canada's capitulation at the hands of
the Americans. I would suspect that they are as disappointed as
the rest of us because this decision has certainly weakened their
position in terms of trying to defend their own cultural
policies. How will they defend themselves against the influx of
U.S. cultural products when they see that Canada lacked the heart
and determination to protect its own?
On the surface the Liberal government's decision to amend Bill
C-55 to appease the Americans would appear to be of little
consequence when one compares the billions of dollars worth of
trade that is exchanged daily between both countries. I think
this decision will have a profound influence on all future
negotiations with our international trading partners. Canadian
culture can no longer be considered sacred in any future
negotiations. The Liberal government has told the world that
Canadian culture is a commodity like any other and that trying to
protect it for future generations is futile.
The U.S. has agreed to 18% access to our advertising revenue
before being required to produce any Canadian content.
I think it would be naive of us to believe that they will be
satisfied with the present arrangement for too many years. Then
what? The precedent has already been set.
2015
It is important for all Canadians that we oppose the amendments
to Bill C-55. The government may no longer be concerned about
the right of our children to read Canadian stories written by
Canadian authors, but we are. Therefore, I urge all hon. members
to vote against the amendments to Bill C-55.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments, may I have the attention of the hon.
member for West Nova.
In debate, I am not sure, but I thought I might have heard the
hon. member for West Nova infer that ministers of the government
had deliberately misled. That is not the nature of the member
for West Nova. I wanted to make sure it was on record that was
not part of the member's comments. Could the member for West
Nova indicate that was not part of his comments, please?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, in the excitement of my
deliberations I may have said that. If I did, I would retract
that in due respect of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the member
very much.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for West Nova for his presentation.
I too am very concerned about the made in America Bill C-55. I
have it in front of me and it looks to me to be a three page
letter between U.S. trade representative Barshefsky and Canadian
Ambassador Raymond Chrétien.
What strikes me about this deal is that there is one paragraph
after another saying that Canada will amend, Canada will further
amend its foreign investment policy, Canada will amend its
definition of Canadian issues, Canada will amend section 19. It
is all of the things that Canada will do. There is no mention
about what the United States will do. It seems like a very one
way deal.
The only paragraph that mentions America at all states that
Canada and the United States will agree to consult annually, upon
request, within 20 days, on any matter relating to this
agreement. That is the extent of American involvement in this
deal.
Does the member for West Nova believe that this is in any way a
reciprocal, mutual agreement? What can we make of this one
paragraph outlining American responsibilities?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole
issue which my colleague from Dartmouth raises speaks to how this
was handled. This was something about which we were not advised.
We do not know the details. Not knowing the details creates more
problems, because it leads us to be concerned and scared. Maybe
if we knew all of the details we could be more positive, but at
this point there is no way we can be. There are too many
pitfalls, too many capitulations to the U.S., and I continue to
be concerned.
I am concerned for the future of Canadian culture. Our culture
has been sold out. I would again ask all hon. colleagues not to
support these amendments as they are not good for our country and
Canadian culture.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the hon. member for West Nova if he would comment on the
following. This is a note which the minister received. It
reads:
Congratulations for hanging tough on your recent negotiations. A
compromise was forced instead of the usual capitulation. They
play hardball—but so do you! I admire your style. Stay healthy
and strong. Best regards, Norman Jewison.
2020
Would the member care to comment on that?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, this is something which the
government has tried, since the beginning, to spin in a very
positive way.
What we have to look at here is Canadian culture and the good of
the Canadian people. I am expressing an opinion, as have many
members of the opposition. A concern we hear repeatedly is that
Canadian culture has been sold out. My position is clear and the
position of my party is clear.
We should protect Canadian culture. We should continue to fight
for Canadian culture. That is not what is happening and that is
not what the government is trying to accomplish.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to the motions from the Senate
to amend Bill C-55. I realize that my time will be fairly short.
I hope to be able to continue my speech tomorrow or else extend
the time this evening in order for me to be able to complete my
speech.
As the trade critic for the official opposition I think that
Bill C-55 has been a total disaster at every turn over the last
year.
