CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6785
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6787
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6788
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 6788
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6791
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6791
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6793
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6793
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6795
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6795
Bill C-355. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6803
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6804
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6804
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6804
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorton-Melville) 6805
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments 6807
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6810
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6812
Bill C-62. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and the amendment 6813
Amendment to amendment 6813
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 6814
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 6815
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 77 6815
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed for second reading of andconcurrence in Senate amendments;
and of the amendmentand the amendment to the amendment 6816
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 33; Nays, 171 6816
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 6818
Bill C-316. Motion for second reading 6818
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6822
6785
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to recognize a group of students who are
with us today from Canada World Youth.
Seven Canadian and seven Russian youths are taking part in this
exchange program. The students are spending three months in
Smiths Falls and Brockville, Ontario and then will travel to Russia
for three months.
Canada World Youth, founded in 1971, is a non-profit
organization that co-ordinates international exchanges and
non-formal education experiences for youth. This program creates
unique cross-cultural learning experiences, develops leadership
skills and provides opportunities for young people to become
involved with international and community development issues.
The seven Russian students are billeted with seven Canadian
families for the three-month period. Volunteer work placements are
sought to allow participants to learn how small businesses and
community service organizations function.
I commend the organizers for their hard work and dedication
which have made this exchange so successful for the last 25 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, part time
workers, women for the most part, are penalized by the new
employment insurance rules that require far too many hours of
work for them to qualify. They will have to work 910 hours, or the
equivalent of twenty-six 35-hour weeks.
Under the old legislation, anyone who worked 15 hours a week
or more was covered, but now there are workers who, while paying
premiums and theoretically being eligible for employment
insurance, will in fact never qualify because the number of hours of
work required is excessively high. Nor will they qualify for a rebate
on their premiums. This is a grey area.
In a region like ours, in Beauce, requiring so many hours of work
to qualify is tantamount to excluding part time workers from the
program. I suggest that the legislation be made more flexible so
that part time workers are not made poorer still.
* * *
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate Artqui Média on its 10th anniversary.
Indeed, Artqui Média has been promoting arts and culture for 10
years already. To mark this anniversary, a gala dinner under the
theme ``Une fête en art, couleur d'Agate'' recently took place in
Amqui, with 450 people in attendance, and Agate prizes were
awarded on that occasion.
Since 1987, 129 people have been awarded these prestigious
honours. We are not always aware of the contribution made by
those who work very hard to brighten our daily lives and promote
an awareness of beauty.
The 10 years of Artqui Média are evidence that, even in remote
areas, the discovery, promotion and development of the arts is
possible. I congratulate the artists who were awarded Agate prizes,
and all the others as well. I also congratulate their big sister, Lise
Bédard-Archambault, for her great success. Again, congratulations
to all our artists.
6786
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
a week since the media broke the story about a leaked report on the
Vegreville Immigration Centre which slammed the people of the
town and the centre as racist and sexist.
The minister of immigration still refuses to offer a simple
apology for the actions of her department which unfairly damaged
the reputation of the people of Vegreville. The mistake was
commissioning a third party study to deal with isolated charges of
racism and sexism when these charges should have been dealt with
quickly and firmly by management.
By calling for a study, her department was indicating that there
was a widespread problem when that was not the case. The report
verifies that there were isolated incidents only.
The deputy minister should have anticipated that a study which
was as widely circulated as this study was, would be leaked and it
was. The immigration department is responsible for unfairly
tarnishing the reputation of the good people of Vegreville.
Will the minister show enough consideration for these people to
apologize for the damage that her department has done?
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general's report confirms the Liberals have overstated the number
of jobs created by the infrastructure program. These jobs were
temporary, and as the auditor general states, did not amount to
100,000. The construction industry lost 51,000 jobs this year.
As well, he calls into question the Liberal definition of
infrastructure and points out that golf courses and canoe museums
do not fit the definition.
When I was mayor I sat on the Federation of Municipalities
Infrastructure Committee. We described infrastructure as roads,
sewers, streets, bridges and any project that was connected to the
environment. It is irresponsible to spend millions of dollars without
proper accountability, no controls and a definition of infrastructure
broad enough to build a golf course.
The Liberals' promise of jobs, jobs, jobs is still in the same state
as roads and sewers: in decay.
I urge the Liberal government to be honest with Canadians. They
have not produced 750,000 jobs. It is another red book promise not
kept.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, inspired by
their vision of a united Canada, four artists from my riding of
Cambridge, Gerald Barry, Carol Ann Cole, Terry Torra and Janet
Young, worked together from August to September to complete
their ``Canadian Unity'' painting. Just as Canada is made vibrant
through our regional and cultural identities, these artists brought
together their own special talents and unique approaches to create a
vibrant and unified work of art.
It is my hope that the collaborative efforts of our four artists and
their artistic creation will inspire all Canadians to take to heart the
message of Canadian unity. The message is simple. While Canada
contains within it distinct regional and cultural identities, we can
all work in solidarity for a strong and united Canada.
* * *
(1405)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sixth
annual ranking of universities in Canada by
Maclean's once again
confirmed the excellence of the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid
Laurier University. The University of Waterloo ranked first among
all Canadian universities. It was judged the best overall university,
the most innovative university and in producing the most leaders of
tomorrow.
Wilfrid Laurier University finished first in the primarily
undergraduate category in the proportion of students who entered
university with an average of 75 per cent or better and in the
proportion of students who graduate.
I congratulate the two universities in Waterloo, while being
acutely aware that post-secondary institutions in Canada are under
stress due mainly to diminishing financial resources. Funding for
our post-secondary institutions has to be a national priority viewed
as an investment in our collective future as a nation.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
University of Manitoba is a wonderful institution, populated by a
large number of very smart researchers who create knowledge that
enriches the lives of people throughout the world. They undertake
world class research in medicine, agriculture, engineering,
environmental sciences and a host of other areas.
Such a university deserves world class leadership. I am proud to
say that we have found it in our new president, Dr. Emoke
Szathmary. Dr. Szathmary was installed as the 10th president of
the University of Manitoba at the fall convocation. Prior to this
6787
appointment, Dr. Szathmary was provost and vice-president
academic at McMaster University. She has also served as dean of
social sciences at the University of Western Ontario.
In her brief tenure as president, she has proved to be an effective
advocate for the university. She believes strongly in academic
excellence and equally strongly in community involvement. I was
proud to participate in her installation and I look forward to
working with her as she strives to make the University of Manitoba
one of the best universities in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
highly coveted personality of the year title granted by the
Drummond chamber of commerce at the 14th business gala was
awarded to two young people from Drummondville.
Marie-France Bourgeois, the first Quebecer and Canadian to get
a degree in international development from Long Island College, is
now working in Africa, for the United Nations World Food
Program. This young woman of 33 was mandated by the UN to
co-ordinate food distribution to 670,000 Hutu refugees in Tanzania.
Given the highly troubled political context, she must act with
efficiency and diplomacy to alleviate the plight of these people.
I also wish to congratulate Jean Guilbeault, who was also named
personality of the year. He is the first Drummondville resident to be
a member of the famous Snowbirds, this select team of pilots.
To those two young people who make us proud, I wish a
rewarding career and may all their dreams be fulfilled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today at 2
p.m., behind closed doors in a Toronto office building, the Liberal
Party of Canada began proceedings to expel the executive of the
Liberal York South-Weston Riding Association. Their only
crime: supporting their MP. His only crime: trying to honour his
party's promise.
I read to you a quote from the Liberal red book: ``After nine
years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public institutions,
governments, politicians and the political process is at an all-time
high. Integrity in our political institutions must be restored''.
The Liberals have expelled an MP for keeping his word. They
are now taking action to expel their own party members who
choose to support their duly elected member of Parliament. So
much for restoring integrity, another broken red book promise. It is
now crystal clear: Liberal, Tory, same old story.
It is time for a fresh start. It is time to elect a Reform government
that gives a guarantee with its promises.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last week NDP leader Alexa McDonough called on the federal
Liberal government to stand up for 16,000 western Canadian jobs
by being a partner in the restructuring of Canadian Airlines, by
working with rather than against Canadian employees, and by
revising an air transport regime that causes wasteful and expensive
duplication of flights, while eliminating service to outlying
communities.
Put simply, the Liberals created this mess when they were in
power in the early 1980s by uncritically and gullibly embracing
deregulation as the great panacea, the be all and end all for
Canadian air transport. I remember only too well the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs gushing about all the benefits that
deregulation would bring and Tory Mazankowski followed the
Liberal lead.
(1410)
It is time to face up to the fact that deregulation has not worked
as it was supposed to and act accordingly.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
concerned over the inequitable tax treatment of Canadian resident
recipients of U.S. social security benefits. This is an important
issue to many people in my riding of Erie and throughout the
country.
It is imperative that the federal government find some way of
giving relief to those lower income Canadians who are now subject
to a 25.5 per cent withholding tax on their U.S. benefits but not
entitled to a tax refund for overpayments.
This policy unfairly penalizes Canadian residents and most, as
seniors, at a time in their lives when they can ill afford it. Indeed,
many are trying to survive on less than subsistence incomes.
I appreciate that amendments to international treaties require
lengthy and laborious negotiations. Nonetheless I implore the
finance minister and the government to make every effort to bring
needed change to this unfair U.S. tax policy.
The 1996 tax year is rapidly drawing to a close. It is imperative
that affected Canadian residents receive confirmation of tax relief.
They require this now.
6788
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
when we utter the words ``children are our most precious resource''
and then do not face the statistic that over 1.4 million Canadian
children live in poverty, then our words become empty and
meaningless.
It is not just a statistic. It is a tragic human reality with lasting
repercussions. We know that the effects of poverty on children are
significant and long term. We know that such children have more
risk factors and fewer supports.
It is not a simple problem in need of a simple solution. It is a
complex crisis that requires comprehensive intervention on a
number of fronts with a wide range of initiatives. We need to listen
to the suggestions of all the experts: academics, administrators and
front line workers.
It is time that all members from all parties assumed a collective
leadership role to move forward with concrete programs to
eradicate child poverty. Let us give meaning to our words and let us
build a path to a better way of life for our nation's future, our
children.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been estimated that there are 110 million uncleared
anti-personnel land mines around the world. Each year two million
to five million new mines are deployed, maiming 2,000 victims per
month. Over the last 50 years land mines have probably inflicted
more death and injury than nuclear and chemical weapons
combined.
With only 23 nations supporting a global ban on the use of
anti-personnel land mines, they have become the weapon of choice
in guerrilla type operations. They are cheap, at $3, easy to set and
highly effective.
Land mines are indiscriminate in their action. The United
Nations has estimated that land mines are ten times more likely to
kill or injure a civilian, primarily women and children, after a
conflict, rather than during combat situations.
Last week at a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly I was
named Special Rapporteur for the Science and Technology
Committee to present a paper on anti-personnel land mines at their
next session. I am very pleased to have been chosen to represent
Canada in this forum and proud of Canada's lead role in the
struggle to achieve a global ban on these weapons.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no
justification for child poverty in Canada. Among all industrialized
countries, only the United States has a worse record than Canada.
In 1993, the red book stated, and I quote: ``Since 1984, the Tories
have systematically weakened the social support network-Not
only have they taken billions of dollars from health care and from
programs that support children, seniors and people who have lost
their jobs, but they have set us on a path to becoming a polarized
society, divided into rich and poor, educated and uneducated, with a
shrinking middle class. This is not the kind of country where
Canadians want to live in''.
This assessment can be applied word for word to the Liberals'
performance in the fight against poverty. The situation is even
worse than it was before.
If the government seriously wants to do something about poverty
instead of making pompous speeches, it should first stop the cuts in
social programs and transfer payments to the provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party supports the strong public demand for
more substantial cuts in employment insurance premiums and for
an end to the accumulation of the reserves beyond $5 billion.
It makes no legal sense to let the independent employment
insurance system finance general Liberal overspending. It makes
no economic sense to let the premiums mask the need for more cuts
in program spending. It makes no social sense to let premiums put
the main burden of deficit fighting on workers. And it makes no
commons sense to forgo the job creation benefits of lower
premiums.
(1415)
I once thought the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues
had sense enough to do what is right, legally, economically,
socially and for Canada. I was wrong. They have no sense.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to announce in this House that yesterday,
6789
members of the Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution
urging banks and department stores to reduce credit card interest
rates.
Last week, a group of more than 80 members, including myself,
representing the majority of federal political parties, came together
to put pressure on banks and department stores to bring down their
interest rates.
At a time when interest rates are at their lowest level in 30 years,
it is inconceivable that rates charged on credit cards are still at 16
per cent and 29 per cent.
Banks and department stores should also make a contribution to
the economic renewal of our country, and we are confident that,
with the support of the other provincial legislatures, we will
convince them to do so.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian banks have announced record profits.
It is true that when, as lending institutions, they take advantage
of fluctuations in interest rates and exchange rates and earn money
in the process, it is all part of the rules of the game. But when we
are talking about service charges for consumers and small
businesses, that is something else. For instance, whether we are
talking about $1.10 for an automatic withdrawal, $3 per month plus
25 cents per cheque cashed, and up to $20 for a cheque that is
refused or $4.50 for a certified cheque, the charges are enormous.
The growing tendency for the banks to increase their service
charges must be controlled if the Canadian public is to maintain its
confidence in our Canadian banking system.
_____________________________________________
6789
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the auditor general again pointed out that the federal
government has still not identified all the contaminated federal
sites, that it has no overall plan for doing so, and that the eventual
costs to the public of decontaminating these sites are also not
known. The auditor general is concerned because of the health,
safety and environmental risks of such a situation, not to mention
the potential impact on the public purse.
How can the government explain that it has still not found ways
of listing, identifying and clarifying the degree of contamination of
federal sites, given the health and environmental risks associated
with such a situation?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
is well aware of the auditor general's concerns. In fact, we have
already been working to deal with contaminated sites in Canada.
We have established an interdepartmental committee which is
looking at contaminated sites and we are developing a template to
deal with this issue in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): I was
almost convinced, Mr. Speaker.
Given that certain contaminated federal sites are dangerous and
even pose a threat to citizens living nearby, when is the federal
government going to table a plan of appropriate action for
eliminating these dangerous sites?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier,
a committee is looking into it. This has been a problem in Canada
since World War II. Each federal department has responsibility for
dealing with contaminated sites.
We recognize that there is a need for a comprehensive way of
dealing with it, and it is being dealt with.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there has been a problem since World War II and now we
hear that a committee has been established. That is just wonderful.
It is very expensive to clean up contaminated sites and the longer
it is put off, the more expensive it gets. We had a very good
example of this with part of the decontamination of the military
base at Longue Pointe, in Montreal.
(1420)
Can the minister or the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the
auditor general's observation that the government's estimate of $2
billion to decontaminate the sites is based on incomplete studies,
and that in reality the costs may go much higher, skewing the
government's financial report card?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member laughs about a very serious problem that affects all
Canadians.
I would like to point out that it was the leader of his party who
was the minister of the environment, Lucien Bouchard, who did
nothing about this problem. We are acting on it.
6790
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, among the horror stories revealed by the auditor
general, we learned that, in order to save $71 on a repair contract
for a ship moored in Nova Scotia, the government spent $30,000 to
move it to Newfoundland, $30,000 in taxpayers' money wasted to
save $71. Unbelievable!
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to explain to us how
this could be, what twisted logic was used to justify the decision by
someone, somewhere, that it was normal to spend $30,000 in order
to save $71?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
said yesterday, the auditor general will surely find, among a total of
$120 billion in expenditures, a few projects that have not been very
successful.
We agree, and we take the findings of the auditor general to
heart. We wish to provide far more efficient government, and we
are, moreover, the first government in 50 years to have really
reduced government expenditures in absolute terms. We want to
see Canadians drawing the full benefit of their tax dollars. This is
why we always give the utmost attention to the auditor general's
recommendations and correct our mistakes.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how the minister can pass
off these little failed projects as trifles, when the auditor general
has identified $2.5 billion in waste in his report for 1996.
The minister tells us that he wants to tighten up controls. He
makes it sound very simple, but what about the senior public
servant who has made an error in judgement? What will happen to
him? What will happen to the person responsible for making such
an irresponsible decision?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
someone had the authority to punish all of the errors committed by
the opposition party, there would not be one of them left.
What is important is that we have markedly reduced
expenditures that were not in the public interest. We have cut
government expenditures by $15 billion. We have reformed the
public service and the various departments.
I believe that, with the recommendations of the auditor general,
we can continue to properly serve the Canadian public, including
Quebecers, who want good value for their money.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Government of Alberta took a very positive
step toward assisting Canadian Airlines in the securing of the jobs
of 16,000 people. Alberta cut its aviation fuel tax in half, a move
that will save the airline over $8 million a year.
The transport minister said last week that he was open to a
lowering of the federal aviation fuel tax and that he had discussed it
with the finance minister.
