37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 076
CONTENTS
Monday, June 11, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| WOMEN VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Motion
|
1110
1115
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1120
1125
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1130
1135
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1140
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1145
1150
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1155
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1200
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1210
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1215
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
|
| Bill S-3. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1220
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1225
1230
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1315
1320
1325
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1330
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1335
1340
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1345
1350
1355
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1400
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| ROAD SAFETY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1405
| CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| NELSON MANDELA
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| THOROLD REED BAND
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
1410
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| GAMES OF LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| GENEVIÈVE JEANSON
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1415
| MAX KEEPING
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| CANADA DAY
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1450
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1500
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| PETITIONS
|
| Labelling of Alcoholic Products
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1505
| National Unity
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Falun Gong
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Housing
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Canadian Coast Guard
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| National Defence
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Pesticides
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT
|
| Bill S-3. Third reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1515
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1520
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Third reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1525
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1530
1535
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1610
1615
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1620
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1625
1630
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Third reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1635
1640
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Vote 1—National Defence
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1715
1720
| Hon. David Collenette |
1725
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1730
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1735
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. David Chatters |
1740
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Third Reading
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1745
1750
1755
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1815
1820
1825
1830
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Third reading
|
1900
(Division 132)
| Motion agreed to
|
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT
|
| Bill S-3. Third reading
|
(Division 133)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1905
| Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 076
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 11, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
WOMEN VETERANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ensure
that the contributions of women veterans are properly recognized
and honoured in every provincial capital city by way of monument
or statue.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion I first introduced in
the House close to three and a half years ago. I might add that
the motion did not come from me. It came from hundreds of women
who I represent in the various legions throughout my riding.
Since then, hundreds of other women in legions clear across the
country have phoned, faxed or e-mailed to indicate their support
for this motion.
I would first like to say that we as parliamentarians, past and
present, should always be very proud of the valiant efforts of
our Canadian military. Whether in World War I, the Korean
conflict, World War II, the Gulf war, and so on, we should be
very proud of the fact that our men and women were willing to
risk their lives for us. However, for every person we sent over
in World War I, World War II and the Korean war, the majority of
them were men. Those men left behind sisters, mothers, daughters
and wives.
I will focus my comments basically on World War II. In World
War II we had over 48,000 women who served in the Canadian
military in uniform. However that does not count the thousands
of women who served in other capacities in our military
component. They worked in the factories, the fields and the
hospitals. Not only did they supply the materials needed for the
war effort, they also looked after the families. We basically
took women out of the traditional role of the family, of staying
at home more or less, and all of a sudden, because of the urgent
need for women to assist, we moved them into the military. We
also moved them into the factories in order to assist us to keep
the war production going. Without the brave efforts of these
women, we would not have been successful in our conflicts of
years ago.
An article was written in the Daily News on November 11,
1999 by Lila O'Connor of Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia. She wrote:
In the 1940s women made their own decisions about apparel,
employment and family finances. They grasped the wartime
movement to establish new levels of social and economic
independence for women in postwar Canada.
We can talk about the effects of war and what it did to this
country but the part that is neglected many times in our
conversations is the valiant effort of women and what they
contributed to our country.
1110
Women's history month was created in 1992 to encourage greater
awareness among Canadians of the historical contributions of
women to our society. The Veterans Appeal Board, which was a
great help, set up a website where the stories of women veterans
and women who participated in various conflicts around the world
can be posted, stories of what they and their mothers,
grandmothers, daughters and sisters have gone through.
In the great city of Winnipeg, one of the leaders in the country
in promoting these values, there is a statue and a monument
dedicated to women who served in the war, who served in conflict
and who served in various capacities to assist in the war effort.
All the motion today asks is that a statue or a monument,
similar to what Winnipeg has, be erected in every capital city in
the country so that we properly recognize the women who served
and gave so much, in an effort to honour them for what they have
done.