It seems to me that this all started with the World Trade
Organization ruling which told Canada that it could not follow
the policies which the government implemented in terms of taxes
on split-run magazines. It was very interesting to hear the
Minister of Canadian Heritage today say that the government had
to respond because Canada lost that ruling.
I would agree, but that is a very different interpretation than
we heard a couple of months ago in the House when the heritage
minister and the trade minister said that Canada did not lose
that ruling. It seems to me that we lost and we have to abide by
the rules which we, in turn, put in place.
Canada has been one of the main proponents of trade rules to
protect our interests around the world. Why is that? That is
because Canada has a relatively small population. We have a very
big country with a lot of exports that need to be exported around
the world. In fact exports account for 40% of the GDP of the
country. They are very, very high. We need to be able to export
and, in turn, we need the protection of trade rules.
Canada in the last 50 years has probably been the biggest
influence in establishing trade rules at the GATT and
subsequently at the World Trade Organization. The rules work for
us, and yet when we lose these rulings we have a Liberal
government that does not want to accept the rulings and tries to
do a dance to work a way around those which are against Canada.
We saw it again in the case of the aerospace industry and export
subsidies.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has, as I said, managed this
issue very badly, but I have to give her credit. As the minister
of culture she has been an amazing playwright. She has written a
play called Bill C-55. I am not sure whether I would call it a
farce or a tragedy, but it is one of those. I do not think the
final act has been written or played out.
I believe that there are a lot more things to come on this issue
of culture and the dispute with the United States because the
bill is very, very badly designed and will invite further
challenges from the United States. It is not only going to
invite further challenges from the United States, it will invite
further challenges at the World Trade Organization, the very
organization where Canada goes to argue to have rules designed
concerning subsidies and how they should not be applied against
our exports.
2025
We cannot have it both ways. What is really going on is simply
a matter of damage control. Canada got beat up very badly, and
it deserved to on this issue. The Liberal government managed
this issue very badly.
Over the past year we have intimidated a lot of industries in
Canada, such as the steel and lumber sectors, which are already
facing challenges from the United States. We have intimidated
those industries into thinking that they will have to face
another round of retaliation. Does the government not recognize,
does it not realize, what it is signing in these international
agreements? Most people knew that the so-called exemption clause
for culture would not hold water.
I believe that the government is basically misleading the
Canadian public. It is certainly misleading the cultural
industries. It has misled them for the past six years into
thinking that they were protected by the exemption clause. Look
what it led to, a total collapse in the position of the Canadian
government and it had to accept a very bad deal. It is not just
bad for the government; it is bad for Canada.
I want to talk about Liberal assurances, this Hollywood movie
set that they hide behind. It is not just in the cultural area,
but I want to talk about that for a moment. We have the
so-called cultural exemption. The cultural industries which
built an industry on it thought they had protection. What did
they find out? That they had been betrayed.
World Trade Organization negotiations are set to start in
Seattle probably next year. What is the Liberal government's
position? It is going to protect the cultural industries. It
will have a cultural agreement, a cultural instrument inside the
WTO agreement. What nonsense. It knows that cannot be
accomplished.
We see it over an over again. We saw it in the softwood lumber
agreement with the United States. The government accepted the
managed trade agreement. There would be five years of peace. No
problem. It signed the agreement thinking there would be no
disputes for five years. What have we got? Dispute after
dispute after dispute because Canada did not know what it was
doing at those negotiations.
What about the supply management sector? Again the government
is telling the sector not to worry, that it will be protected.
It said that in the GATT negotiations in Geneva. It said it
would protect article 11, border closures. There would not be
product coming into Canada and the sector would not have to
convert to tariffs. What happened? The government could not
defend that position. Then it came back and said it was sorry.
It had tried to protect the sector and it had lost. The
government knew full well that it could not protect that sector.
It gets worse. Upcoming trade talks will be held at the World
Trade Organization. The government is not only selling the same
old story to the cultural sector, it is also selling it to the
supply management sector. It is saying not to worry, it will
protect them. There will be no movement this time. There are
350% tariffs, but it will protect those sectors. They will not
have to worry about it. There will be a 350% tariff after it is
finished. What nonsense. Anybody who believes the government on
these issues is very naive.
The government is doing the Canadian public a grave disservice.