(1425 )
However, the parliamentary secretary was unclear yesterday as
to what the result was.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Will this
government follow Alberta's lead and reduce the federal aviation
fuel tax?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with the
hon. member's position that Canadian Airlines is a very important
company for this country.
The Minister of Transport wants it to survive and succeed and so
does this government. He is meeting with all the people necessary
to meet with in order to make that happen.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, taxes kill jobs and this particular tax is capable of killing
many jobs. The aviation fuel tax is an excellent example. It puts our
airlines at a competitive disadvantage.
The old way of dealing with economic sectors that are in trouble
has been grants and handouts. The new way of dealing with that is
tax relief. If Canadian employees are willing to make sacrifices to
save their jobs, surely the federal tax collector would make some
sacrifice as well.
Again, we are asking the parliamentary secretary for an answer
to this, not a general comment. Will the federal government offer to
reduce the federal aviation tax as a means of saving these 16,000
jobs at Canadian?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party is
again right. There have been sacrifices, many of them made by the
employees of Canadian Airlines. However, I remind the hon.
member that there have been many sacrifices made by the
Canadian taxpayer for Canadian Airlines as well. Therefore we
have to act responsibly and act in their best interests.
6791
The minister went out to British Columbia. He has been
working hard at facilitating discussions. He has met with Mr.
Kevin Benson, the president of Canadian Airlines. That meeting
has been successful. He has met with six of the unions. Four of
those unions have come on board, including the largest union, the
machinists union, led by Mr. David Ritchie.
We can say that those discussions have been fruitful. There have
been some serious proposals put on the table and they are now
under active consideration.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we understand all that and have understood it for a long
time. Our question is very simple. These workers are going to have
to make a final decision this weekend as to whether to accept this
restructuring package. It includes proposals for reducing the
overhead and operating costs of the airlines. However, if they know
there is going to be a reduction in the federal aviation tax that
makes a difference with respect to the acceptability of the entire
package.
I simply ask the parliamentary secretary, who seems to be
moving in the right direction, can he go the whole way and just tell
the House and tell those workers that the federal government is
offering a reduction in the federal aviation fuel tax?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes the answer cannot be as
simple as the question. We have to do the appropriate thing in the
best interests of Canadians. We have to meet with the appropriate
individuals, the president of the company and the union officials.
Four of the six unions have all come on board. They have been very
active.
Yes, Canadian Airline employees have made their sacrifices but
so have Canadian taxpayers. We have to ensure that the Canadian
taxpayer is also protected.
As I said before, all those serious proposals have been made to
the Minister of Transport. He has been there since last Sunday
facilitating these discussions. All those proposals are under active
consideration at this very moment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Most regrettably, the negotiations of recent days to send a
multinational force to the great lakes region of Africa are still
stalled. The indecision of the international community angers us
and makes us wonder about its effects on possible future conflicts
in that region of Africa. Despite continued opposition in Kigali, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested yesterday that one possible
intervention might involve dropping food by parachute for
subsequent distribution by humanitarian organizations.
(1430)
Has the minister obtained a consensus, and, if so, when would
this operation begin and how would it work?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following the meetings in Stuttgart, we looked very
closely with our colleagues at actions we might take. We concluded
it would be quite possible to establish headquarters in Uganda, to
undertake certain reconnaissance operations in Zaire and especially
to parachute in aid for the refugees.
We made this recommendation yesterday to the other partners,
and I expect to receive a response tonight or tomorrow morning.
Afterwards, things should go very quickly. We need the
co-operation of the other partners to ensure all resources are
mobilized for this vital operation in Zaire.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nobody
understands why the international community is becoming
increasingly bogged down in this matter. Why is it so slow to react?
Would the minister explain to all Canadians why the
international community seems totally incapable of acting? Is there
any real political will here? If not, this should be made clear.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in case the hon. member did not notice, about 10 days ago
over .5 million refugees returned to Rwanda, which was the
original purpose of the mission. That part of it has been
extraordinarily successful. The original mission was established to
have the refugees return to Rwanda. Most of them have now
returned.
It may stretch the imagination of the hon. member but frankly if
that was the objective of the mission and most of it has now been
achieved, the question is what do we do to ensure that it is
completed. That has been the cause of some of the uncertainty by
other members of the coalition.
There is no lack of political will. I will be glad to table my
telephone bill in the House of Commons to show how much will we
have been exercising in the last several days.
The reaction is, as I said, we must work in co-operation with the
other potential partners so that we can have a full mobilization of
this effort, so we can complete the task that was started by the
initiative two weeks ago of Canada, where we have had enormous
success with the refugees going back. But we want to make sure the
job is fully and effectively completed.
6792
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period yesterday the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Transport said that Canadian
Airlines lost $1.2 billion over the last 10 years.
That is true, but it did not stop the government from taking $32
million a year in fuel taxes from the financially troubled airline.
Maybe that is because the government is in worse financial shape
than the airline is.
The government's insensitivity to Canadian's employees is
deplorable but perhaps it is understandable given that the average
Liberal pension is higher than the average working wage of
Canadian's employees.
The employees are not looking for handouts. They are looking
for fairness. When is this government going to do the fair thing and
end its unfair aviation fuel tax, a tax that is destroying Canadian
jobs and Canadian companies?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed at the question
put by the hon. member only because we know that the hon.
member is an active member of the transport committee who has
always been very facilitating and very helpful in situations on bills
and so on.
Today he chooses this very difficult time that is taking place
between a company and its employees in trying to restructure an
airline, the goodwill that is being demonstrated by three different
levels of government in the facilitation, the team work being put
forward by not only the federal government but the Government of
Alberta, the Government of British Columbia. It is a team approach
that will see this airline survive and be prosperous. The hon.
member's intervention and political gainsmanship are not helping
one bit.
(1435)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Alberta does not have any trouble
figuring out what the right thing is. Why does this government?
Thus far the Canadian auto workers and CUPE have not agreed
to the democratic process of allowing their members to vote on
Canadian's restructuring process. The parliamentary secretary says
four out of six. These were the other two.
Buzz Hargrove, the head of the CAW, is actually in a conflict
position. He has members in Canadian facing a salary reduction
while he is trying to negotiate a raise for those same members in
Air Canada. Faced with this dilemma, there is no way he can act in
the best interests of both parties simultaneously. Canadian's
employees are rallying today, asking for the right to vote.
Parliament is the final court of appeal. Is it listening? Is it going
to act?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government is in the
process of doing its job and trying to help Canadian get back on its
feet.
The hon. member speaks of the union between the leadership and
its employees. It was three weeks ago that the Minister of Transport
brought this issue to the floor of this House, on November 8, when
he said that he completely agreed the employees of Canadian
should have the right to vote on their future and on the restructuring
program that has been proposed by Mr. Benson, CEO of Canadian
Airlines.
We are on side with the company. We are trying to work with the
company and its employees. We want to see Canadian Airlines
survive.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Canadian Coast Guard was to release last Thursday the
impact study on its new fee structure for commercial traffic, but the
tabling of this study was cancelled at the last minute. Yet everyone
knows that the study has been completed. The consultants' contract
ended two weeks ago.
Will the minister admit that he is refusing to release his bogus
study at this time because most of the findings are being strongly
disputed by all stakeholders in the St. Lawrence shipping
community, including almost every business analyzed in the study?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member talks about is a report on
the impact study of the marine service fees. I want to make sure the
house understands the question.
The impact study, as I have promised time and time again to this
member, uses seven initiatives to look at 1,400 traffic flows and 15
commodities. This is a very complex study that examines the
impact of the $60 million marine service fees which represent a
very small portion of what it costs this government to provide.
The hon. member knows it is user pay, user say. The report is in
the final stages but despite what the hon. member may surmise and
suggest, the truth is the report has not yet been completed. It is not
put together. I have not seen the final report.
6793
I am not in the habit of tabling in this House or to anybody
else reports that have not been completed, and I will wait until
the report is complete before I do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from what I hear
the industry saying, I would be inclined to believe that perhaps the
minister is not tabling his study because he is embarrassed.
Does the minister recognize that he cannot go ahead with his
plans to raise an additional $20 million in fees in 1997, since such
action could obviously have serious consequences on the
businesses and jobs affected by this fee hike?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed the whole point of
the impact study. The point of the study was to find out what the
impact would be at $60 million. But it also examines what the
impact is in a general sense.
The hon. member is suggesting that I should go ahead with the
impact study, release it and then go ahead with increased fees. I do
not think I want to do that.
(1440)
The purpose of the study is to find out what the future moves
should be. Before I table any study, I have to look at what the
impacts are, which is the purpose of the study, before we go ahead
with the next move. And for the information of the hon. member, it
is not another $20 million because in effect we are collecting $26
million now. We will move when we are ready and when we have
studied the impacts on the overall industry to make sure that we are
being fair, decent, balanced and reasonable.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, secret cabinet
documents from 1984 that the Krever commission needs can be
released with the former prime ministers' permission.
My question for the justice minister is: Has that permission been
sought?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
cabinet nor partisan consideration that would take precedence over
the health and safety of Canadians.
Since Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney will want
to get to the bottom of the tainted blood scandal, I ask very plainly,
will the justice minister seek the permission of those prime
ministers to release the documents? Will he table his letter in the
House of Commons forthwith?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that
question is the same answer that was given yesterday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The government is about to expand, under the framework of a
federal agency, current pest management regulatory services. It
will take this opportunity to have the chemical product industry pay
for part of the costs of this monitoring activity.
Will the minister confirm that, as regards its agency project, the
Canadian government wants to recover 60 per cent of the costs
from the chemical product industry, while the American
government only imposes a 15 per cent recovery cost for the same
services?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I presume the question refers to the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency which is under the
jurisdiction of the Minister of Health.
On the minister's behalf I want to assure the hon. gentleman that
the government has been in very close dialogue with all of the
stakeholders that may be potentially affected by the new Pest
Management Regulatory Agency. Every effort is being made to
incorporate their very helpful advice into the administration of the
agency to make sure that it can be operated on the most economical
basis possible. Provision is being made for an economic
stakeholders advisory committee so that those stakeholders who
will be affected by this regulatory system can have ongoing input
into the future. The objective is to make this system efficient so
that the cost savings can accrue back to the industry which would
be subject to that regulation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
will be a problem. Given this gap of 45 per cent, will the minister
agree that imposing such high recovery costs will make it more
costly for companies to develop their products in Canada and that,
consequently, these companies will pass on the bill to farmers, who
will also become less competitive, unless they buy directly from
the United States?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is touching
upon an issue that he, this government and I regard to be very
important.
6794
That is the harmonization of our regulatory systems in relation to
our trading partners around the world, and of course in the North
American context most particularly with the United States and
Mexico.
When I say harmonization, I want to make the point very clear
that we are not in any way talking about lowering Canadian
standards. Our standards are the best in the world. We will continue
to ensure that Canada's food system is the safest and highest
quality in the world.
(1445)
There are ways in which we can make savings through
harmonization. I would advise that those discussions with our
NAFTA partners are already under way and are already making
progress. We are developing a pilot project for the joint review of
applications for new products in the future.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
In Canada today firms led by women are creating jobs at four
times the rate of all other firms. In Atlantic Canada the number of
women owned businesses employing five or more people has
increased from 16 to 28 per cent in less than six years.
Can the minister explain why women are having this
extraordinary success as entrepreneurs? What is the government
doing to enhance this opportunity for job creation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know whether we can identify any inherent
strengths in the female gender that make them successful as
entrepreneurs but I can say that the statistics are correct.
Women have demonstrated extraordinary success as
entrepreneurs. They are appearing as entrepreneurs and are starting
businesses in record numbers. As recently as this past January,
Statistics Canada reported that the percentage of women who are
members of Canada's entrepreneurial class has increased
significantly. At the same time 11 per cent of Canadian employed
women are now self-employed as entrepreneurs.
We have tried to overcome some of the obstacles that continue to
inhibit the ability of women to succeed as entrepreneurs largely
through mentoring programs, assistance programs, ACOA, the
Business Development Bank of Canada and western economic
diversification. These are attempts to give women the tools they
need to create jobs for themselves and others and they have proven
they can succeed at it.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, back to Krever.
Former prime ministers can divulge information with their
permission. This is an issue of Canadian health and safety. There is
no one in this government who can hide from the fact that the
information is important and necessary.
Once again, if the Deputy Prime Minister will not seek this
permission, will she tell the House of Commons why not?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 39 of the Canada
Evidence Act makes it quite clear that it is the responsibility of
every government to protect cabinet confidences. The only time
that has ever been referred back is when a minister has been
charged with a criminal offence.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is criminal.
It is nonsense. Nonsense.
The health and safety of Canadians is paramount. No excuse will
allow the government to escape from this issue. One of my
campaign workers got hepatitis C from a tooth transfusion. She
deserves the plain, straight answer from Krever. We want that
answer and we will not rest until those documents are tabled.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think every Canadian is
anxiously awaiting the results of the Krever commission.
I would hope that all Canadians, including the members of the
opposition, understand that the government has absolutely no
interest in protecting the government of Brian Mulroney. This
government however does respect the fact that under section 39 of
the Canada Evidence Act previous cabinets do have the right to
cabinet confidentiality. The only time that right under section 39
has been set aside has been in the specific case of a minister who is
facing criminal charges.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last week, during a meeting with government representatives,
the group seeking the release of Tran Trieu Quan was informed by
officials that the government no longer knew what to do in this
case, and that the special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
6795
who had been given responsibility for Tran Trieu Quan's case no
longer worked for the minister.
Will the minister tell us whether this information is correct and,
if so, will he tell us whether the position will eventually be filled,
and who in his department is in charge of the Tran Trieu Quan file
in the meantime?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly share the member's concern about Mr. Tran's
situation. But as the member knows, we have worked very hard at
making representations to the Vietnamese government.
Just recently, for example, my colleague, the Minister for
International Cooperation, attended a meeting in Vietnam. He had
several meetings, in person, with ministers in that government, and
asked that pressure be brought to bear on the government. At the
same time, the consular service of the Department of Foreign
Affairs are ensuring that all conditions are being respected by the
government in Mr. Tran's case. And we will continue to do
everything necessary to ensure that Mr. Tran's rights are respected.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to come back to my original question.
Officials are telling us that the department no longer knows what
to do. We have also been told that the special adviser no longer
works for the department. Is anyone in the department still working
on behalf of Tran Trieu Quan?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out that the ministers of this department are
working directly in this case. The Minister for International
Cooperation, this minister, the former Minister of International
Cooperation, myself, the ambassador in Vietnam and members of
our consular service are all directly engaged in ensuring that the
rights of Mr. Tran are respected.
We are continuing to make all representations that we can, but
we are dealing with a country that has its own rules, its own laws
and is sovereign. All we can do is make every effort possible for
them to change their position, which we will continue to do. We
cannot force them to do it but we will continue to do everything in
our power to make that happen.
I have one specific example. When I was in Ukraine a month
ago, I made specific representations to that government to ensure
that it would provide direct evidence dealing with the case of Mr.
Morgan who is an alleged accomplice in this case. We are
establishing a worldwide net to try to come to grips with ways in
which we can assist Mr. Tran in his very serious circumstances.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
August 1984 John Turner was the Prime Minister of this country.
He came forward with draft legislation on tainted blood.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said time and time again that she
wants nothing to do with Mulroney. We are not asking her to get
involved with Mulroney. He came in in September 1984.
What we are asking is not for the Deputy Prime Minister to
divulge any secret cabinet information. All we are asking the
Deputy Prime Minister and the government to do is to ask
permission of former prime ministers. Will she ask for their
permission to go ahead with this information?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the documents that were
certified as cabinet confidences do not include any documents from
the government of John Turner.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
something here is starting to smell of a cover-up and we will get to
the bottom of this for the people who have lost their lives.
It is one thing to talk glibly, that there is no problem here
whatsoever. However, if the Deputy Prime Minister and the
government are serious about getting to the bottom of this issue and
letting the Krever inquiry get to its work, will she commit to simply
asking former prime ministers, which is within her right and her
obligation, for their permission to allow these documents and
information to be released? Yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 39 of the Canada
Evidence Act requires the Prime Minister to respect cabinet
confidentiality. There is however nothing preventing the
commission itself from inquiring upon anyone it would like to
subpoena to have testify.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's efforts during Team Canada's
Asian trip in 1994 have finally enabled Canada to sell two Candu
nuclear reactors to China.
Would the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office
of Regional Development-Quebec tell us what economic benefits
Quebec can expect from the signing of this major contract?
6796
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague for his excellent question.
We have indeed announced the sale of two Candu reactors to
China. This is excellent news, because the contract is worth $4
billion. Canada's share in the financing, in other words, its
financial contribution, is $1.5 billion. This means economic
benefits worth $275 million for the Province of Quebec. In terms of
job creation, it means 8,000 person years. The two reactors will
take some six and a half years to build-a substantial contribution
to the economy.
This announcement is proof of the Government of Canada's
ability to help businesses export and develop new markets, an
important consideration in this time of globalization. It also shows
that the Canadian government is bringing jobs home, which is vital.
* * *
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Labour.