I do not think there is a person in the country who does not get
tears in their eyes on Remembrance Day when they see the silver
cross mother lay the wreath at the cenotaph here in Ottawa,
symbolizes a woman gave up her child for this country so that we
could all live in a democracy.
One of the people who benefited from that was myself. My
parents and oldest brother were liberated by the Canadian
military in the liberation of Holland in 1945, the country where
I was born. My father met a young Canadian soldier and asked him
why Canada gave so much to help Holland. The young man said that
they had a job to do. With that my father always said that if
Canada had a military like that, can we imagine what kind of
country they came from? In 1956 my parents made the decision to
immigrate to Canada. That young Canadian soldier probably had a
sister, mother, grandmother, wife or daughter back in Canada
keeping the home fires burning so that he could do the job he was
asked to do by his country.
Many times we as members of parliament talk about our families
and the support they give us, which is very important for all of
us in all political fields. In order to do our jobs effectively
and do the nation's business, it is good to know that our loved
ones and children are back home running their day to day lives.
Without that support we could not do what we are doing. The same
is true for military personnel, especially in times of conflict.
Without the support of women back home keeping the home fires
burning, looking after the families and working in the fields and
factories, we would not have been successful in the war efforts.
The motion was not deemed votable by the parliamentary committee
but I ask the indulgence of the governing party and others to
support this initiative. Our women veterans are fading very
quickly. Every day we lose more of them. This initiative came
from women in legions and various organizations clear across the
country who very simply have asked for their country to honour or
recognize their efforts in perpetuity so that their stories will
never be forgotten.
I know the House, after careful reflection, will look upon this
and realize that in terms of financial costs it is minimal, but
in terms of psychological costs it is tremendous. What it will
do for women is to tell them that Canada values their
initiatives, their support, the work they have done and the
sacrifices they have made for our military.
As a proud Canadian and one who was not born here, I know very
well that I owe everything I have to the efforts of our
governments and our military who sacrificed so much during World
War I, World War II and the Korean conflict so that I could be
free and millions of other people around the world could be free.
Now our peacekeepers are doing the same around the world. They
are trying to keep the peace and trying to bring stability to
wartorn countries around the world.
1115
It was interesting to note who was there waiting for members of
the military the other day in Gagetown when they came back from
Ethiopia: their wives, their mothers, their daughters and their
sons. The look on their faces when they were reunited showed
that those men had a job to do for their country, not just for
this country but in protecting and serving democracy around the
world. They could not do that unless they had the support of the
women back home.
It is very important in this time in our history to reflect upon
that and to pay tribute to these women in a most fitting way. If
we do this, if we move forward in a non-partisan way, we will be
doing a great thing not only for the women of Canada but for
ourselves as well.
I look forward to the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to
stand in the House on behalf of people such as Lily Snow of
Beaverbank, Granny Crosby of Eastern Passage, Val Mooney of the
legion of Eastern Passage and many others who have asked me to
bring forward this motion on their behalf, which I now have had
the privilege to do.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
to the motion which advocates that the government ensures the
contributions of women veterans is recognized and honoured in
every provincial capital city by way of a monument or statue.
On its surface it is a very worthwhile motion, one deserving of
our support. If we were to determine our support on the basis of
the sincerity of the member opposite who just spoke in bringing
forward this motion and on his good intentions, certainly we
could support it. Unfortunately, when we scratch the surface we
find it is not a simple motion. It is not one without its own
complications.
I preface my remarks by noting that the wording of the motion
makes a comprehensive discussion of its merits somewhat
difficult, not by what it suggests, that women veterans be
honoured by way of a monument or statue, but rather by what it
does not say.
As an example, which women veterans does the hon. member mean we
should honour? Is it wartime women veterans, peacetime veterans,
veterans who serve on or near war fronts, or veterans who serve
in a particular battle or campaign? What about war era veterans
who had service only in Canada? These are important questions
for which we need answers before a reasonable debate can take
place.