I suggest that the agreement which was reached with the Americans
will have ongoing problems which will not be resolved very
easily.
We have the business of subsidies. Now we are going to give the
Canadian magazine industry subsidies of $100 million a year. That
is the figure that is floated out there. It is ironic that the
subsidies are not only going to go to the Canadian magazine
industry. American magazines which are subject to this agreement
will also get subsidies. The Canadian public will subsidize the
American magazine industry under this agreement. What nonsense.
The Americans have said that there are current challenges which
might happen under this agreement. Here is the caption on the
so-called letters that were exchanged a week ago: “The United
States accepts the terms of the agreement which states that a net
benefit review by Canada on new investments in the magazine
industry will include undertakings from foreign investors that
result in a substantial level of original editorial comment”.
Notice that I said substantial. That is what the United States
said. Canada will use guidelines that call for a majority of
original editorial content. Which way is it? It is not even
clear. Is it substantial or is it a majority?
2030
I suggest that we have all kinds of problems coming and we have
just seen the tip of the iceberg. This agreement is nothing more
than a short term agreement that is never going to see the light
of day in any substantial terms. The government is deceiving the
magazine industry yet again.
I could go on and I will at a future date, but I see, Mr.
Speaker, that you are telling me that I have to conclude my
remarks for this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time
provided for Government Orders has expired, pursuant to the
special order adopted earlier today.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I realize the hour is late, but I have to rise today to
further discuss a question I raised in the House on April 14. The
situation involving the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital is absolutely
critical. There is no question that we are dealing with an
emergency which the government continues to overlook and refuses
to address.
I want to put this in context. On July 2 I wrote to the
Minister of Health explaining to him that the situation at the
Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital was critical. The hospital is
supposed to serve 28 first nations communities in northern
Ontario, but it was in a critical and dire situation because of
the failure of the government to ensure a contract between that
hospital and a teaching hospital to provide the adequate staff in
terms of both doctors and nurses.
It is no question that we are dealing with a lack of action on
the part of the federal government, a mishandling of a serious
situation. I have to raise this issue tonight because the
government continues to refuse to address this matter.
On April 14 I raised this question in the House. At that point
the chiefs of two first nations in northern Ontario had been on a
hunger strike for 100 hours over the issue of the Sioux Lookout
Zone Hospital. They were on a hunger strike to try to get the
attention of the government to act and act quickly. At that time
the Minister of Health said “Do not worry. We are looking into
it. In fact, I am going to visit those communities”.
The Minister of Health went to the region on April 23 and April
24 and promised prompt action. To this day, June 9, 1999, no
action has been taken. The hospital is still not open, leaving
16,000 residents without adequate health care.
There is supposed to be a contract between the medical services
branch and McMaster University. To this day, McMaster, which has
been committed to recruit and retain 16 physicians, has only been
able to find two or three physicians to serve at this hospital.
Up to 75% of the nurses in northern nursing stations which feed
off of this hospital are rumoured to be relief workers. Nursing
at the hospital itself has decreased significantly since the
hospital closed and now the hospital only has enough nursing
staff to keep 25 of its 39 beds open. We are looking at a dire
situation.
I am raising this tonight to see if finally the government will
act quickly so that the people of this entire region can have
some solution to a critical health care situation.
When it comes to northern and remote communities and first
nations communities, there is no semblance of adequate quality
health care. This situation is absolutely acute. It is
desperate to the point where the chiefs for two of the first
nations communities went on a hunger strike. They are now back
appealing that the government do something immediately.
I want to know tonight, does the government have any plan to
ensure that the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital is up and running,
has the necessary physician services, is able to equip all the
related northern nursing stations and is able to guarantee the
people of this region have some direct access to quality health
care?
2035
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
shares the member's concern about the Sioux Lookout Zone
Hospital. However, I must say that in a free society no
government at any level can make individual doctors or individual
nurses choose to serve in that location. It is a matter of
coaxing and it is a matter of offering incentives. We have done
that.
In November 1998 Health Canada signed an agreement with McMaster
University for physician services within the Sioux Lookout zone.
A new compensation package was developed to assist physician
recruitment into this area. McMaster University representatives
remain optimistic that the number of physicians in the area will
significantly increase in the next short while.