On October 24, Bradson Mercantile Inc. locked out its 365
security officers and immediately replaced them with scabs. The
security officers employed by Bradson are assigned to supply
protection at several sites in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
Does the minister think it is acceptable that approximately 273
scabs provide protection at 32 federal government buildings in the
Ottawa-Carleton region, including 2 at Elections Canada, 20 at the
Museum of Nature and no fewer than 50 at Statistics Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the company has a
contractual obligation to provide continuous protection, and that is
what it is doing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of immigration.
The review of the immigration centre has clearly hurt the people
of Vegreville by unfairly tarnishing their reputation. This $42,000
government commissioned study should never have been done.
This issue should have been dealt with quickly and decisively by
competent management.
Will the minister simply apologize for the damage done by her
department and show some concern and consideration for the
people of Vegreville?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated previously in this House
that the study conducted at the centre in Vegreville was on the
operations of the centre, not on the community of Vegreville per se,
particularly since the study showed problems at the centre. The
people of Vegreville themselves are not being judged.
The mayor of Vegreville himself, who took the time to read the
report, concluded it was an internal review of the operations at the
centre.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Bank profits are soaring over last year's record profits while
consumer credit card debt has soared to 20 per cent of personal
debt. Some credit card holders are paying up to 25 per cent over the
prime rate while interest on savings accounts is paid at 3 per cent
below prime.
Last week when I asked the minister if he would consider
bringing back the Usury Act to outlaw interest rate gouging by
banks, oil companies and retail stores on credit card accounts, he
said that he would look into it.
(1500 )
In view of these record bank profits and in view of record low
interest rates will the government now take action to protect
consumers from this outrageous interest rate rip-off and bring the
credit card interest rates and interest paid on savings accounts more
in line with the Canada prime rates?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
mention to the hon. member that every one of the large Canadian
banks has a low interest rate credit card which is available to
consumers. Indeed, I might also mention that in the past few days
two of the major banks have lowered their interest rates on their
low interest rate cards and they are below 10 per cent.
As far as the other issue of bank profits is concerned, we make
sure that the banks pay considerable taxes to the federal
government. I might add that a conference board study a few years
back indicated that the banks paid taxes to federal, provincial and
municipal governments amounting to $6 billion annually. This
year, with higher profits, they will pay more taxes to the federal
government.
6797
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians sometimes purchase excess amounts of frozen food such
as poultry while in the United States. Upon entry to Canada these
are taken from them if the individual refuses to pay the excess duty
in accordance with agriculture Canada regulations.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.
Why is the department insisting on filling our Canadian landfill
sites with frozen American turkeys while it steadfastly refuses to
allow them to be donated immediately to community food banks
and kitchens?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman raises a point
which I will be happy to investigate further.
The critical issue that we must be very careful about is food
safety. We had an issue arise a number of years ago with respect to
surplus food being brought into Canada and used by certain British
troops who were training at the Suffield station in Alberta. They
brought their own rations with them. There were surplus rations.
We were asked if we would allow those rations to be donated to a
food bank. It seemed like a good idea. However, upon reflection we
refused to give that permission because of the risk of contaminated
food being transferred. As it turned out, that judgment in that case
was absolutely correct because of the subsequent BST fiasco in the
United Kingdom.
While I do not mean to link that case to the one referred to by the
hon. gentleman, I use it as an example to illustrate the very high
standards of food quality we maintain in Canada, not only in the
commercial sector but also in the food bank sector.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege with regard to a very grave matter relating to a
deliberate attempt by the minister of fisheries to deny me
information. I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 25,
citation 97:
-``While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to
answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances
would ever exist for a prima facie case of privilege to be made where there was a
deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member-.
I also refer you to citation 24:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are ``absolutely necessary for the
execution of its powers''.
I have a copy of a directive from the minister of fisheries that
involves my personal privileges as a member of Parliament and the
privileges of all members of Parliament from British Columbia.
The directive states:
We have been instructed by the Minister's office to report to them all telephone
calls from MPs and Senators. The report is to include the name of the individual, the
office they are associated with, phone number and the issue along with a summary of
what information was given to the caller.
The messages are to be e-mailed or faxed to me within 24 hours of the call having
been received. Attached is a form which is to be used.
Please ensure all your staff are advised to report all such calls to you immediately.
This directive went to all regional directors in the Pacific region
of the department of fisheries. As the fisheries critic for the Reform
Party in this House, there can be no doubt this directive was aimed
to discourage public civil servants from talking to me as a member
of Parliament.
As a member of Parliament I will have less access to public
information than a member of the general public. How can I work
on its behalf? How can I carry out my job of representing my
constituents if public servants are discouraged from speaking with
me?
This is an obvious attempt to stifle the work of a member of
Parliament. If a general member of the public makes an inquiry to
the department of fisheries, they are normally given a courteous
reply. Public servants are paid with taxpayer money. They are
public servants, not political servants of this government. It is not
their job to spy on members of Parliament.
If public servants at the department of fisheries in the Pacific
region, that is British Columbia, are required to record the nature of
the conservation with a member of this House within 24 hours it
will discourage public servants from speaking with members. If
public servants at fisheries speak, they will have to explain to the
minister what they said and be prepared to explain why they said it.
Why would a public servant risk the wrath of the minister by even
having a conversation with a member of Parliament?
This directive by the minister of fisheries will have a chilling
effect on the normal flow of public information to members of
Parliament. The public service is not the military or the police. I
recognize that members of the military may not be able to respond
to questions from members of the House. But is the minister of
fisheries turning public servants into his own regiment that is
required to snitch on conversations with members?
Should members of this House be named on such an enemy's
list? Are public servants required to inform the minister of their
conversations with representatives of foreign governments within
6798
24 hours? Are members of this House being treated worse than
possible foreign spies and possible enemies of the country?
The actions of the minister of fisheries have impaired my
privileges as a member of this House. The minister's action
prevents me from doing my job. Members of Parliament should
never be treated as enemies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter and give me
your ruling.
The Speaker: Colleagues, any question of privilege is listened
to with great attention by your Speaker. As the hon. member
knows, I was given notice. I was given a newspaper report.
The hon. member refers to a communique of some kind that
came directly from the minister.
(1510)
The minister is not in the House today. I wonder if the
honourable member could wait until the minister is here. Perhaps
there is a clarification but I would like to hear a little more
information before I make a ruling on this.
I would prefer to hear directly from the minister before I hear
additional evidence, keeping in mind that I will hear additional
evidence after I hear from the minister.
Would that be acceptable to you, my colleague?
Mr. Cummins: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to
make a copy of the directive which I quoted from available to you.
The Speaker: I would appreciate a copy of the directive but I
hold everything in abeyance until the hon. minister of fisheries is
here so that I can get something to go by. Perhaps there is an
explanation to this. We will return to this when the hon. minister
returns to the House.
_____________________________________________
6798
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to six
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the key elements of this
government's gun control policy are now well known. Last
December 5 legislation was adopted and given royal assent, which
acts on those elements.
That law imposed tough criminal penalties on those who choose
to use firearms in the commission of crimes. It banned several
military type assault weapons. It banned most handguns. We have
taken strong measures to deter the smuggling and illegal movement
of firearms, and all of this while respecting the legitimate interests
of law-abiding firearms owners who use their guns for hunting,
sport shooting or collecting.
We have introduced a process by which everyone with firearms
will be licensed and all firearms in Canada will be registered to
their owners.
In the period since the adoption of Bill C-68, the government has
been at work in preparing regulations to give effect to its
framework.
[Translation]
The process of preparing those regulations has involved the
broadest consultation with interested groups and parties,
particularly with aboriginal people and other firearms users.
Today, in tabling the regulations under the Firearms Act, the
government marks another critical milestone. It is determined to
advance toward achieving tough, sensible and effective gun control
in Canada.
[English]
I should mention that among those with whom we have
consulted are members of the User's Group on Firearms, 15
persons from across Canada representing firearms owners, sport
shooters, sustenance hunters, recreational hunters, dealers,
collectors, police chiefs and police officers.
The User's Group on Firearms has brought to my attention some
unintended consequences arising from Bill C-68 for a small group
of firearms owners and dealers. I am looking into possible
solutions and soon hope to announce a plan to deal with those
unintended consequences.
I would like to take a moment in tabling these regulations today
to acknowledge and to express gratitude for the remarkable work
done by the dedicated professionals within the Department of
Justice. The excellence of their work, the depth of their
commitment and, frankly, the extent of their patience has really
been quite extraordinary. On behalf of the government I express
both gratitude and admiration for their efforts.
Let me deal in a summary way with certain of the subjects dealt
with in the regulations that I am tabling today. First, licensing for
firearms owners will begin early in 1998. Individuals will have
until January 2001 to obtain a licence.
A major goal of this legislation is to prevent an escalation of
violence in already difficult or abusive domestic situations. Before
someone is issued a licence to acquire a gun any current or former
spouse or common law partners, within the last two years, will be
6799
notified. This will ensure that those persons have the opportunity to
voice any concerns about their own safety or the safety of other
persons. This provision responds to a key recommendation from
the Vernon inquest, people who sat and looked at the evidence as
opposed to sitting in a political seat and judging which way the
wind is blowing.
(1515)
In terms of registration we remembered that the guns most
commonly used in crime in Canada are non-restricted rifles and
shotguns. That is a fact. Many are illegally obtained from the
rightful owners. And that is a fact. The registration system is the
foundation of the government's efforts against gun theft and
trafficking. Registration will help police track stolen guns and will
act as an incentive for owners to store them properly in accordance
with laws already on the books. It will also be an additional tool to
ensure the safety of police officers responding to domestic violence
or other potentially dangerous calls.
The recent and very tragic events in Winnipeg on the weekend,
and in Courtenay, B.C. some weeks ago, demonstrated once again,
as though more evidence were required, the importance of
complying with safe storage if tragedies and random crimes are to
be prevented.
Registration of firearms will begin at the same time as the
licensing of owners, resulting in a simpler process for firearms
users. Individuals will have until January 1, 2003 to register all
their firearms.
With these regulations, the government has confirmed its
commitment for reasonable fees for firearms users, business
owners and industry. For example, the fees for a five-year
possession licence in 1998 will be $10 rising to $60 in the year
2000. That is $10 for a five-year licence.
As previously announced, in 1998, individuals will pay $10 to
register all of the rifles and shotguns they own as long as they are
registered at the same time. By the year 2001 that fee will rise to
$18 to register as many rifles and shotguns as they own, provided
they are registered all at the same time. Those are more than
reasonable fees.
[Translation]
Commencing on January 1, 2001, every individual will be
required to have a firearms licence in order to buy ammunition.
Until that date, the proposed regulation will allow individuals who
do not have a licence to use another approved form of
identification. This change will make it more difficult for people
who have stolen guns to get ammunition.
[English]
For example, this change will make it more difficult for people
with stolen guns to get ammunition, such as those convicted in the
tragic Battersby murder here in Ottawa a few years ago.
Let me briefly touch on the way these regulations apply to the
aboriginal peoples of Canada. First of all, the principles in the
Firearms Act apply to all Canadians. Everyone, including the
aboriginal peoples of Canada, will be required to licence
themselves and register their firearms. But the regulations, as we
have always committed, adapt those principles to the reality of the
aboriginal way of life and the traditional rights that aboriginal
people possess.
These adaptations respect existing aboriginal and treaty rights
under section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. Sustenance hunters
and trappers, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will be exempt
from registration and licensing fees.
In addition, the regulations will reflect the reality in the
aboriginal communities of communal ownership of firearms, of the
lending of firearms, the use of firearms by children below the age
of 12, of the sometimes great difficulty that aboriginal people have
in taking proficiency tests, particularly if it is in a language which
they do not speak, and the particular challenges that aboriginal
people sometimes face in terms of safe storage if they are using
their firearms in remote locations in the exercise of aboriginal
hunting rights.
We have learned also during consultations with aboriginal
people that aboriginal communities are anxious to administer the
Firearms Act locally within their own communities. Therefore we
are embarking on discussions on community administration of the
Firearms Act by aboriginal communities.
(1520 )
Let me touch on one other matter before I conclude. Members of
the House will know that three provinces and two territories have
chosen to opt out of the administration of gun control as it now
stands. Others have chosen to join with those provinces and
territories in challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
The decision by these provinces and territories to abandon their
role in the administration of gun control is nothing less than a
shocking abdication of their responsibility. The governments of
those provinces and territories pretend that their objection is to the
registration of all firearms. The reality is that they have abandoned
their role not only with respect to registration but with respect to
gun control as a whole. They have shown that they oppose gun
control. They will not take any further part in the issuance of FAC,
they will take no further part in the administration of safety
courses. They have walked away from their responsibility in
relation to gun control.
Up to the present time the responsibility for ensuring community
safety through gun control, especially in those provinces and
territories, was the joint responsibility of the federal, provincial
and territorial governments. As of the moment when they walk
6800
away from those responsibilities, the Government of Canada is
going to take up the responsibilities that they are abandoning.
I look across the way and I see fellow travellers, I see the Reform
Party and the NDP who voted against gun control, people who are
in the grip of the gun lobby, people who have riding associations,
such as the Reform Party, where the president is David Tomlinson,
the national executive officer of the National Firearms Association;
hardly a source of objective views.
I want to assure Canadians, and particularly Canadians in
Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the two territories, that
despite the irresponsible decision of their provincial and territorial
governments, this government takes its responsibility seriously.
We will stand up to the gun lobby. We will stand up for Canadians.
Let the New Democratic Party kneel before the gun lobby. Let it
betray its principles of decades. Let it walk away from its former
reputation as the party of principle. Let the Reform Party solidify
its position as the party of the extreme, the party in the grip of the
gun lobby, the party incapable of taking a position in favour of
community safety if it means that they have to offend Mr.
Tomlinson and his National Firearms Association.
We shall meet in court the arguments put by those provincial and
territorial governments. We have every confidence that we shall
prevail. We shall stand up for gun control in those provinces and
throughout the country for the safety of Canadians in large urban
centres but particularly in the rural communities where most of the
guns are found.
[Translation]
In closing, let me say that the regulations that are tabled today,
and the gun control law itself, illustrate this government's
commitment to do everything possible to keep homes and streets in
Canada safe. We believe that the laws of this land should reflect the
peaceful, civil and tolerant heritage that is so much of what Canada
is all about.
[English]
The government rejects absolutely the vision of the gun lobby
for the future of this country. Canadians have made clear by their
overwhelming support for this law in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in
British Columbia and throughout this country that they want the
government to choose a path different from the one the Americans
have chosen so that our children can inherit a Canada which is
peaceful and civil.
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as we are seeing today, the firearms issue has stirred up a
lot of emotion and animosity between hardliners and those who
want no controls.
Much was heard from the latter group, but also from the federal
government, the Liberal government before me, whose caucus is
divided on this issue.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, has always taken a realistic
approach, avoiding exaggeration and theatrics. Our sole goal is to
defend the legal rights and obligations of Quebecers in this regard.
As a result, all of English Canada has benefited.
We were, and we still are, in agreement with the principle that all
owners of firearms should obtain a permit and that all firearms
should be registered in the name of their owners. We support this
principle, but not at any price, and certainly not in the face of
intolerance and arrogance and threats to constitutional
jurisdictions.
The Bloc Quebecois has succeeded in getting the government to
make a number of amendments to its gun control legislation, and
we are proud to have done so. These amendments in no way alter
the purpose of the bill, which was and still is to protect the public.
This bill and the regulations tabled today in the House will not
prevent all tragedies. There will always be negligence in this area
of jurisdiction regarding the use of firearms. But the purpose of the
regulations and the legislation is to at least try to reduce the number
of unfortunate incidents.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the
Bloc Quebecois who, through their solidarity, succeeded, where the
Reform Party failed, in getting the government to take a more
moderate approach, in accordance with the wishes expressed by a
great many Quebecers. We would, however, have liked the minister
to be more receptive to the amendments we proposed. But we
understand.
We understand that the firearms lobby is extremely powerful.
We understand that there were certain difficulties within his
caucus, and, in the circumstances, we are still very pleased at what
we have achieved with respect to this legislation.
Today, in tabling the gun control regulations, which we shall
examine with the same serious and professional approach as we did
the bill, we can boast from now on that the Bloc Quebecois has
made some considerable progress. I must take this opportunity to
thank the minister for this. He has responded to some of the
demands made by us in this House.
Firearms owners will have three years to obtain a permit, that is
from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 2001. The cost of this five-year
gun ownership permit will be $10 in 1998 and $60 in the year 2000,
very reasonable amounts which we ourselves proposed to the
minister during his appearance before the standing committee on
justice and during discussions in committee or in this House.
6801
The Bloc Quebecois made sure that the government set fees that
were reasonable, and that took regional realities into particular
consideration.
Another point we have gained is the individual registration of
firearms. Owners have until January 1, 2003 to register all of their
firearms. The charge in 1998 will be $10 for all firearms belonging
to the same person, without restriction, provided they are all
registered at the same time. Starting January 1, 2001, the fee will
be $18.