The motion is also silent on the issue of cost and how these
monuments should be paid for. Who will design and build them?
Will the provincial governments want to have their say in where
such monuments might be placed and whom they should honour? How
would veteran organizations be involved?
I submit these questions because it is one thing to be in favour
of the motion that seems to suggest a good and honourable deed.
However, on closer examination, it presents a whole slew of
questions and problems that do not lend themselves to easy
answers.
In short, acquiescence to the motion would definitely be a
matter of easier said than done. There is no denying the fact
that women veterans have made a huge contribution to Canada,
particularly during the war years of the last century.
We often first think of the incredible dedication of Canada's
nursing soldiers. They have a very proud legacy of military
service that dates back as far as 1885 when for the first time
Canadian nurses were sent to care for soldiers wounded during the
north-west rebellion. When the great war came more than 3,000
would volunteer their services. Casualty clearing stations were
set up close to the frontlines and in harm's way.
Not only were they subject to danger from the enemy, but
contagious disease ran rampant in the terrible killing fields of
that atrocious war. Some 46 gave their lives through enemy fire
or debilitating disease.
1120
Hon. members need only walk down the Hall of Honour in centre
block to see the memorial panel that honours the sacrifices of
the nursing sisters of Canada. On one part of the panel are two
nursing sisters in uniform tending to a wounded soldier, surely
symbolizing the courage and self-sacrifice of all those who
served in war.
Prior to 1941 women had only served in the Canadian military as
army medical corps nurses. The decision was taken in June 1941
to create a female branch for each of the fighting services
rather than a single women's corps. Women immediately began to
enlist: more than 21,600 in the Canadian women's army corps and
more than 7,000 in the women's division of the RCAF where they
served in Canada and overseas as wireless operators, clerks,
parachute riggers and photographers.
In 1942 the navy followed suit by creating the Women's Royal
Canadian Naval Service, the WRENs. The WRENs signed up more than
7,100. No women were assigned to combat duties but some came
under enemy fire. In all, approximately 8,000 women served
overseas. The nursing service was expanded to all three branches
of the military: the navy, the army and the air force, with over
4,400 serving. Many of them found themselves within range of
enemy guns.
What of the women who served so ably on the home front? When
war was declared, 569,000 women worked in Canadian industry,
mostly in clerical jobs. As the war progressed and more and more
men were sent overseas in uniform, the government turned its
attention to the large pool of female labour.
Within a short time 960,000 women were engaged in jobs in
industry and another 800,000 were employed on farms. Fully half
of them were engaged in what had once been considered men's work:
operating machines, welding, riveting, painting, driving street
cars, building weapons and loading freight. It is clear that the
war effort could not have been sustained without the work of
these civilian veterans on the home front. Surely they are as
worthy of honour as those who served in other capacities.
Of course women in uniform continued to serve with distinction
during the war in Korea and continue to do so in peacekeeping
missions the world over. Today they too are veterans
distinguished as such by their service, not by their gender.
Let me now turn from the history of service to the history of
Canada's memorials to our fallen veterans. It has been our
tradition to bury and remember our war dead in the places where
they served. The memorials overseas were constructed on
principal battlefields and the geographical areas of importance
in wartime. Most of them are inscribed with the names of those
whose remains were never found or identified.
There are naturally hundreds of different memorials over the
globe. Their history is inextricably entwined with the work of
the Commonwealth War Graves Commission whose history dates back
to the first world war. Its mandate was, and remains, to mark
and maintain the graves of members of the Commonwealth who died
in the first world war and second world war, to build memorials
to those with no known grave, and to keep records and registers.
This work was founded on principles which have remained
unaltered: that each of the dead should be commemorated
individually by name, either on the headstone on the grave or by
an inscription on a memorial; that the headstones and memorials
should be permanent; that the headstones should be uniform; and
that there should be no distinction made on account of military
or civil rank, race or creed.