The hospital is open and is currently offering as many
in-services as possible. The emergency department will reopen
when there are sufficient physicians to ensure continuity of care
and safe practice within the hospital setting.
Health Canada has been working on innovative strategies for the
recruitment and retention of nurses. It has formed a working
group involving first nations, the Professional Institute of the
Public Service of Canada and Health Canada representatives.
In addition the Minister of Health established a Sioux Lookout
zone working group which is a partnership between Health Canada
and the first nations to address and resolve the zone's health
situation, including the issues of physician and nurse shortages.
Health Canada is also committed to working with all parties on
the amalgamation of the existing provincial health facility and
the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital. This will eventually lead to a
new provincial hospital with a two-thirds first nations board
representation.
The Minister of Health during his visit in April participated in
a round table meeting on health care and reaffirmed his
commitment to work in partnership with all parties impacted by
the situation. He encouraged all parties to contribute toward
solutions to address the problems in the long and short term.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House of Commons often has many visitors. Tonight a number of
young Canadians have come to spend some time with us. Before
getting to my question for the parliamentary secretary I thought
perhaps I would relate very briefly the frustration these young
people may face when trying to get on the Internet.
We click on the icon, dial up the network, enter the server name
and password, and sometimes the line rings and rings. Call backs
have to be made. Then we finally get through and the home page
comes up and very slowly the little bar at the bottom starts
moving. We call up the first picture and slowly another line
will appear. It is very frustrating for many people who use the
Internet and whose computers do not have a lot of juice to wait
for the information. It is very frustrating when one's mind works
faster than the hardware and the software.
That is exactly the kind of frustration I wanted to raise with
the Minister of Human Resources Development on June 3 and I will
repeat the question tonight. In times of need Canadians expect
the government to be there for them. When someone loses their
job, the last thing they need is a thoughtless, faceless
bureaucracy armed with confusing rules and jargon. People need
personal, sensitive and understandable systems. I asked the
Minister of Human Resource Development whether he shared my
sentiments and if so, what steps were being taken to ensure
quality service for all Canadians.
Members of parliament have this frustration when constituents
call faced with problems such as program benefits they want to
access, a job loss situation where they require employment
insurance to pay the bills for their family. They are frustrated
because they are faced with questions. They are also faced with
voice mail and electronic messages. At times of stress, pressure
and strain all they really want is the opportunity to talk to a
human being who understands their crisis and who can tell them in
layman's terms exactly how to deal with their situation. It
happens time and time again.
The minister very briefly started to outline some steps but
unfortunately because of the time limitations in question period,
he did not get through many of the points I am sure he wanted to
raise. I have come here tonight to ask the parliamentary
secretary if she would provide Canadians with a little more
insight into the kinds of things the government has done and is
working on so Canadians get the kind of service they need.
2040
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
and I both agree with the member for Mississauga South on the
need for quality service from Human Resources Development Canada
to Canadians who have lost their jobs and approach HRDC for help.
The minister did have a town hall electronic session with
officials and employees of HRDC from across Canada to discuss how
the department could go further in terms of ensuring that
Canadians get the very best service possible and that people are
treated with respect, compassion and caring when they come to the
department for help. As a result of this meeting, several
initiatives are now underway at HRDC.
For example, HRDC is committed to ensuring its clients can
better understand the rules and regulations behind various
programs. It will also make sure that all of its communications
with citizens are written in plain language and in an appropriate
and friendly tone.
The department will do more to look into hardship cases and
complex EI claims to ensure a fair and consistent application of
policies and to tell people of available resource mechanisms they
might use. Many of the local offices already have public liaison
officers who help in this manner.
HRDC is committed to adopting consistent processes for
collecting overpayments to ensure that an individual's capacity
to repay is respected and that the repayment schedules reflect
individual circumstances and take into account cases of hardship.
HRDC will also find new ways of consulting and talking to
Canadians to ensure that our standards measure up to their
expectations and are meaningful to them.
That just scratches the surface of the multitude of initiatives
the minister has undertaken to ensure that HRDC's excellent
service becomes even better. This commitment is firm and honest
and Canadians will be the beneficiaries.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked on April
30 about the AIDA farm disaster program.