This is a great victory for all hunters, trappers, collectors and
sports enthusiasts in Canada and Quebec. There was a great deal of
insecurity and ambiguity in this area. Now, with these regulations,
we know that the minister made a wise decision. But this is not the
only victory we have won for these hunters, these trappers, these
collectors, these sports enthusiasts, with respect to the regulations.
The government is bowing to our demand for recognition of the
Quebec and even Manitoba firearms handling certificates and
courses for provinces with such courses and certification. This is a
very considerable gain because, here again, there was no certainty.
We made these gains through the Bloc Quebecois' perseverance
and insistent questioning.
(1530)
The regulations will apply equally to all, both aboriginal and
non-aboriginal citizens. Public safety makes no distinction, and
there was no need to make a distinction in the regulations. I am
glad this was changed.
Sustenance hunters and trappers, both aboriginal and
non-aboriginal, will have to obtain a licence and register their
firearms but will be exempted from registration and licensing fees.
The safety objective has been achieved, but there is also a
recognition of the rights of sustenance hunters and trappers-both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal-in the way registration is handled.
We insisted on this point, and we got what we wanted.
The Bloc Quebecois will remain vigilant in its analysis of the
regulations as regards the storage, display, handling,
transportation, possession and sale of firearms, to ensure the
regulations are fair, applicable and, whenever possible, reflect local
circumstances.
However, there are not just positive points in this ministerial
statement. There are also negative elements. I feel I must point out
certain discrepancies between what the Minister of Justice said in
his statement this afternoon and his government's throne speech.
In the throne speech, there was talk of flexibility, withdrawal
from areas under provincial jurisdiction, and the federal
government showing some understanding of the powers of the
provinces. Today, in his statement, the minister made it clear that in
this respect at least, the throne speech was meaningless, because
the minister has unilaterally taken on the responsibilities of the
legislatures of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the two
territories which refuse to accept the legislation on gun control.
On the other hand, I deplore the refusal of these provinces and
territories to implement the legislation, but I cannot tolerate that
our federal big brother should style himself the great protector of
the citizenry, at the expense of the legislatures.
In fact, gun control comes under the administration of justice
and is therefore exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The
federal government has no business taking on this constitutional
authority which belongs to the provinces. I urge the government to
keep its word, respect its own Constitution and initiate discussions
with the provinces and convince them to act responsibly.
Furthermore, there is some ambiguity as to how the federal
government will apply the regulations with respect to costs. Will
this be one more instance where Quebec is disadvantaged because
it immediately agreed to implement the regulations with respect to
costs? Quebec will pay the initial administration cost for its own
territory. Am I to understand that, as a result of the federal
government's action vis-à-vis the provinces which refuse to
implement the gun control legislation, Quebec and the other
provinces which were willing to implement the legislation will be
charged part of these administration costs a second time? I wonder.
The minister will have to answer these questions in the course of
our analysis of the regulations. Instead of taking on powers that are
not his, the minister should use his powers of persuasion to
convince the dissenting provinces and territories.
Quebecers may rest assured that we will stay the course on the
regulations and the legislation. We will, of course, be guided by a
concern for public safety, common sense, fairness and respect for
regional differences. We will be extremely vigilant.
In concluding, I would like to announce to the House that my
colleague from Portneuf will take part in the consideration in
committee of these regulations. I am confident he will be as
vigilant as the caucus has always been.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we finally
have the regulations. They were tabled once, they were withdrawn
and now they are back.
(1535 )
I will pick up on the comments the justice minister made with
regard to his shock and alarm over the provinces that are opposing
the bill and refusing to administer various aspects of the bill. What
I find shocking and alarming is the fact that the minister would
bring forward a bill that he expects the provinces to administer
without first gaining their approval for the bill's contents, approval
6802
for their duties and responsibilities. Why did the minister not first
gain their approval?
The minister told this House that he was in continuous
consultation with the attorneys general of the provinces. Yet when
three of them appeared before the standing committee, they told us
there was minimal consultation. That is an explanation as to why he
is now in this position.
The aboriginal justice minister from the Northwest Territories
appeared before the committee. He told us very clearly that it was
impractical to enforce the FAC requirements because there is no
access to facilities to get things, such as passport photos, which are
required to obtain an FAC. Therefore that regulation was not being
abided by.
The minister speaks about gun control. This is not gun control.
This is the registration of firearms. There is no one in this country
who is not in support of reasonable, common sense control of
firearms. In fact, we hear this expressed all across the country. The
fact of the matter is the bill does not do that. There are portions of
Kim Campbell's Bill C-17 that are not being enforced or at least if
they are, they are not protecting people's lives.
The examples the justice minister gave of the incident in B.C.
and the incident in Winnipeg have nothing whatever to do with this
bill. They have to do with safe storage which was contained in Bill
C-17.
Neither the justice minister nor the member from the Bloc nor
anyone from the government has explained how the registration of
a rifle or a shotgun is going to reduce the criminal use of firearms.
We asked the police chiefs and the representatives of the Canadian
Police Association how this is to be done. None of them could tell
us how this was going to be done. In fact, one of the criminologists
who appeared before the committee said that we would not see any
results from this bill in terms of safety for 15 years. Is that not
wonderful. And this is being touted as a safe tool by the justice
minister.
The minister is in the grip of the coalition for gun control. He is
in the grip of those who would support a lack of common sense in
the expression of legislation.
The justice minister claims the majority of Canadians support
this bill. If that is the case, then why is that in the last three
provincial elections, those in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario,
all three parties which made this the central issue in their
campaigns and opposed the registration and licensing portion of the
bill returned to power? In fact in Ontario it was the third place party
that formed the government.
Do not give us this nonsense that the bill has a high percentage of
support. The best poll we can have is an open election wherein the
matter is an issue and the people have an opportunity to vote on it.
We have what may be a constitutional crisis. It is certainly a
crisis in federal-provincial relations because the minister failed in
his duty and responsibility to consult with the elected
representatives of all the provinces and the territories in order to
gain their support. He did not gain their support. He ploughed on
with a piece of legislation that they are not prepared to support. The
people of those provinces are not prepared to support it as well.
(1540)
Politicians are not foolish. They are not going to oppose
something that has 75 per cent or 80 per cent support of the people.
They are not going to oppose it as the justice minister would
suggest. This is nonsense. There is not a single individual I know
who will buck the safe, proper and wise control of firearms. This is
not control of firearms. This bill is simply an imposition upon the
law-abiding people of society who happen to own, collect or use
firearms in recreational activities. This bill is directed at them.
There are other matters. What about the smuggling problem?
The MacKenzie Institute submitted a report indicating that if the
bill went through there would be an explosion of smuggling into
this country. What has the justice minister done about the
smuggling problem? What actions has he taken and what are the
results of those actions? We have heard nothing from the justice
minister on that issue.
The government talks about making society safer yet it
introduces bills like Bill C-41 which allows violent offenders
access to alternative measures. It invites the courts to use matters
such as conditional sentences where violent offenders do not see
the inside of a prison after committing rapes and other serious
personal attacks upon individuals.
We saw where the minister stood in relation to section 745 of the
Criminal Code. We saw whom he voted for. Did he vote for the
safety of society or the safety of individuals? Did he vote against
putting people like Debbie Mahaffy and other victims of crime
through hell one more time? No, he did not. No, he did not. He
voted in favour of the criminal. Certainly he did.
When we look at what the minister has done with what he calls
gun control legislation, I am concerned about certain aspects of his
exemption. He says now that sustenance hunters will be exempted.
What does that mean? Does it mean only aboriginal people can
hunt all year round, or does it mean anybody? If that is the case,
then how do we interpret Assistant Deputy Minister Mosley's
comments to the Senate committee when he said that the
regulations cannot exempt anyone from the bill? How do we
explain that? He said that the regulations cannot override the
contents of the bill which requires all Canadians to register their
firearms.
6803
I wonder if the justice minister is now taking on the additional
responsibility of administering these regulations and the act in the
three provinces and two territories. What is the additional cost
going to be? That was not contained in the proclamation that
attended as he tabled the bill. How much is the cost going to be?
How much is it going to cost the federal government to fill the
role of administering this bill in the three provinces and the two
territories as he said today he would do? What is the cost going
to be?
Would that money not be better used in other areas? There is no
question in the minds of thousands of Canadians that it would be.
We need to strengthen our police forces. We need to strengthen the
law enforcement agencies and place more of their members on the
street to protect our society from the kinds of people that the
minister's Bill C-41 allows to walk free after committing very
personal and serious crimes against individuals.
I listened to my Bloc colleague talk about a bill which he does
not seem to know very much about. Under section 103 or 104 at
least there is the appearance of an imposition or encroachment
upon the provincial jurisdiction to enforce the Criminal Code or at
least enforce this bill. The onus is still on the justice minister and
the government to tell all Canadians, gun owners and non-gun
owners, how the registration of a rifle and shotgun is going to
reduce the criminal use of those firearms.
(1545)
The government has not told us. We have asked them repeatedly.
The gun coalition could not do it, the chiefs of police could not do
it. When talking to frontline police officers they will tell you they
are the ones who have to knock on the doors and answer
complaints. They are the ones who will tell you whether this bill is
going to be of benefit to them. We have talked to them and they
have told us why in their opinion this is a bunch of nonsense. That
is different from their chiefs. We got their answers, we heard what
they had to say.
My time is up. We will examine these regulations in depth.
Again we wonder why the justice minister had to pull the
regulations back in June. The stories we have heard is the minister
pulled them back because he got trampled in a stampede by his own
backbenchers when they had a look at them. We will see whether
there is another stampede coming from his backbenchers.
I do know this, in the next election there will be a stampede and
it is going to be over some of the Liberal backbenchers who have
fought hard to have common sense entered into this bill. I hope all
hon. members and the people of this country will take a serious
look at these regulations.
An hon. member: Including the justice minister.
Mr. Ramsay: Including the justice minister, of course. It is a bad
bill and regardless of the regulations that are passed it cannot make
a bad bill a good bill.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice knows that when the bill was first
introduced in the House many police officers in this country were
very-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is perhaps not aware of
the fact that in the present circumstances he has to have unanimous
consent of members to speak on behalf of his party. Perhaps he
would wish to ask for that consent before or if we hear from him.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous consent
to say a few words with respect to these regulations.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, is their unanimous consent to
permit the hon. member to speak on behalf of his party?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Accordingly, the hon. member will not be able to speak on this
matter.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Act (protection of community interests in programming) He said:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present an act to amend the
Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission Act. The intent of this bill is to
enshrine the principle that broadcast licences belong to the
community-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think I heard
the Speaker say with permission we will have this member
introduce his bill. I am not giving permission because he declined
permission for me to speak on the regulations of the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately the hon. member did not
hear correctly. The Speaker did not say that. There is no permission
required for any member to introduce a private member's bill in the
House.
Mr. Bonin: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to enshrine the
principle that broadcast licences belong to the communities they
serve and not to the CRTC. It makes the CRTC more accountable to
the elected members of this House and it increases community
input in CRTC decisions that affect them. Public accountability for
the CRTC is at the heart of this bill and I thank my hon. colleague
from Scarborough Centre for seconding this bill.
6804
(1550)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe there were consultations with the parties regarding the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I therefore
move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee
designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: No goddamn way.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions today. The first comes from Abbotsford, British
Columbia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also
state than in many cases the families of officers who are killed in
the line of duty are left without sufficient means to meet their
obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the
family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions today on behalf of the residents of
Simcoe Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend federal legislation to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are troubled about the
lack of definition of the phrase sexual orientation. They have a
legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of
sexual behaviour.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have yet another petition from concerned residents of the province
of Nova Scotia.
They note that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada
announced that he would work toward diverting the Sable Island
gas pipeline to Quebec City. They further state it is unacceptable
for the Prime Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia
natural gas without consulting Nova Scotians, and that Nova
Scotians assert their right to control the destination of Sable Island
gas and demand the federal government cease tampering in this
issue.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we seek
unanimous consent to revert to Statements by Ministers so we
could have a reply by my colleague from Regina-Lumsden?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, I request the
unanimous consent of the House to participate in the response to
the minister's statement on behalf of the NDP.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1555 )
The Deputy Speaker: The member might wish at the beginning
of his statement to retract part of the statement he made earlier
which I do not think was parliamentary language.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
retract what I said. Thank you for allowing me to respond very
6805
briefly on behalf of the NDP with respect to the minister's
statement on regulations tabled in the House earlier.
The government and the Minister of Justice will recall very
clearly that when this legislation was introduced it was not
supported by the vast majority of law enforcement agencies to
which he refers. In fact the legislation that has given birth to these
regulations was something that in my view and in the view of many
Canadians was not a direct or a very positive response to dealing
with the rising amount of crime in Canada but in fact was a feel
good piece of legislation, something that the Liberals are very
famous for in this country.
I want to draw a comparison. Members will recall and so will
other Canadians when a great deal of smuggling of tobacco from
the U.S.A. was going on, rather than deal directly with increasing
resources to support our customs officers and to enforce laws
which existed to stop smuggling, the Liberals passed feel good
legislation which reduced the tax on tobacco to eliminate the
smuggling. While that eliminated the smuggling of tobacco in
Quebec and Ontario it cost the taxpayers of Canada $2 billion. The
smugglers turned to smuggling firearms and other items.
The Liberals responded to the increase in the smuggling of
firearms not by providing resources and money for enforcement so
that smugglers could be stopped but by passing yet another piece of
feel good legislation which does not solve the problem.
I say that because when the legislation which has given birth to
the regulations was before the House, I spoke to many police
officers, the chief of police and others in Regina and they said that
they would prefer, if they had an option, to have more resources
committed to enforcement.
Many of these police officers also said that the problem would
not necessarily be cleared up by more money thrown at
enforcement. It would help a great deal but what needed to be
looked at is what the NDP has been saying all along and that is the
roots of the increase in crime are unemployment and poverty. The
other thing that is driving crime are the great inequities in our
society.
Rather than address these inequities and try to beef up initiatives
to eliminate poverty, especially child poverty, to create more jobs,
to create more equality in society, the government has done the
opposite. We can recall in the last few budgets cuts to health care,
cuts to education, cuts to all kinds of transfer payments to
provinces. We have seen as well a knee-jerk reaction with respect
to these regulations, tax increases for working and middle class
Canadian families, yet huge tax cuts for the very wealthy.
I remind members of Bill S-9 which provides wealthy Canadians
with tax deductions for making contributions to American
universities while the government cuts funding for our own
universities.
With respect to these regulations, these are again feel good
efforts on behalf of the government. They are not dealing with the
real problems in our society.
There were a number of questions that we wanted to ask the
government that it would not answer today. Why did the federal
government and Minister of Justice not consult with all of the
attorneys general with respect to some of the implications of the
act? If the minister did consult, why did he not take some of the
advice of three or four of them who are quite concerned about it?
Our view is that this bill and these regulations will not control
guns but will increase the red tape and bureaucracy of law
enforcement agencies. It will initiate a massive registration
program that will not be effective because if it was such an
effective tool, why is the government waiting three to five years to
register all the guns in the country? I cannot see why these sorts of
things are that pertinent at this time.
I will summarize by saying that this regulation initiative on
behalf of the government is a knee jerk reaction, it is feel good
legislation that does nothing to address the roots of crime in this
country and that is good government.
* * *
(1600 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if I might now seek unanimous consent to move a motion
which was previously discussed by House leaders earlier in the
week regarding the designation of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs.
If there is unanimous consent, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee
designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is ironic that the
regulations for the new firearms act were tabled today because the
question
6806
that I have had on the Order Paper for exactly one year concerns
that very matter.
On November 27, 1995, I placed Question No. 252 on the Order
Paper and, in accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a), I requested
an answer within 45 days.
After 71 days Question No. 252 died on the Order Paper when
the government prorogued the House.
I placed the same question on the Order Paper again when the
new session opened on February 27, 1996. It was renumbered as
Question No. 4. Once again I asked for a response from the
government within 45 days. As of today Question No. 4 has been
outstanding for 274 days. The question has been on the Order Paper
for one year.
Why is it so imperative that we have an answer? The firearms
regulations have been tabled. The government is pretending that
they are a matter of public safety. The question that I asked was
fundamental to that. It is Question No. 4 on the Order Paper.
Anybody can look at it. It wants to get from the government
information with regard to stolen firearms from the police and from
the military. It is really fundamental to all that we are discussing
here.
If they cannot safely store their firearms, if they are at risk
because criminals know where to access those firearms, the very
regulations which the minister is putting forth now will create that
same situation but nationwide. Criminals will then know where to
access those firearms. If we as common citizens place that
information in the public domain, how can we possibly store them
any better than the police or the military? That is why my question
is so important.
In a democracy, in government as we have it in Canada today, if
that information is not readily available and accurate for the public
to examine, how can we possibly put forth laws which will improve
public safety? How do we know those are the best laws we can have
in this country?