Through the war graves commission Canada has agreed to share
along with other participating governments the cost of
maintaining the graves and memorials in proportion to the number
of her war dead.
1125
Canada independently funds other memorials such as the Vimy and
Beaumont memorials in France and the National War Memorial in
Ottawa. In the case of the latter I should note that the war
memorial shows both men and women passing through the granite
arches.
I underscore that these memorials honour those who fell by
virtue of their service and sacrifice in a battle or a campaign
and not by virtue of their gender, their race, their church
affiliation or ethnicity, not because of the accident of their
birth but by their deliberation to serve.
For its part the Departement of Veterans Affairs honours the
accomplishments and
sacrifices of Canada's veterans in many ways. For example, last
year's initiative of establishing the tomb of the unknown soldier
was embraced by the entire country. Through the extensive
television coverage of its installation, the new memorial
garnered incredible attention and resulted in much discussion
about the contributions of veterans to their nation.
I see that I am running out of time. I will come quickly to our
position in this regard. In summing up, the motion is not
supportable for essentially three reasons. First, if approved,
the motion could be seen as favouring one group of veterans over
another. Second, there are other effective ways to ensure that
our wartime legacy is preserved and communicated to future
generations. Third, the cost is prohibitive.
Building a monument to women veterans in each provincial and
territorial capital would be a multimillion dollar expenditure to
which ongoing maintenance costs would have to be factored in, not
to mention the logistical and jurisdictional issues that would be
raised when seeking the agreement and co-operation of each
provincial and territorial government.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to stand in the House to address this very
important issue to Canadians. It is said that if we lose sight
of our history, we lose our vision of the future. There is a lot
of truth to that concept.
I begin by commenting on the process today. Once again we have
an interesting private member's bill or motion. We have the
privilege of speaking to it for an hour, at the end of which the
motion, being a non-votable item, will be dropped from the
order paper. For the umpteenth time I say we ought not to be
using the time of the House of Commons debating issues which
cannot be drawn to a conclusion. Either we want to do this or we
do not. We should vote on it.
It is rather interesting that this non-partisan private member's
motion is from a member who belongs to the NDP caucus that has
expressed opposition to having every motion and private members'
bill votable. Of course the government is in favour of it, but
when asked today whether we can vote on it, the government will
say that we cannot.
We have an impasse which could be easily solved. When a private
member finds an issue that is of enough importance that he or she
chooses to bring it forward for debate in the House, it is also
important enough to give us the opportunity to stand and to
indicate in a tangible fashion whether we are for it or against
it.
Let me now spend a little time addressing the motion. The
motion is quite narrow, as I read it:
Most of us would recognize, concede or admit that whenever
Canada has participated in a military conflict its war efforts
have been supported by a much larger group than simply those who
enlisted. My understanding of the word veteran is a person who
was at one time enlisted in active service. It is a very narrow
motion, particularly because I think the greatest contributions
of the majority of women who participated in the war efforts in
the past were probably in the area of the non-enlisted.
They contributed wholeheartedly indeed but they were not in the
ranks of those who had actually enlisted. There were many others
who were enlisted and in fact offered much great service.
1130
As we were talking, I remembered hearing of a woman who was
actively engaged in the ferry service, and I had to wrack my
brain to remember her name. At that time aircraft were being
produced in North America and in Canada then had to be ferried
across the ocean in order to be brought into active service. The
name of this woman is Vera Dowling. Those members who know
military history may have heard her name. She was one of these
people who ferried the aircraft across.
As members may well know, for the most part those people were
not subject as much to enemy attack as they were to all of the
vagaries of weather. However, during the second world war, Vera
was of course subject to the fact that the aircraft was not as
reliable in transoceanic flight as it is today.
Therefore, we should certainly award an appropriate accolade
active, engaged, enrolled armed forces members like Vera
Dowling performing important activities.