At that point only 500 farmers had taken the time to fill out
the AIDA forms and send them in to be processed. There are
100,000 farmers on the prairies. What percentage of them have
now filled out these forms? How many claims have been paid? Very
few farmers have been applying and receiving compensation. I
would like to know if the minister thinks this program is helping
farmers through the income crisis they are experiencing.
How much has been paid out under AIDA to producers in Ontario,
in Quebec, in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and the other
provinces? Even the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan has
called on the federal government to scrap this program because he
has realized it is not helping the farmers who need it. Will the
minister listen to farmers and get rid of the AIDA program?
AIDA was supposed to help farmers who had an income that fell
30% in 1998 but because of the fact that it is tied to NISA, a
farmer's income has to fall almost 40% to qualify for any
assistance. Did the minister tie the program to NISA so the
government would not have to pay out the $900 million commitment?
When I asked this question during question period, the minister
said that farmers were not applying. In essence he is blaming
farmers for the fact the program is not working.
Long before the minister announced the AIDA program we urged him
to keep the program simple and to make payments on an acreage
basis. We made that recommendation over six months ago.
NISA is not working either for these farmers. In NISA, 8,600
Saskatchewan farmers have an average of $303 in their accounts.
Another 10,000 farmers have less than $2,800 in their accounts.
I understand the reason the minister is not accepting negative
margins in his AIDA package is that he does not want to promote
bad farm management. Due to the drop in commodity prices there
were an estimated 10,000 farm operations with negative margins in
1998. I wonder if the minister of agriculture is prepared to say
that these 10,000 operations with negative margins are the result
of bad farm management.
The calls coming in from the farm stress line in Saskatchewan
are also an indication that AIDA is not helping producers. The
number of calls to the farm stress line this year is already way
above the monthly average for 1998.
2045
AIDA is definitely not helping farmers get through this income
crisis. Is the minister ready to admit that his farm disaster
program is a disaster? Is he ready to sit down and work out a
program that will help Canadian farmers?
It appears that the AIDA staff is also making up rules on the
fly. A man called my office the other day. He and his wife have
separate farming operations which include each possessing their
own Canadian Wheat Board permit books, filing separate taxes and
having separate NISA accounts.
The husband and wife each filled out separate AIDA forms and
sent them in. When the AIDA staff looked at these forms it was
determined that this husband and wife could not file separately
because their farms were not at arm's length from one another.
I want the minister to explain how it is determined that these
farmers who file separate income taxes, have separate permit
books and have separate NISA accounts are not considered separate
farms when it comes to AIDA.
This also raises a number of questions as to how AIDA staff will
deal with other types of farming operations. Are the rest of the
husband and wife operations to be considered as one farm? What
about places where father and son each have separate farms but
work together? Will they be considered one operation? The same
applies for brothers or people who work together. Did the
minister consider any of this when he was constructing AIDA?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has already
been stated in the House, federal money is flowing out under the
agriculture income disaster assistance program. Program
administrators have started processing applications and sending
cheques to those farmers who have submitted a complete
application package.
We acted swiftly to pay the federal portion in those provinces
where the federal government delivers the program so that farmers
could have money in their hands. When those provinces, and that
includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba, sign the agreement producers
will receive the second portion of their disaster payment.
Other provinces are delivering the program. B.C., Alberta,
P.E.I. and Ontario are using an existing administrative system.
Members should be aware that Alberta has had a disaster
assistance program since 1995 to which the federal government has
contributed its companion program money. Farmers in those
provinces started receiving money several weeks ago,
notwithstanding the federal-provincial discussions on cost
sharing and administrative issues.
I think our record is very good. AIDA started out as a general
concept just before Christmas and in a mere four months has
become a reality. Money is flowing to farmers for a program that
is targeted and pays benefits to people who really need them.
Hon. members also realize that this program will not buy us
trouble with our trading partners on the international scene.
Benefits will not be captured by foreign treasuries but by our
own farmers. This is no simple accomplishment in such a short
period of time.
Federal and provincial governments should be commended for all
the hard work that went into the AIDA program.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, following the annual NAC lobby on Monday of this week I
hoped we would see a change in attitude from the Liberal
government concerning the impact of its programs on women,
especially changes to the EI program which have had a specific
and serious effect on Canadian women.