That is why it is so imperative that I get an answer to my
question. It is not a complicated question. I realize that my
frustration shows by the fact that I cannot get an answer. We have
to have open and accountable government. That is why I am asking
for the government, as quickly as possible, to answer that question.
I would even settle for a partial answer. I have appealed to the
government to give me any information it has on this matter.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments which have been made by my hon.
colleague, but oftentimes when members put questions they think
that we can press a button and give them an answer.
Since the hon. member has raised this matter a number of times,
it is important that I spend a bit of House time to review exactly
what he has asked for and draw his attention to the fact that the
question he has put, as he created the question, is very broad. In
fact, it is so broad that it is taking, I would suggest, probably
hundreds of hours of work by civil servants throughout the country
to collect the information he has asked for. It is not that he should
not want to get the information. I do not impugn his motives.
(1605 )
I know the hon. member has expressed an interest in receiving
the information, but when one looks at the broadness of the
question it asks not only about the information being stolen from
the RCMP but also from provincial police forces, municipal police
forces, individual police forces and military establishments. One
can see very quickly that it is such a broad question that the answer
obviously has to be as comprehensive. I would suggest that it is
going to cost literally thousands and thousands of dollars to get this
information.
I am happy to hear for the first time my hon. colleague suggest
that he acknowledges that this is a very broad question and that
maybe he would like some partial information or a bit of
information that might be available based on the breadth of his
question. On that basis I would be happy to see if there is a
possibility of getting some information.
While I am on my feet, the other question the member referred to
is Question No. 52. I am also happy to hear that he is interested in
some partial information. However, I would draw his attention to
the fact that Question No. 52 asks to go back 10 years.
Unfortunately, that information, as my hon. colleague would know,
is not readily available. There is no computerized compilation of
that kind of information.
Therefore while I understand his frustration, I think he should
also appreciate the cost of getting this information and the
hundreds of hours of civil servant time involved. Perhaps if he
would craft his question a little differently we would be able to
accommodate.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, the member
knows this information should have been in the public domain and
the government should have had this information before it even
brought the legislation. It begs the question whether it is costing
thousands and then could save millions because it could save us
millions if we had this information. I really think the minister
should seriously reconsider the argument he is putting forth.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
quick. I do not understand. If the question is simply to institutions
of this country such as police forces and the military, why is this
information not available after almost a year? The question
obviously to the government member is has the request gone
forward to these institutions. If it has and there is some problem,
that is a
6807
justification. However, if they have not made that request then
there is no justification for the delay and there is a dereliction of
duty here.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
the all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6807
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the
motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill
C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to another act.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this bill was
brought forward by the government as a very simple and
straightforward bill, a bill that we were advised was housekeeping
and a kind of innocuous bill. However, the more we look at it and
the more I hear about it from people trained in the legal field, the
more concern I have about it.
Some of the concerns I have are of course justified by what the
justice minister has said.
(1610)
I would just like to quote what the justice minister told the
Senate committee when he appeared before that committee earlier
this year: ``There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally
appointed judge such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a
leave of absence without pay to work for an international
organization such as the UN. Nor does the act permit the salary and
expenses of a judge during a period of leave to be paid by any
organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in
the case of expenses, by the government of a province.
``The amendments to the bill now before this committee have the
full support of the Chief Justice of Canada and the Canadian
Judicial Council. They would permit this type of arrangement to be
entered into by Madam Justice Arbour and, in exception cases, by
other judges. The provision contained in the bill's proposed new
section 56.1 would be a narrow exception to the general
prohibition set out in section 55 of the Judges Act against the judge
engaging in any occupation or business other than her or his
judicial duty''.
If that is accurate, if the purpose of section 56.1 would be a
narrow exception to the general prohibition set out in section 55 of
the existing Judges Act against any judge engaging in any
occupation or business other than her or his judicial business, it
seems very clear that this act should have been passed before Judge
Arbour accepted the appointment to her position with the UN on
August 1.
What is the situation today? This bill went before the Senate and
it came back with an amendment that I have some concerns about
and which I will be offering an amendment to.
The question is very clear and of great concern. Is Judge Arbour
now in violation of section 55 of the Judges Act? If she is not, what
is the purpose of this particular amendment, section 56.1, which
would exempt her from section 55, which creates a prohibition for
her or other judges to accept employment in any other form?
We now have an Ontario federal court justice who has now
accepted a position with the UN, a prestigious position, there is no
question. However, there are at least three learned individuals who
have expressed concerns about Bill C-42. Professor Morton
appeared before the committee. In another debate on another
amendment to the bill, I spoke to the comments he made before the
committee. Professor Russell and Professor Manfredi also
expressed grave concerns about the legality of what is happening
here.
I am not going to belabour the House at this time on this bill. I
am simply going to move the following motion:
(1615 )
I move:
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 this House disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate to
Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
another act, and that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendment 2,
but would propose the following amendments:
Insert the words ``for a period not to exceed three years'' after the words ``judicial
duties'' in section 56.1(1); and
Strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following: ``If Madam
Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may receive
moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses, in
connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations''; and
6808
That the following words be added to section 56.1(3): ``notwithstanding any
prohibition against accepting any salary, fee, remuneration or other emolument
described in section 57''; and
That the following words be added to section 56.1(5): ``and that benefits payable
under these sections will be paid or will commence to be paid at the expiration of the
leave of absence without pay''.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion has just been handed to the
Chair. If the hon. member will give the Chair a little time to rule on
whether it is receivable, I will get back to him as soon as it can be
done.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the amendment to the motion that has been put
forward by my colleague from Crowfoot.
We have talked about this particular motion before, which is in
essence a message from the Senate that it does not feel comfortable
with Bill C-42 as passed in this House and sent over to it back in
June of this year.
The Senate had serious concerns with several sections of the act.
The government amended the act in the Senate. It was not the
deliberations within the Senate which led to the amendments. The
government realized that the bill was in trouble in the Senate and
put forth these amendments in the other place. The government
realized that the bill was in trouble in the other place-
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment has not yet been ruled
receivable. Accordingly, since the hon. member for St. Albert has
spoken to the main motion, the only solution the Chair can see is to
permit the member to speak on the understanding that shortly we
will have a ruling that the motion is receivable, as long as all
members understand what is happening.
Mr. Williams: I am speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
We did ask the Clerk if he felt that the amendment was in order and
he gave an initial presumption that it appeared superficially to be in
order. I hope that once there has been a chance to read it in detail
that it is found that the motion is in order. Therefore I am speaking
to the amendment that has been tabled by my colleague from
Crowfoot.
As I was saying, Bill C-42 which was passed in this House and
referred to the other place ran into serious opposition in the other
place. The government realized that it had serious problems in the
other place and therefore put forth the amendment we are now
talking on today which the other place has sent back to us for our
consideration.
Not only did the bill run into serious opposition in the other
place but the government realized it was somewhat out on a limb, if
I may use that terminology. The government wanted to legitimize
the appointment of Madam Justice Arbour to the position of
prosecutor working in The Hague for the United Nations. Of course
as we know, the Judges Act as it stands today does not allow for
that, yet she is over there. Therefore the government wants to get
this through as quickly as possible to save the embarrassment of
her being, if I may euphemistically say, in legal limbo. I think one
could actually argue it is far beyond legal limbo, but let us stay
there at the moment.
(1620)
I refer to my speech of last week. I talked about the preamble,
the perception of conflict of interest and the perception of
impartiality being compromised. My remarks of last week stand
regarding the preamble.
Dealing with the amendments proposed in the message we
received from the other place which has been amended by my hon.
colleague from Crowfoot, I do want to speak to these and several
issues.
The first one deals with the amendment to the act which would
allow Madam Justice Arbour to apply for a leave of absence
without term. It is an open-ended authorization. She could be gone
for five years, she could be gone for ten years or she need not even
come back. There is no requirement for her to come back in this
authorization. It is an absolutely open-ended authorization for her
to apply for a leave of absence without term.
Section 99(1) of the Constitution states that Parliament and only
Parliament has the authority to remove people from the bench. That
has been put right into our Constitution. It is not part of the Judges
Act, it is part of our Constitution. It says that only Parliament can
remove someone from the bench. We almost had to deliberate on
that particular situation two or three months ago.
The reason that only Parliament and not the government can
remove a judge from the bench is written in the Constitution is that
we want to ensure there is absolutely no opportunity for
government interference in the judiciary. That is a clear and simple
fact which has been around as long as Canada has been around: the
government cannot interfere with the judiciary.
The amendment by the other place gives a specific exemption to
a specific member of the bench for her to apply for an open-ended
leave of absence that theoretically does not require her to return to
the bench. My point is: If the government approves that leave of
absence, has the government removed Madam Justice Louise
Arbour from the bench which is the prerogative of Parliament and
no one else? That is why we amended the motion to make that leave
of absence term certain. We said that it is not to exceed three years.
The testimony that I read before the committee of the other place
suggested that she be gone for about two years. We have given
ample time for her to return yet we have made the leave of absence
term certain. This government cannot understand that we want to
6809
ensure the government cannot, should not and does not interfere
with the impartiality, integrity and the independence of the
judiciary.
We have said that if this has to be-and we do not like that it has
gone this way, and I have argued this before in this House-but if it
has to go this way, then surely they should do their homework
properly and put in a term certain. Then we can be assured that
Madam Justice Louise Arbour will return to the bench and that
Parliament's prerogative, that which is only given to Parliament, is
preserved. Parliament and Parliament alone has the right to remove
people from the bench. It does not rest with the Minister of Justice
who could grant this leave of absence and then prevent her from
returning which would usurp Parliament's roles and
responsibilities.
On the second one, we know that this legislation was drafted in a
rush. When legislation is drafted in a rush, we usually end up with
bad legislation. This was bad legislation right from the beginning. I
have talked about that before. Then when they had to come up with
an amendment in a hurry, I think it also was poorly drafted.
(1625)
To briefly go through the amendment which has been referred to
us by the other House, the first paragraph gives the judge
authorization to apply for a leave of absence. The second one gives
her the right to moving expenses. The third one says that if she
accepts the appointment she will not get paid. The fourth one deals
with her pension benefits and so on.
When we look at the text of the second paragraph which deals
with moving expenses, we find that it is poorly worded. It says that
she is entitled to moving expenses regardless of the situation. I
would have thought that she would only be entitled to moving
expenses if she elected to take a leave of absence. If she does not
elect to take a leave of absence, then surely she would not be
entitled to moving expenses. However, the clause is drafted to say
that she is entitled to moving expenses. I do not know where she is
going if she does not take a leave of absence, but she is entitled to
moving expenses whether or not she takes a leave of absence. That
is a poorly drafted clause which requires amendment.
It is simple. When things are done in a rush they can be done
wrong. The government has to look carefully at the amendment
which has been put forward.
The amendment deals with the fact that if she takes a leave of
absence to work for the United Nations, she is not entitled to be
paid by the Government of Canada. The Minister of Justice has told
us that the UN must give an appearance of impartiality, integrity
and independence from any country, because she will be working
on behalf of all countries, for all of humanity. I would go along
with that. However, if she takes the appointment she cannot be
paid by the Government of Canada and she must be paid by the
United Nations.
The minister has said that the Judges Act requires that she be
paid by the Government of Canada. He is asking for a special
exemption for Madam Justice Louise Arbour in order for her to be
paid by someone else, presumably by the United Nations.
Section 57 of the Judges Act deals specifically with the fact that
only the Government of Canada can pay judges on the bench.
Section 56 has been amended to grant a special exemption which
will allow her to be paid by someone else, but section 57 says that
she cannot be paid by someone else. There is a conflict. I am sure
the minister thought that it was drafted well enough to allow
Madam Justice Louise Arbour not to be paid by the Government of
Canada but to be paid by someone else; however, we must
remember that section 57 was written long before anyone
contemplated a specific exemption being allowed for one specific
member of the bench.
I have argued against that, but nonetheless the government has
pursued and insisted that this motion go forward. If we are going to
be dragged into this against our will, then surely the government
should write the legislation properly. That is why we have said
``notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary, fee,
remuneration or other emolument described in section 57'' she is
entitled to be paid under section 56.1(3).
We on this side are doing the minister's work by cleaning up his
legislation when in fact we do not even agree with his intent.
However, if we are going to be dragged into it, then surely it should
be done right.
We are dealing with members of the bench. We are dealing with
people of integrity. We are dealing with people whose integrity has
been compromised, in my opinion, by the minister. We are dealing
with people whose integrity should be beyond question, whose
independence should be beyond question. I am quite comfortable
with the fact that these people exercise great diligence in ensuring
that they are not compromised in any way and lo and behold the
minister has stepped right in and muddied the waters to a great
degree.
(1630 )
The last amendment moved by my hon. colleague is that under
section 56.1(5) the benefits payable under these sections will
commence to be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence
without pay. This gets back to my earlier point. She is gone and we
do not know when she is coming back. Perhaps she is gone until
retirement. Perhaps she is gone with no intention of returning. We
have no idea when she will return or if she will return. Can she
return? Does she have any desire to return? We do not know.
My hon. colleague has said that until we know that point,
perhaps any benefits that are payable to her through her service on
the bench here, or to other members of the bench, should be held in
abeyance until she returns. The amendment he put forward is
reasonable but it may be a little too draconian. That is why I
6810
suggest we make an amendment to the amendment by my
colleague from Crowfoot.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after and including the
words ``and that the following words be added to section 56.1(5)''.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment of the hon. member for
Crowfoot has been found to be receivable, and the Chair so rules.
The subamendment will have to go through the same rigorous
process and the Chair will rule as quickly as possible.
Debate.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You have ruled
that the amendment by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot is in
order. My subamendment is strictly to delete the last paragraph of
the member for Crowfoot's amendment. Therefore I would expect
the Chair to find the subamendment in order.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, would members consider suspending
the House, if the Chair so desires, while the ruling is made on the
subamendment? The understanding is that there are no other
speakers on this matter, because we are prepared for the question.
You asked for debate and no one rose.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the courtesy members are
extending. The subamendment is receivable and therefore that
issue is dispensed with. Is there further debate?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I have an inquiry. Questions and comments zoomed by there.
I was going to get up and ask a question of the member. Did I miss
the opportunity to do that?
The Deputy Speaker: This is Wednesday afternoon indeed.
There is a questions and answers period and the Chair omitted
them. I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver who has the
right to ask questions or comments.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member. I have a
couple of questions based on things that happened in the
discussions during question period in the House on this issue over
the last couple of days.
I remember that the member was accused of being meanspirited
a number of times in the House over the issue of the appointment of
the judge.
(1635 )
Therefore I would really like to ask the member whether he can
really answer that charge and explain why he is not meanspirited in
this particular case. I would also like to ask him why he is
concerned about the impartiality of this judge when she comes
back, if she does, to the country.
Finally, in fairness to the government, does the member feel that
its motives are well intentioned or does he feel there is really
something more behind this?
The Deputy Speaker: I might indicate to the House that we are
not to impute motives. We are not to get into questions of motives
in the House.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have pointed out that
we do not get into motives, because the member for North
Vancouver is perfectly correct when he quoted the Minister of
Justice. Perhaps that was imputing motives but we will let that go
by because, as you know, I am not that kind of person.
However, the point is while the accusations may have been made
in this House, the reason I have objected to this particular bill and
to the amendments that have come back from the other House has
nothing to do with being meanspirited or being motivated by
anything other than upholding the independence and integrity of
the judicial system and the bench.
We have, unfortunately, a situation where an individual
exception to the law has been granted to one particular judge. I
have argued in the House that the particular exception should be
introduced by way of a private bill rather than a public bill. I feel
the Minister of Justice has used the rules of this House in such a
way that we have less scrutiny in this particular private business
than more scrutiny on this particular piece of private business.
There was a quote by a previous speaker, which I cannot give off
the top of my head, but he said that the reason we have private bills
in this House is to ensure that they receive more vigorous scrutiny
because they are exceptions to the rules than what public bills
receive because they are a matter of public policy. Private business
should require even more scrutiny.
This exemption to the act for one particular person went through
here as a public bill, went over to the other House and has been
returned with amendments from the other House. It is now back
here as a private bill, in essence as a hybrid public-private bill,
which is disallowed by the rules of this House. We have even seen
the rules of this House being used to the advantage of the Minister
of Justice rather than to the advantage of all members of this House
so that we can provide even more vigorous scrutiny to the
exemption being granted.
As far as the impartiality of the bench, I take great exception to
the way it is being used and abused. We now have a member of our
bench who is supposed to be impartial. I have not question
whatsoever about her integrity, but she is now going to be a
prosecutor and is no longer sitting in judgment. She is taking sides.
6811
Can one imagine the hypocrisy of a situation where the United
Nations came back to Canada and reached into our bench and said
it would like to have this judge on the defence? We have two
members of the bench from Canada, one prosecuting and one
defending war criminals in The Hague. How ludicrous, how partial
and how totally unindependent that would be. Yet half of that
transaction is what is being contemplated, approved and passed
in this House.
If it is ludicrous to have a member of the defence and
prosecution working on these cases in the United Nations then
surely it is just as ludicrous to have one member of the bench on the
prosecutor's side.
I will also come back to the last point the member made. We are
dealing with crimes against humanity. We are dealing with horrific
crimes that were committed in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda. In the news today are the hundreds of thousands of people
who are starving and the hundreds who are being slaughtered,
massacred every day. These are crimes of great human tragedy no
matter where they happen in the world.
(1640)
Is a member of the Canadian bench the only person in the world
who can act as a prosecutor? Is that the only person who could be
found to uphold justice in the world, who can act as a prosecutor
against these crimes? I ask that question. I do not in any way take
away from the seriousness of these crimes and the fact that the
criminals must be prosecuted. However, I seriously do question if
she is the only person who could be found to do the job. That is the
point I wanted to make.
Finally, I presume she will return to the bench. Remember she
and she alone has been granted special dispensation by the
Government of Canada. She has to decide on a case that involves
the Government of Canada against someone else.
The defence counsel could will ask: ``Madam Justice Louise
Arbour, how can you be independent here when you are deciding
between the Government of Canada as the defendant and someone
else and you have been granted special dispensation by the
government?'' The appearance of impartiality, of integrity, of
independence goes right out the window. That is an important
principle which is being seriously undermined and eroded, aided
and abetted by the Minister of Justice.
I find that repulsive and quite odious. I certainly hope the
Minister of Justice will see the sense of the whole thing and
withdraw this concurrence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Reform Party has latched onto
such a question. I would consider it an honour for all Canadians to
be represented abroad by a fellow Canadian. You might find this
particularly odd out of the mouth of a Bloc member, but it is true.
It is deplorable that the Reform Party has latched onto such a
case as this to make political hay, to make the newspapers, or for
whatever reason, and is using every means possible to put other
cases before the House of Commons, when the matter could be
resolved once and for all with Bill C-42.
I have already spoken to Bill C-42 and criticized the work done
by the Senate on certain amendments. I criticized the Senate's
meddling in a matter of this sort and its forcing the House to some
extent to decide on each case individually, to come back with a
specific bill for each judge wishing to do any sort of work
internationally.
The Reformers are doing much the same thing. They introduce
an amendment and then an amendment to an amendment. They will
try every means to delay the work of the House on this bill, whose
objective is clear: to permit judges with the experience or certain
abilities, who have a vision of things international, to provide
assistance, as other countries are entitled to expect from Canada,
from a democratic country with a lot of experienced judges.
(1645)
It is Justice Arbour in this case, but it could be Justice
Bellehumeur or any other judge looking for an opportunity to fulfil
a specific international mandate. All kinds of reasons are being put
forward to delay passage of this bill. They are going to great
lengths to deter judges who might want to fulfil specific
international functions.
We have before us a Reform amendment adding yet more
requirements. The Reform Party wants to make it quite clear that
Canada will not pay moving, transport and other costs, although
this is already provided for in Bill C-42.
Section 56.1, as proposed in Bill C-42, gives the government
discretion. Of course, I am not 100 per cent behind everything the
people across the way do, but we must realize that voters have
given the Liberal government opposite a mandate to manage public
funds. We must at least trust our friends in this regard. There is a
time to condemn, but there are times also when we must realize
that it is pointless to protest, and I think this is a case in point.
I will take a moment to read section 56.1, so that you and the
people listening to us can see the risk of going too far in making
changes and waging procedural battles in the House for the sake of
it.
6812
Section 56.1 states:
(1) Notwithstanding section 55, a judge may, with the authorization of the
Government of Canada, participate in international activities or international technical
assistance programs or in the work of an international organization of states or an
institution of such an organization, and may, if the participation is so authorized,
receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses
either from the Government of Canada or from an international organization or an
institution of such an organization.
Could it be any clearer? The government may provide financial
assistance at the time of approving participation. Take Justice
Arbour for example. Upon receiving a request from her, the
government may authorize Justice Arbour to participate in
international activities and specify in this authorization that it will
be up to the judge to have her expenses reimbursed either by the
UN, or whatever organization hires her, or by Canada. Canada can
contribute by paying these costs.
At present, Canada gives money to the UN every time it
participates in an international aid mission. Shall we stop at paying
a judge's moving expenses if that is the kind of contribution
Canada wants to make? Section 56.1 very clearly provides that the
government may, in authorizing participation, confirm with the
international organization or an institution of such organization
who will pay the moving and transportation expenses or any other
expense associated with the function the judge has applied for and
been selected.
I cannot understand why we have a Reform amendment on this
today. Let us stop playing this little game, for which a number of
us, including myself, were condemning the Senate a few days ago.
My point was that the Senate was wasting its time on insignificant
changes. This bill had already been passed here, and moved on to
the Senate. After great philosophical discussions, after consulting
such eminent publications as Frank, a highly serious newspaper on
which the senators based their demands for amendments, after this
most serious work, the Senate sends us back the bill, and the
Reform jumps on the bandwagon to call for other amendments,
whereas they had every opportunity to question the witnesses and
to propose amendments at the appropriate time.
(1650)
The first time this bill came before the House, they did nothing,
because they did not believe it was a serious bill, or so I heard in
the House. Now, today, they realize that it is fairly significant, for
the senators have said so-and they are such a reliable source.
Today, amendments are being presented, and for some reason
they are attempting to make political hay with this bill.
I wish it to be known that we in the Bloc Quebecois are totally
against the proposed amendment to clause 56.1(2) of Bill C-42. I
would invite the Reform Party members to look at this bill a little
more seriously so we can move on to something else.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening to the speech by the member. I wonder why Bloc
members feel they can oppose this motion but at the same time they
want to vote in favour of the bill as a whole as it went through this
House.
He says that a specific exemption for one person is not possible,
and they would not want to do that, but that the bill as a whole
seems to be in order. I wonder if he would give us a quick synopsis
of why he would agree that the entire bill is actually in order
compared to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear.
When Bill C-42 was passed, we supported the bill. We still do
today.
What the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition objects to is the
amendments made by the Senate. We said so openly, we said it in
debate, I said so myself and I say it again today, that we should not
even be looking at all the changes, all the amendments proposed by
the Senate because they are not well founded, they are frivolous
and useless. What the Senate has done hardly justifies the $42
million or $43 million it is given annually to do a job that has
already been done in the House.
Today I will say again that Bill C-42 provides for all kinds of
cases. It was not intended to deal with one specific case. The Senate
wanted to do just that. The Reform Party is doing the same, by
amending this bill so that every time a judge wants to take on
international responsibilities, it would be necessary to go back to
Parliament to pass specific legislation.
I say this is useless. We passed Bill C-42 in this House, heard
witnesses, worked on this bill in committee and passed it at first,
second and third reading. We went through all the different stages.
The Reform Party was there, and its members did not propose any
changes.
The legislation we adopted at the time could be applied to
anyone, not just Judge Arbour or Justice Lamer or other judges, but
to all judges throughout Canada and Quebec.
The amendments before the House today are an attempt to
narrow the scope of this bill so that it will apply only to one
particular judge, Judge Arbour. I say that the legislator should not
use his legislative power to pass this kind of legislation.
That is why we are against this amendment, as we were against
similar amendments proposed by the Senate.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the response given by the hon. member and I can
understand his frustration with the Senate. Reform has long
6813
proposed an equal, elected and effective Senate. It is supposed to be
the House of sober second thought.
Does the member not think it is actually a good sign when the
Senate does something? It has returned a bill to the House and
indicated it has given consideration to it. Is that not a very
important signal that the Senate is prepared to give sober second
thought to something? The bill has been sent back here and the
Senate has said: ``Take another look at this. Is this really what you
want?''
(1655 )
Does the member not think that is quite a good thing to happen?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I have to say right off that the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are a thousand leagues apart
on this matter. They want an elected Senate with greater powers;
we say the Senate is useless.
We are already overgoverned in Canada. We have a federal
government, provincial and municipal governments, school
boards, and we could add parishes, church authorities, and that
means even more people. Canada is overgoverned. We do not need
a Senate, whether its members are appointed, as is now the case, or
elected.
Is it good to have the Senate propose amendments to a bill? I say
that once a bill is introduced to 295 members elected to represent
the people, broken down, studied, analyzed and discussed in
committees where experts and witnesses of all sorts are heard and
briefs are submitted, there is no point in a Senate-appointed or
elected-making other changes.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order No. 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the
purpose of considering the Senate amendments stage of Bill C-42.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Would those members who object to the
motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen.
The Deputy Speaker: Since fewer than 15 members are
opposed, I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Bourassa-Immigration.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment
to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment to
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1715 )
And the bells having rung:
* * *
The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When this bill was last
before the House, a subamendment was moved. I wish to indicate
to hon. members that in the view of the Chair the subamendment is
in order and accordingly I wish to put the subamendment to the
House. It is moved by the hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam that:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following:
``and that the committee report back to the House no later than June 19, 1997.
The debate is on the subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before we start debate on Bill C-62, I would like some
clarification about what happened when members were called to
the House to vote. Our television screens showed 20 minutes
remaining before the vote. Then the bells suddenly stopped ringing
and the House resumed debate on Bill C-62 without giving
members any notice. What is happening exactly? I would like to
understand. How is this government being run?
6814
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order, please. During the
sounding of the bells, the hon. Chief Government Whip asked the
Chair to defer the division until 5.45 p.m., which is what
happened.
We then resumed debate on Bill C-62 now before the House. We
can now resume debate if an hon. member wishes to speak.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning the extension of the sitting. The government did request
an extension, but our Standing Orders state that such a request must
be made during the last hour, which was not the case. I would
appreciate it if the Chair could rule on this point.
I brought the matter to the attention of the Table earlier and I
thought we had an understanding with the government. It looks like
the government attempted to destabilize us and proceed anyway. I
would like the Chair to rule on this point. I think the government's
request was not made in accordance with the Standing Orders of
this House.
I was extremely vigilant in immediately making my request to
the Table.
(1720 )
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the same point of order. I would like to concur with with
remarks of the member who brought forward that point.
As I understand it, a motion to extend the sitting hours can only
occur in the last hour that the House is sitting. Government Orders
were extended because of Statements by Ministers and that last
hour did not occur, according to the Table, until 5.06 p.m. The
order to extend the hours was brought in before five o'clock, which
meant that opposition parties could not be ready for that particular
extension or prepared to oppose the extension of hours because we
were not in the last hour yet.
We tried to rise on a point of order, but the bells had already
begun to ring. I do not know how we could have protested this.
However, I would agree with the Bloc member that the motion for
the extension of hours was inappropriate and outside the standing
orders, and opposition parties were not able to respond because of
the timing of the motion.
The motion should not have been accepted by the Chair. It was
out of order and it should have been ruled out of order at that time.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the
same point of order. Further to the comments made by the Reform
Party whip, I wish to point out that I drew this matter to the
attention of the Deputy Speaker who was in the chair at that time,
prior to 5.06 this evening. Therefore, we recorded our objection
prior to the last hour even commencing. Standing Order 26(1)(b)
was not complied with.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, earlier, I spoke without notes. I
had written notes and, with your permission, I will be more explicit
in my approach.
Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1)(b), the motion to extend sitting
must be proposed in the last hour of government orders. However,
the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Justice pushed
everything back. The government had to table its motion after5.04 p.m. Unfortunately, it tabled it at 4.58 p.m., a few minutes
before the end.
Mr. Speaker, you should not have allowed the government's
motion. This is the issue on which I am asking you to rule, that is
whether Standing Order 26(1)(b) was complied with. Personally, I
come to the conclusion that the answer is no, and that you should
not agree to the government's request to extend the sitting.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The Chair thanks the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm, the Reform Party whip and the
hon. member for St. Albert for their interventions in respect of this
matter.
Standing Order 26(1) provides that except during Private
Members' Business when the Speaker is in the chair, a member
may propose a motion without notice to continue a sitting. I do not
need to go into all the details. However, the motion must be
proposed under Standing Order 26(1)(b), as the hon. member has
pointed out, in the hour preceding the time at which the business
under consideration should be interrupted by dinner hour, private
members' hour or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
The question that arises here is whether the motion was proposed
within the hour prior to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
As the hon. member pointed out, the proceedings today were
extended by reason of ministerial statements. It appears that the
motion made by the chief government whip which resulted in the
extension of time was made six minutes before the last hour before
the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The motion at the time was
accepted by the Chair and was put to the House. Fewer than the
requisite number of members rose to object and the motion was
deemed carried.
In view of the fact that the matter was a procedural motion and
that it was proposed at a time contrary to the standing orders, the
Chair is of the view that the motion is indeed out of order and has
not been adopted.
6815
(1725 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
That in relation to Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, not
more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third
reading stage of the bill, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the allotted day of the third reading consideration of the said
bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the
purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the
third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further
debate or amendment.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my understanding of Standing Order 78 that the government must
give one full day's notice of a time allocation motion. I believe that
notice was just given a few minute's ago and here we have moved
to the motion itself which is to limit debate to only one more day.
I would ask the Speaker to look at that. It seems there needs to be
a day's notice and I do not think that has been given.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
proper notice was given last Tuesday for the next sitting which
means any future sitting so the motion is in order.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, there needs to be one
full day of debate on this. Could you explain this? It seems this is
being rushed through. Time allocation is being rushed through as
well as the time allocation motion, which is inappropriate. I think
they are out of line here.
(1730 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The Chair is ready to rule
on the point of order raised by the hon. whip for the Reform Party.
I draw his attention and the attention of the House to Standing
Order 78(3)(a). The notice, as indicated by the chief government
whip, was given last week. The motion is in accordance with the
notice that was given and under paragraph (3)(a) in the last
sentence:
Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall
be deemed adjourned.
The House was debating Bill C-62. Accordingly, the debate on
Bill C-62 is deemed adjourned. There has been an interruption in
the proceedings by reason of moving the motion. I now propose to
put the motion proposed by the Minister of Labour to the House.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could inform me on
Standing Order 78, which deals with time allocation. Is there any
limit to the number of times the government can bring in time
allocation?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
motion of the Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 185)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Minna
6816
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-126
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-77
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Copps
Eggleton
Fillion
Guay
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(1810)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act;
and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
subamendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent for the
proposal of the chief government whip?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
be voting no, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP in the House
this evening will vote no on this matter.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I will be voting
yes on this amendment.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the previous vote. I
would like to be recorded as voting nay with my party.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 186)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
6817
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-33
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guimond
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-171
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Copps
Eggleton
Fillion
Guay
Irwin
Lalonde
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
to the amendment defeated.
It being 6.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been impossible to reach an agreement pursuant to
Standing Orders 78(1), 78(2) or 78(3) regarding the proceedings on
amendments by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges
Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention
to propose a motion of time allocation at the next sitting of the
House, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days and
hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that
stage.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing
Order 78 calls for the introduction, if any, of a notice of time
allocation to be given during the orders of the day. We are now in
Private Members' Business because you have already called for
Private Members' Business. Therefore, I think the time allocation
notice is out of order.
6818
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for St.
Albert has raised a point of order with respect to the validity of
the notice given by the Minister of Labour pursuant to Standing
Order 78(3) of the Standing Orders of the House. I would point
out to him that the wording of the standing order says:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous
sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached-
There is no reference to the fact that the notice must be given
during the time for Government Orders, although it is clear that the
motion that is subsequently made based on the notice must be made
during the time for the consideration of Government Orders.
Accordingly, I believe the notice given by the Minister of Labour is
valid.
(1820 )
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, can the
government House leader or a minister rise on a point of order to
bring that in or does he have to rise during debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The minister did it on a
point of order. It has been done in the past on a point of order, I am
apprised, and from my own experience I can confirm that is the
case. I am sure the hon. member, had he been here in the last
Parliament, would have seen it done that way on numerous
occasions.
I believe that the notice which was given by the Minister of
Labour is in order, as I have indicated.
_____________________________________________
6818
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath
or solemn affirmation), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues in the House from
whichever political party, I was honoured and proud to be elected
to the Parliament of Canada on October 25, 1993.
On November 9, 1993 at my swearing in ceremony, I had the
honour as a re-elected member of the Canadian Parliament to
pledge allegiance to the Queen of Canada, as required by the
Parliament of Canada Act. This meant more to me than simply
swearing allegiance to the Queen as a person; it meant swearing
allegiance to everything the monarchy represents, which includes
the Canadian Constitution, Canadian citizens, all our Canadian
institutions, laws and customs.
Having been re-elected to Parliament by the electors of the
Carleton-Gloucester riding by a record 46,800 votes in my
favour, about 35,000 votes more than my nearest challenger, I felt
proud and honoured but above all I felt duty bound not only to my
electors but to all my constituents and all Canadians no matter what
their political beliefs. I felt duty bound to protect and serve all of
them. For this reason I wanted to clarify our parliamentary oath by
adding to the present oath of office to the Queen a pledge of
allegiance to Canada and its Constitution.
Since I first introduced this bill in 1993, I have had many
conversations with Canadians and have received many letters from
my constituents and from Canadians from various regions of the
country as well as from my colleagues applauding this initiative.