The government's own figures show that women have been hardest
hit by modifications to eligibility requirements. Today, 44% of
Canadian women are not eligible for maternity benefits, placing a
huge strain on families from B.C. to Newfoundland.
The decision the government has made is a simple one. It has
placed the ideology of the collection agency ahead of human
compassion and economic efficiency. I am sure hon. members are
familiar with the term penny-wise and pound foolish. This is a
concise summary of the government's policy. By attempting to
balance the nation's books on the backs of the middle class, the
working poor and the disadvantaged, the administration has
decided to trade long term growth for the illusion of short term
responsibility.
It is the equivalent of a family selling its house so it can pay
off its debts. What good does a perfect credit rating do when
everything that matters has been thrown away?
Employment insurance was designed to serve as a bridge to enable
workers to survive while they are between jobs.
Over the years that definition has become more and more
restrictive. Now one has to live in a region that experiences a
complete economic meltdown before one will be eligible. Even
then, unfortunately, there are parts of the country where that
meltdown has happened. I base these statements on fact. There
are people who fall through the cracks.
2050
When I recall the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Human Resources Development several weeks ago
in the House, I am struck by the calmness with which she
dispatched my question, the easy words about studies and about
investigations into the problems we are facing with the system.
It seems once many people leave their communities and start to
breathe the thin air on Parliament Hill they forget that studies,
investigations and inquiries do not put bread on the table.
Certainly the people of Cape Breton Island have learned that
lesson well. We are aware that reports do not fill a child's
stomach before he or she goes to school or goes to bed at night.
The parliamentary secretary said that they do not want to start
making changes until they understand the whys and wherefores of
the numbers. I was left wondering what was the problem. Before
the government pushed through its changes to the system, there
was no evidence that women were discriminated against by the
system. Surely the answers to the government's questions are
laid out for it in the old legislation which the government threw
away.
I want to make perfectly clear that my comments are not intended
to call simply for a return to the old ways. My party is the
first to admit that system was imperfect and in need of
substantial reform, but changes need to be based on an assessment
of why a program was invented in the first place.
An unfortunate trend has come to dominate policy making since
1993, the tendency of programs to be examined, pared down or
eliminated because of their impact on the year to year financial
forecast instead of on their social utility. Using this model,
programs like EI and other assistant agencies are portrayed as
inefficient. That justification has been used to whittle them
away until they are unable to function.
We have to act and we have to act decisively. Canadians will
not reward parliament for indecisiveness or a lack of action.
Whenever the reports or studies or whatever concerning the EI
system are delivered to the minister, I hope the government will
be inspired into action to do what is right for women and all
other citizens of the country.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not the least
bit embarrassed that the member opposite thinks I remained too
calm in answering her earlier question.
In fact the electors in my riding expect me to remain calm,
analytical and have an intellectual approach to the subject in
front of me, and I think that is the approach of the government.
It is only in so doing that one can be a true steward of the
nation's resources and come up with programming that addresses
the true needs of people and does not respond in some hysterical
fashion to some new statistics that come out of a study.
I assure the member that we too are concerned about making sure
that EI is fair and accessible to women. We agree with her that
claims by women for regular benefits dropped by four percentage
points more than claims by men in 1997-98, and this concerns us.
The minister's officials are now in the process of determining
why the number of claims went down. The reasons for this decline
are not easy to see and not clear. In fact there seems to be
several factors at play. Let me assure the member that we are
trying to get a clearer understanding and we are looking at
various options that could rectify the situation.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that
several features of the EI program benefit women. The move to an
hours based system, for example, was in large part about helping
women out of the 14 hour job trap.
We also know that two-thirds of the people who get the more
generous family income supplement are women, that 58% of the
small week claims were made by women, and that the reach back
provision for active employment measures means women who stayed
at home to raise their children can benefit from these measures
for up to five years in order to help them get back into the
workforce.
We are committed to making sure that EI benefits are fair and
accessible for all women, but we are also committed to helping
women who wish to enter or re-enter the workforce. Our efforts
will continue in that direction.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.55 p.m.)