The point was well made when someone close to me once asked:
``Are we the only country in the world where politicians do not
swear allegiance to the country?''
A local radio station recently held an open line show
commenting on my private member's bill.
A Canada-wide citizens association launched a campaign
supporting my bill. I would like to read a letter which I received
recently from the association:
Dear Mr. Bellemare:
I can assure you that Canada First and its more than 1,500 members support you
wholeheartedly in your attempt to make MPs swear an oath of allegiance to the
country and the Constitution as well as the Queen of England.
For your information, we are immediately launching a Canada-wide campaign to
obtain support for your proposal. You can expect anywhere from upwards of a
thousand letters of support over the next few weeks from our members.
Yours truly,
Lowell Green,
President, Canada First.
I have also been interviewed by the media across Canada on the
same subject. All of my colleagues in the Liberal Party are also
supporting me in my initiative. It is with this support that I present
it today.
Our allegiance to the Queen is in no way questioned in my
private member's bill. She is the embodiment of our parliamentary
system and part of our historical heritage.
[Translation]
There are those who think that the bill I am presenting is
redundant, that the oath of allegiance to the Queen already implies
an oath of allegiance to Canada and to Canadians, and that it would
be pointless to add an oath of allegiance to Canada and to the
Constitution.
(1825)
I know from experience that things that are not spelled out are
often interpreted differently by different people.
6819
That is why I think it important to affirm what one believes
when making an affirmation of loyalty, and in this case I proudly
affirm my loyalty to Canada and to Canadians.
[English]
Canada is a country which is part of the Commonwealth and as a
member country of the Commonwealth we are headed by the
Queen. The existing oath made by members of Parliament is a
swearing of allegiance to the Queen. However, the oath of
allegiance pledged by all members of the House is almost identical
to the oaths pledged in all the Commonwealth countries which may
lead to confusion or discussion.
[Translation]
I would like to point out that we have all been elected by
Canadians, by citizens of Canada, and I trust that we represent all
Canadians, and not people living in other Commonwealth countries
such a Australia, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Pakistan or Nigeria.
As an elected representative, each member sitting in the House
of Commons, including members of the opposition, represents not
just those who voted for him or her, but also all the inhabitants of
his or her riding, without exception and regardless of their political
affiliation.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the official
opposition, in accordance with the system of government
established under the Canadian Constitution, say they represent
Canadians living in Quebec. They even swore an oath of allegiance
to the Queen when they were sworn in to the House of Commons.
Why did they not want to support my bill the first time I tabled it,
two years ago?
The official opposition has a duty to keep a careful eye on the
government, on behalf of all Canadians, in order to ensure that the
party in power does not take unfair advantage of that power, that
the government fulfils its duties for the common good of all
Canadians, as provided for in the Constitution.
The Constitution is what enables Bloc Quebecois members to
present their views in the House of Commons, with all the freedom
it gives them. It is a source of pride and a privilege to be able to
take part in the creation of legislation, as we do in Parliament,
under the Constitution. Bloc Quebecois members are, I trust, fully
and sincerely involved in that process, I also trust that they respect
the parliamentary system, the rights of the citizens of Canada, as
well as their role as the official opposition on behalf of all of the
people of Canada.
In all good conscience, do their votes on each bill, motion or
amendment count for something? I wonder, are their votes in the
House a deception? If not, let them admit that they respect the rules
which allow them to express their opinions in this House, that is to
say the rules set out in the Constitution.
If a member of Parliament takes an oath and considers it a mere
formality, what credibility does that member, and the party he
represents, have when performing his duties? Do Bloc Quebecois
votes count for anything in the House of Commons?
[English]
If ``a pledge to the Queen is a pledge to the collectivity, and that
is still very important'' as Lucien Bouchard noted in the Ottawa
Citizen on September 24, 1993, then is Canada not that collectivity
as embodied in our Constitution? If the present oath is an oath to
the Canadian community, then let us say it outright.
[Translation]
The Constitution represents the rights, duties and freedoms of
the people of this country. When we take an oath of allegiance to
the Queen, we pledge allegiance to the British parliamentary
system whose cornerstone is the Constitution. The Queen, the
monarchy, represents all our democratic institutions.
I would like to point out that taking an oath of allegiance only to
the Queen is rather ambiguous. To many people, she is a person
who has very few connections with Canada.
(1830)
In fact, every country in the Commonwealth has become
independent. However, we must realize the Queen represents more
than just herself. She represents institutions that guarantee respect
for the fundamental rights of all Canadians. She personifies the rule
of law under which we live.
This oath of allegiance is important for Canada as a nation.
Members elected to the House of Commons must take this oath to
affirm, loud and clear, their loyalty to the country and to the
citizens they have a duty to represent.
The Constitution represents different things to different people.
To a legal expert, it is the constitutional documents by which a
nation is governed. To others, it is the ideology that presided over
the creation of a country. To others again, it is a symbol of the rule
of law, of fair and equitable government for all citizens.
In the spirit of the Constitution, it is entirely acceptable to want
to criticize, change and improve it to make it reflect the new
realities of life in Canada. But I hope we all agree that the
Constitution is essential to the responsible governance of this
country and that it is thanks to the Constitution that we are all here,
on behalf of all Canadians, to promote their well-being in a free and
democratic society.
The primary function of a Constitution is to protect the
fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens against possible abuse
by their government. A country where there is no respect for the
6820
Constitution is a country where citizens are exposed to severe
abuse by their politicians.
[English]
A member of Parliament who would refuse to swear solemnly to
respect and defend the constitutional laws which are the essence of
our society would be a member we could not trust to defend his or
her constituents against abuses of power and despotism.
If the official opposition takes its role seriously as the watchdog
of the government, as it says it does, its members should therefore
be the first to applaud and support this addition to the oath of
allegiance.
This oath to Canada and the Constitution should be the first
essential commitment taken by a member of Parliament on behalf
of his constituents if democracy and the respect of human rights are
indeed valuable to this person.
That some may not agree with all the clauses of the Constitution
is perhaps understandable. However, it would be immoral and
reprehensible if politicians refused to uphold the constitutional
clauses that protect the fundamental rights and liberties of
Canadian citizens.
If human rights and democracy have evolved and progressed
through history, it is in great part due to the fact that we have
realized our leaders need to be reined in by the rules of law as
specified in the Constitution in order to hinder any abuses of power
they may feel the urge to commit.
[Translation]
The most developed countries, with the highest quality of life,
are those whose constitutional rules are taken seriously and really
respected by those in government so as to protect those most
vulnerable and to ensure that those in power govern for the good of
the people.
Simple laws may be amended. Here and elsewhere the
Constitution is amended, but one thing must remain sacrosanct: the
primacy of the constitutional rules protecting the fundamental
rights of our society.
Of course the matter of the distribution of powers among various
governments is important. However, politicians' quarrels must not
overshadow the matter of priority-our commitment to the people
and the protection of their fundamental rights.
One thing is clear: in the history of the most democratic
countries, one factor vital to their progress was respect for the
constitutional rules ensuring everyone equal representation and fair
government. These rules enable dissenters to speak out freely in
our society and Canadians to express their approval or disapproval
of government action.
Canada differs from the other members of the Commonwealth.
The oath, which I changed and which I made with respect to my
constituents, indicates clearly that I represent Canadians and not
the people of the Commonwealth as a whole.
(1835)
The change to the oath of allegiance is part of a series of other
measures Canada has taken since the second world war as an
expression of its national identity and its maturity.
Unfortunately, the bill I put before the House today is not a
votable item. Therefore my colleagues will not have an opportunity
to decide on this expression of attachment to our country and our
Constitution.
[English]
I would hope that each of my colleagues sitting in the House
today would like a chance to go on record and officially tell their
constituents that they are not only proud to represent them but they
would swear in the House of Commons to uphold their rights and
defend their liberties.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-316 today. I congratulate
the member for Carleton-Gloucester for his determination and his
conviction in bringing this matter forward. Members will recall
that this is the second time he has brought this issue to our
attention.
In the first session of this Parliament he brought us Bill C-201.
That bill was considered by this House and several members spoke
in favour of it but ultimately it did not proceed.
The member, who obviously believes passionately in his idea,
was not deterred and rather than abandon this project he has
steadfastly introduced this bill again in this new session. When his
name was drawn he proceeded anew.
This member is neither the first to recognize the importance of
oaths and affirmations nor is he alone in proposing changes with
respect to oaths in use in Canada today.
In the previous Parliament the member for Hamilton West, today
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, proposed
a bill with similar objectives. The member for Parkdale-High
Park spoke eloquently in favour of that bill. Recently our
colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, sponsored Bill
C-223 which, like the bill before us today, proposed amendments to
an oath, namely the one found in the Citizenship Act to provide for
an oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to Canada and the
Constitution.
6821
What is it that these members are trying to capture in their bills?
Obviously something is happening, a desire I would suggest to
express patriotism and pride in a place that we can all share.
I have no polls or focus groups results to back me up but I
suspect that these bills reflect the strong beliefs of a great many of
our constituents. Those beliefs are overwhelmingly positive. They
speak of the quality of life Canadians enjoy, the rights and
freedoms they exercise. They speak also of nation building and the
future we possess collectively.
Despite its positive tone and motivation some members may be
reluctant to share in the enthusiasm that the member for
Carleton-Gloucester has in this bill.
The technicians among them may argue that this bill is flawed.
Others may claim that it is redundant because the Constitution
already requires that a member take an oath before taking his or her
seat in the House and ask what is the point of two oaths.
I would respectively suggest that is not what today's debate is
about. Rather, this debate invites all of us to speak with greater
clarity on our roles and responsibilities in this place and our
commitment to a Parliament and a country which can welcome
debate on the wide range of views which membership of this House
represents.
I have no problem with the principles expressed in the member's
bill. I congratulate him for bringing this matter forward. It
rekindles the pride I have in the work we do here, our Parliament
and this country. I think it does us all good to pause and reflect on
our reasons for being here and the solemn oath and affirmation we
each made before being seated in our places.
For this I thank and salute the member. I know he was
disappointed when his bill was not made votable but as a fellow
member I want to offer him some congratulations and
encouragement. The desire and pride which this bill expresses will
continue to grow. It is one of Canada's and Canadian's greatest
strengths. Members and Canadians from all walks of life are
shedding their traditional reluctance to acknowledge their
patriotism and commitment to Canada. Today's debate is but one
step in that process and I invite the hon. member to carry on. He is
among good company. Congratulations.
(1840)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-316 presented by the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
Like my colleague from Fundy-Royal, I would like to
congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester for the energy
with which he has defended the principles underlying Bill C-316,
the purpose of which is to have members of the House of
Commons or the Senate swear an additional oath before occupying
their seats.
It cannot be said that the member is not persistent, because he
presented Bill C-201 during the first session of the 35th Parliament,
at which time I expressed the official opposition's point of view,
although in the case of private members' business we are more
likely to express our own personal views.
Shortly after the October 25, 1970 election, I swore the
following oath in the presence of Robert Marleau, the House clerk:
``I, François Langlois, do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II''.
This oath takes four seconds to pronounce. The hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester has taken 20 minutes to explain what his
oath means. I do not need additional explanations regarding the
oath I swore other than to do my work as a parliamentarian as
conscientiously as possible, to carry out my duties in the House, in
committee and as a representative throughout Canada to the best of
my abilities and, when the time comes, to be accountable to those
who elected me in Bellechasse. I do not need to swear an oath other
than to the established authority.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to turn to you as a constitutional
expert. You are well aware that in a monarchist system such as the
one we know, which is probably held in high esteem by many in the
House, the government is embodied in the person of the monarch,
not in other institutions, but in the monarch, who is, of course,
much more a symbol than a daily reality. It has been at least 200
years since we saw a monarch exercise any real power, the right of
veto in particular. But we do have a symbol.
Like the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who last week
wanted to replace the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty with a
different kind of oath to be taken by new Canadian citizens, that is
immigrants to this country, what the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester is proposing today is basically to push the
monarchy slowly, little by little, ever so quietly, out the back door,
so as not to generate any debate.
My position as a Quebecer is clear. In a sovereign Quebec, the
matter of the monarchy will be settled very quickly. We have
always said that we wanted a republican state in which the
president would be selected in the manner we deemed most
appropriate. Some might prefer election by universal suffrage,
while others might favour election by the members of the National
Assembly, or by an electoral college. That will be something to be
debated. We have taken a position on this.
If I were in English Canada, however, I would be worried. It
would worry me that, by gradually doing away with the symbols,
the question of the institution of the monarchy in Canada is being
challenged. I would invite the monarchist leagues, the loyalist
6822
leagues, to be on their guard, to write to the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester, to the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and to other members from English Canada
in this House, to make their views known.
If there is to be a debate on the monarchy in Canada, it is not
going to be settled through minor bills here and there. Instead, it
needs to be settled by an open debate, by a referendum in English
Canada.
(1845)
You know as well as I do that the Constitution of 1982 requires
the consent of each and every province of Canada to change the
status of the monarchy in this country. Some of the people listening
to us still believe in the monarchy, in Queen Elizabeth II, who is
doing an exceptional job of keeping the monarchy afloat, and I
think everyone can see that for themselves.
I think it is rather misplaced to challenge the status of the
monarchy through the back door, so to speak, at a time when Her
Majesty is doing her best to maintain this tradition in what remains
of the empire and in the very heart of the empire.
The loyal subjects of this Dominion should be concerned about
these rather sneaky attacks against the institution. I hope people in
English Canada will wake up to this fact. If they do not, it may be
an indication that people want to change Canada's constitutional
status, especially that of English Canada, from a monarchy to a
republic. If that is what people want, let them write to their member
of Parliament. Otherwise, if nothing is done about it, bills like
these will be passed.
As long as Canada is what it is today, these bills do not mean a
thing. To adopt the principle of the bill would mean that the oath we
all took here in this House, the oath I recited earlier and which was
taken by everyone who ever sat in this House since 1791, since the
Constitution Act was passed-the oath is the same; only the name
of the sovereign has changed over the years-no longer has any
value.
So if this oath had no value for those who were here in the past,
why should it have any for those members who are here today?
Why bother to add another one? Does the hon. member who moved
this motion not believe in the value of the oath which he took?
As far as we are concerned, we have an additional argument. On
the face of it, this bill constitutes an addition which is not
compatible with the Constitution of Canada, in that section 128 of
the Constitutional Act, 1867, the British North America Act,
already provides for the oath to be taken by members of the House
of Commons, the Senate or a provincial legislative assembly, and it
is the one I recited earlier.
If we want to change section 128 in order to add another oath,
what we need is not an ordinary bill but a constitutional resolution.
The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, who knows this
Parliament, should have known that he had to introduce a
constitutional resolution in order to change the oath.
He knew, though, that in so doing he would reopen the
fundamental debate facing English Canada. Does English Canada
still want a monarchy for its Canada? The debate will not be
resolved by a private member's bill. It is a national debate for
English Canada that extends from the Atlantic to the borders of
Ontario and from Ontario to the west and north of Canada, because,
in Quebec, I think the question is already resolved.
Except that, obviously, the monarchy is not mentioned in any of
our policies, because our aim is not to criticize Canada's head of
state, but simply to carry out our plan to create what this country
lacks. And what this country lacks is another country, which is our
country of Quebec, a sovereign republic of Quebec.
Therefore, I cannot support the motion and the bill of the hon.
member for Carleton-Gloucester.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions.
First of all, I would like the consent of the House to ask questions
or to comment on the speech by the member for Bellechasse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent in the House for the hon. member to ask questions?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): No. The hon. member
may have a chance to make comments at the conclusion of the
debate if there is time left in the hour. I would remind him of that
fact which may be helpful to him.
(1850 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in rising
today to speak on Bill C-316, I would like to make mention that
when the parliamentary secretary on the government side rose he
congratulated the member for bringing the issue forward for a
second time. I guess that really means that Reform can take that as
a major compliment, because it has been Reform policy since 1987
that this oath needed to be changed.
In fact if I read from the blue sheet it says: ``The Reform Party
supports amending the MP's oath of office, such that they swear or
affirm allegiance to their Queen, their constituents and to Canada''.
We have long had that in our policy position.
The difference between the Liberals and Reform is that we
would make it happen. It is part of our policy. The Liberals have the
6823
power to pass the bill brought forward by this member. They have
the power, but for some reason they have chosen not to do it.
The first thing I would like to do is ask for unanimous consent of
the House to make the bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent of the House that the bill proposed by the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester be made a votable item?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hear a no. There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, it was worth one
more try. I have tried this on all of the non-votable private
members' bills, but democracy did not prevail.
As I mentioned, this is an interesting bill from the Reform
perspective because it has been the Reform position for at least
eight years that this needed to be done. However, the Reform
position was not driven by the presence of a separatist party in the
House. It was driven by the recognition that MPs, in swearing only
their allegiance to the Queen, were placed in the position of
ignoring any allegiance to their constituents. They are forced to
ignore any allegiance to the people of Canada, the people who pay
their salaries. And in the case of Liberal MPs, the people who pay
their gold plated, extreme pension plans.
I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister did not even flinch in
her seat, so I can tell that she is not the least bit embarrassed about
those pension plans but most Canadians are quite outraged about
them.
As I said, Reformers have long wanted to see MPs swearing
allegiance to their constituents so they focus exactly where their
allegiance should be.
I want to mention that the Reform caucus shortly after becoming
elected in 1993, most of us and perhaps all of us, took a separate
oath of allegiance in our constituencies. In my riding office in
North Vancouver on January 7, 1994 I took an oath of allegiance to
my constituents. I would like to read the preamble as well as the
oath because it relates directly to the topic we are discussing.
A copy of this oath of allegiance to my constituents is hanging
on the wall of my office. This is a statement of principles and a
pledge of commitment by me as the Reform Party member to my
constituents.
I, Ted White, having been elected by the voters of the Federal Constituency of
North Vancouver to represent you in the 35th Parliament of Canada, do hereby
sincerely pledge that I am committed to the following principles as I carry out my
duties on your behalf:
I am committed to the development of a new and stronger united Canada: a balanced
democratic federation of provinces, distinguished by the acceptance of our social
responsibilities, and the recognition of the equality and uniqueness of all our provinces
and citizens.
I am committed to equality for all Canadians, regardless of race, language,
culture, religion or gender; and will give true and faithful representation to all my
constituents.
I am committed to being your democratic and fiscal conscience in the 35th
Parliament and I am prepared to demonstrate this commitment by showing
leadership by example.
I believe you have sent me to the House of Commons to present your views in that
forum, not to represent Ottawa's views to you. I believe that the House of Commons
must be the house of the people, not the house of the parties. The word ``politician''
must mean a representative of the people, not a servant of the party. To that end, I
shall not only encourage you to communicate with me, but I am committed to
consulting your views at every opportunity, and shall make myself available to you
regularly, within our constituency. I need your advice and guidance.
I believe that when decisions are to be made on contentious issues of major or
national importance, it is my duty to seek the consensus view of my constituents, and
to represent that consensus in Parliament, even if it conflicts with my own personal
view.
I believe you have placed me in a position of great trust. I shall therefore conduct
my personal and public life with honour and integrity-
I further pledge that I shall honour, to the utmost of my ability, all of the
commitments made in this statement.
(1855)
It finishes with the final part of the pledge:
I, Ted White, your member of Parliament, do pledge, that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to the Canadian federation and to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth,
and that I will faithfully represent the people of the Electoral District of North
Vancouver in the Canadian House of Commons.
It is dated in North Vancouver on January 7, 1994.
Members can tell from this that Reform has long had a
commitment to have the oath changed to really represent the way
we feel about Parliament and what we should be doing here as
MPs.
Members can also tell from that oath that, unlike the Liberals
and the old line parties, I do not believe this desk and this chair
belong to my party. They belong to my constituents. They do not
belong to me. This seat and this desk belong to my constituents and
I am pledged to represent them from this position.
When the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester introduced the
bill, he mentioned that he respects the views of people of all
political beliefs, and yet in this House he has made mean-spirited
attacks on Reformers on regular occasions. In fact, the whole thrust
of his bill seems to be couched in the form of an attack on another
group of representatives in this Parliament. It is true that most of us
do not agree with the position that group is espousing. However,
the reason for bringing forward this change to the oath should not
be based on attacking another group for its beliefs, it should be
6824
based on the feeling that there is a real need to change the oath for
good reasons.
However, as I said earlier, the general thrust of the bill is good. It
is exactly in line with what Reformers have wanted to do, even if
our reasons for wanting to do so are somewhat different.
I would like to mention once again the section from the blue
sheet, just to remind members that this has long been Reform
policy. It was put in our material in 1987. I am sure the member has
never taken the time to read the blue sheet. If he had he would have
found a whole slew of policies that he would be very pleased with.
This particular policy reads:
The Reform Party supports amending the M.P.s' oath of office such that they
swear or affirm allegiance to their Queen, their constituents and to Canada.
We are obviously going to be supportive of Bill C-316. I am very
sorry that there was not unanimous consent to make it votable.
Despite other differences between us as members, I sincerely
support the member's right to have a votable bill and I am truly
sorry that did not happen.
In conclusion, Reform is supportive of this bill and would have
voted in favour of it had it been a votable.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester for
introducing Bill C-316, for his love of Canada and for his love of
Parliament. He has spent a lot of years here.
While not votable, I believe that this legislation allows us to
debate an important issue for us as parliamentarians and for all
Canadians.
The bill proposes to amend the oath for members of Parliament.
It changes the wording so that we as members of the House of
Commons would swear or affirm that we will be loyal to Canada,
rather than to the Queen. Given that a number of members of
Parliament want to break up Canada, this is an important
distinction.
Regional interests have always been represented in this House
and in the British House of Commons. In fact, Welsh, Scottish and
Irish separatists have sat and continue to sit in the House of
Commons in Great Britain. Unlike Canada, they do not have the
numbers to make up the official opposition.
A great number of my constituents, and I am sure the
constituents of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are
troubled by the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in this Parliament.
While recognizing that Bloc members were freely elected, the fact
that they sit in the national Parliament to represent regional issues
is difficult to accept.
(1900 )
The Bloc members argue that they are here to represent the many
Quebecers who support the break-up of Canada; that is of course
when they wish to discuss separation. Many seem to be unsure of
whether they want their own country, a partnership or some sort of
association with Canada. None seems to be able to convince
anyone outside of their own caucus of how this would benefit
Quebec and Canada.
However, despite the fact that on two separate occasions
Quebecers have rejected the idea of whatever it is the separatists
are trying to sell, they remain in this House.
Members of the Bloc are Canadians. They benefit from Canada
like everyone else in this House. They are supported by the
Canadian government. They were elected by Canadians to serve
Canadians and they are paid through the taxes remitted by
Canadians. Each and every one of them is allowed to sit in
Parliament because they have affirmed their loyalty to the Queen.
Bill C-316 makes an important distinction. Certainly there are a
number of Canadians who feel a strong attachment to Queen
Elizabeth II. For example, Guelph is know as the royal city because
Guelph was the name of the royal family at the time of our
founding in 1827. I see you are surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. Like
most municipalities, our coat of arms includes the crown.
Some may find discomfort with the change in the oath of
affirmation. I understand and appreciate that. They do not want us
to ignore Canadian traditions. However, elected officials' affirming
their loyalty to Canada also acknowledges the traditions that make
us unique and that have helped to make us the greatest nation on
this earth.
The current oath used by members of Parliament is similar to
that used in Great Britain. In Great Britain members say: ``I'', and
give their name, ``do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and
affirm that I will be faithful and be true allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law''.
It is interesting that refusing to state this oath prohibits members
of the House of Commons from voting and taking part in debate.
When a member breaks the rule he or she is subject to a fine of 500
pounds and their seat is declared vacant. Members cannot draw a
parliamentary salary or expenses unless he or she has taken the
oath of affirmation.
In the United States, article 6 of the constitution states that
senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation
to support this constitution. Their oath, sworn in public in either the
House of Representatives or the Senate, states: ``I do solemnly
swear and affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this
6825
obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office in which I am about to enter, so help me God''. This oath
is said in public together before each new Congress.
There are some who believe that changing the oath or solemn
affirmation will mean that the separatists will disappear from this
Chamber. This is probably not true. As I have said earlier,
nationalist separatists sit in the British House of Commons.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois claim they can affirm loyalty to
the Queen, head of state of Canada, while they attempt to destroy
this country. Unfortunately, swearing an oath of allegiance to our
country will probably not change that position.
Does this bill deal with mere symbolism? In a press release
issued following the introduction of the bill, the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester said: ``If this bill were to pass I acknowledge
that it would create a certain dilemma for people who want to be
elected to destroy or separate our country. However, I think that an
oath of allegiance to our country will strengthen the sentiment of
pride which the majority of members feel when they arrive in the
House of Commons''.
The member also spoke about the loyalty that we as members of
Parliament must carry out to the country and the tradition of
tolerance and compromise.
(1905)
The presence of separatists in the House of Commons is perhaps
the greatest example of our tolerance and understanding as a
nation. We are fortunate to have in this Parliament representatives
from a variety of ethnic groups, women, unilingual francophones,
unilingual anglophones and a number of members who were born
outside Canada. We bring together a variety of tradition, history
and culture.
Each of us in our very own way contributes through our talents,
our experiences and our hopes for a better Canada to serve our
constituents in a national forum. We are here because we want to
help address problems and make the future better for our children
and our grandchildren. Perhaps the fact that the separatists are here
and are in such a prominent position really shows how great our
country really is.
We are so tolerant and we are so democratic that we allow a party
which is determined to break up the country to sit in this House of
Commons as the official opposition. We are here to solve
problems, not to create them.
I remain hopeful that Canada will remain strong and united.
Perhaps pondering our roles as elected representatives, pausing to
affirm our loyalty to Canada, will remind us that Canada has served
us well. We owe it to our history and to our future to work to better
this great country.
I doubt this bill will mean that the separatists will leave. I doubt
it will mean that their narrow and negative vision of our country
will change. However, I do think that any reminder that we are here
to serve Canada should be supported, and I congratulate my
colleague and my friend for bringing forth this piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Resuming debate. If the
hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester speaks now he will close
the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, I would like to see a vote on this bill. If Bloc
members are really convinced that my bill should not be passed,
they should have the courage to rise in the House and vote before
the public, before the voters, to indicate how they want to deal with
this bill. They should tell their constituents that they do not stand
behind the fact that a member should protect the rights and
freedoms of his constituents.
The hon. member for Bellechasse told us that he took an oath of
allegiance to the Queen, not to Canada or the Constitution. He went
on to say that the case of the monarchy will be settled according to
the position of the sovereignists. The hon. member for Bellechasse
said a lot when he said that I rose in the House to challenge the
monarchy through the back door. I am sure the hon. member for
Bellechasse was not listening to my speech.
I would like to send him a copy of my speech so he will realize I
said that in addition to the oath of allegiance to the Queen we also
took an oath of allegiance to our constituents regarding their rights
and freedoms.
I want to ask the hon. member for Bellechasse and the other
members of the Bloc Quebecois whether they are going against
what was said by their own leader, Lucien Bouchard. When asked
whether he took an oath of allegiance to the Queen as a person,Mr. Bouchard answered that he took an oath of allegiance to the
community. What community was he talking about, since he had
been elected to the Parliament of Canada, not to the Parliament of
Quebec where he is now?
(1910)
The hon. member for Bellechasse noted that my bill would
require an amendment to the Constitution. I have great respect for
his legal background, but I may point out that we are talking about
an act of Parliament, not about the Constitution.
I wonder whether he would take an oath that he would defend the
rights and freedoms of his constituents. That is the basis for my
bill. He said that someday Quebec will be sovereign, which I very
much doubt. I am convinced that Quebec will never separate from
Canada.
During the last referendum, his colleagues in the Parti Quebecois
as well as sovereignists and separatists in Quebec mentioned
keeping the Canadian passport and the Canadian dollar. If they
want to keep the Canadian passport, why do they not want to pledge
6826
allegiance to Canada? What does the Canadian passport mean?
They want to keep the Canadian dollar. Do they want to keep it so
they can have the portrait of the Queen on their bills or the faces of
various Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers? I wonder.
And what an ambiguous question they asked in the October 1995
referendum. Quebecers did not realize it really meant they wanted
to separate from Canada. That is the whole point today, and that is
why the Bloc Quebecois obstructed my bill.
In conclusion, I would like to say to the member for Bellechasse
and to all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that when members
of the Quebec National Assembly are elected, they swear an oath to
the Constitution and to Quebec, to the Constitution of Quebec, and
to Quebecers.
We are here in the Parliament of Canada, where all members,
regardless of their political affiliation, may offer criticism
whenever they wish in order to improve the lot of all Canadians and
to improve the Constitution and our laws.
Why, when they are elected in Quebec, do they swear an oath to
the Province of Quebec and to the citizens of the Province of
Quebec, but when they are elected to the Parliament of Canada in
Ottawa, they refuse to swear an oath to the Constitution and to
Canada? That is the question, and it is still the key point in my bill.
My bill requires that a member respect his constituents,
regardless of their political affiliation, their race, their language or
their religious beliefs. We are here to protect the rights and
freedoms of those who elected us.
If a member refuses to do that, what does that suggest about him
as an MP? It suggests that he does not wish to respect the two
principles I have mentioned, and I accuse Bloc Quebecois members
of betraying their own constituents.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hour provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6826
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1915)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October
8, I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration concerning the imposition of a visa requirement for
Portuguese visitors to Canada.
Portugal is the only country in the European Union for which
such a thing is required, and this is profoundly unfair and
discriminatory. This country is, moreover, an ally and a friend, as
well as a fellow member of NATO. The population of Portuguese
origin living here numbers close to half a million, which makes it
one of the largest ethnic communities in Canada and in Quebec.
This measure, which the immigration minister of the day
described as temporary, was taken by the Mulroney government in
1986, as the result of certain immigration irregularities involving
Portugal. The Liberals, who were then in opposition, were
vehemently opposed to this decision. At that time, the hon. member
for York West, who was the Liberal critic in this area, denounced
this measure by saying: ``That action would be unwarranted and
unfair and I have asked the minister to abandon the proposal and to
avoid needlessly penalizing the Canadian Portuguese community,
and a European friend and ally''.
This unjustified requirement generates enormous problems for
family members wishing to visit relatives here.
I have asked a number of questions of the minister and her
predecessor. I have prepared press releases, so far to no avail. The
Bloc Quebecois supports this campaign.
I am therefore again condemning this measure, because visa
applicants are being subjected to unacceptable interrogation and
red tape at the Canadian embassy in Portugal. They are also being
required to pay a fee which keeps going up. Sometimes, as well,
they have to cope with either refusals or intolerable delays. While
this is going on, the event they were invited to, such as a marriage
or a baptism, has often come and gone.
In her response to my question in the House on October 8, the
minister said she was, and I quote: ``quite prepared to reopen
discussions with the Portuguese authorities on this question''. The
next day, she met José Lello, the secretary of state for Portuguese
communities abroad, during his visit to Ottawa. Why did the
minister not take advantage of this excellent opportunity to put an
end to this discriminatory and totally unjustified requirement?
I can understand the Portuguese community's anger and
annoyance at the attitude of the Canadian government. Canadians
and Quebecers of Portuguese origin make a significant contribution
to our society. They are exceptionally hard workers. I know the
6827
community well, especially in Montreal and the Outaouais. I know
that all members of the community want to see the end of the visa.
Various Portuguese-Canadian organizations are circulating a
petition in Canada on this issue. It will be tabled in the House
shortly. Those signing it state that the visa hinders the development
of bilateral relations in the areas of culture, education, job training
and trade. Furthermore, it prevents Portuguese citizens from
regularly visiting their relatives for various family events when
their presence is required.
I would like to conclude by again requesting the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration to immediately remove the visa
requirement for Portuguese visitors. Canada must implement a
policy of reciprocity with Portugal, which does not require a visa
from Canadians.
I take this opportunity to salute my many friends in the
Portuguese community in Canada and Quebec.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I
am unclear as to why the hon. member for Bourassa has asked that
this particular response be clarified. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration was straightforward and unambiguous in her
original answer. I am puzzled that he did not understand the answer
the first time around. Nevertheless, let me try to explain this issue
in simple terms yet again.
Canada values its warm relations with Portugal. Our two
countries have had a tradition of strong economic and cultural
links. I know that both countries are anxious that this friendship
continue. The hon. member has asked why we impose a visitor visa
on Portugal. He has implied that there is something arbitrary in our
decision. Let me assure him that it is simply not the case.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has a responsibility to
protect the integrity of our borders and our immigration program. It
is a job that the department takes very seriously. Last year, 39
million visitors came to this country. This movement of people
presents this country with both opportunities and challenges.
Visitor visa requirements are an important tool which allow us to
manage this flow of people effectively and efficiently.
The decision to impose or remove a visitor visa is not an
arbitrary decision, far from it. Such a decision is taken only after
thoughtful consideration of all alternative measures. The benefits
of removing the visa requirement must be weighed against the
potential for abuse.
When we look at removing a visitor visa requirement, we have to
take many different factors into consideration. Does the country
that the person is coming from have effective passport controls? Is
there potential for forgery and abuse? Are there a large percentage
of visitor visas refused each year? If so, why is that?
CIC officials conduct an ongoing review of countries affected by
visitor visa requirements. Departmental staff keep a vigilant eye on
the changing international landscape in order to develop policies
which are fair and effective.
I can assure the hon. member that the visitor visa requirement on
Portugal has no negative impact on regular immigration from that
country. I would like to point out that the department has a one-day
processing service in Lisbon.
As the minister said, she would be more than willing to look into
this issue in the future if it becomes necessary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The motion to adjourn the
House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, it being7.21 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)