By the way, for many years Vera was a flight instructor in
Edmonton who taught many young pilots how to fly. I was never
able to take the course, but I am told by those who did take her
classes said they were very interesting. While giving
instruction on what to do under certain circumstances, Vera
always had an interesting story or anecdote about something that
had happened to her in her career.
It is of great importance for us to recognize the contributions
these individuals make to the well-being and protection of our
country. As I said earlier, many of the women who served did so
in a capacity which did not require that they be enrolled in the
armed forces. Mention has already been made of the almost one
million women who actively supported the war effort at home by
working in the munitions factories producing and turning out the
weapons that were needed, as well as in aircraft factories. These
women actively participated.
However I do not think we should say that they contributed any
more than the mother who was left at home with young ones when
her husband, and in some cases sons as well, enrolled and went
over to fight in the war. That was a tremendous contribution and
should not be in any way minimized.
I mentioned before in this House that my wife and I have had the
experience of having a son in an environment where the wearing of
a flak jacket was necessary. He was overseas working with a
relief agency trying to bring aid to people in a war torn country
and was in an area of great danger. He had to where a flak
jacket because, as he put it, he never knew when a bullet might
go astray, and in fact one did. I do not believe my wife and I
suffered undue anxiety about our son when he was overseas, but we
did indeed have a proper parental concern.
Hence, as a newly elected member of parliament, I had the
opportunity on November 11 to participate in Remembrance Day
services at various spots in my riding. Over the years I rotated
to different locations. When I did that, I experienced great
emotion. I put myself into the lives of those families, moms and
dads, and in many cases mothers only because their husbands were
also serving, who had their sons overseas not only being subject
to a stray bullet as our son was, but also who were actively the
targets of the enemy and whose probability of coming back alive
in some cases was very low.
What anxiety they must have suffered, and what a huge
contribution they made in order to support the protection and
defence of our country.
1135
I want to say one more thing about these little ceremonies that
I have participated in. I usually rotate to the places in my
riding where there are active Legions, but last year I accepted
the invitation to go to Chipman, a little town in my riding. I
do not think that there are more than 150 people living in the
town but they have a memorial site. It is a beautiful site which
they maintain. It is a community project. They built the
statute and even took the time to have a beautiful mural painted
on the side of their community centre, which is next to the
statute. They commemorate and remember the contributions.
While I believe we should recognize, acknowledge and honour all
people, regardless of gender, who supported the war effort, I
would greatly support the government encouraging individual
municipalities, cities, towns and villages to voluntarily put up
monuments at their expense, to women who participated in the war
effort, rather than the government funding them, perhaps at the
expense of money that is available to present day veterans.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois
on the motion before us.
I would like to begin by adding my voice to that of my colleague
from the Canadian Alliance on just how regrettable it is once
again for us to be dealing with a non-votable motion. As a
result, my NDP colleague will probably be obliged to ask for
unanimous consent, and judging by what we have just heard from
the Liberal party, he can moreover expect not to obtain it.
This is most unfortunate.
I find that the reasons given by my Liberal colleague do not
hold water. They do not. As far as jurisdiction is
concerned, it is proposed to erect monuments in each provincial
capital. It seems to me that the Liberals have no scruples
about meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction when it suits
them.
We are being told “when it comes to honouring women and their
contribution to the war effort well, unfortunately, we have no
money”. Yet we know that the Minister of Finance's budget
forecasts constantly include several billion dollars in
surplus, which always needs to be multiplied by five or six in
reality, so this does not strike me as a good reason. It is not
a reason to raise the matter of jurisdiction. It is not a
reason to raise the matter of costs. It is not a reason to
raise the matter of unfairness to other groups of war veterans.
As we know, the veterans have a day devoted to them. We visit
monuments and honour the veterans. But, the fact that we fail to
recognize that these veterans would not have won the war without
the extraordinary effort of the women of Quebec and Canada is
appalling.
Not only did they go to the front to care for the wounded and
provide health care—it is absolutely essential in wartime to
have people to look after the wounded—but they contributed to
the war effort by working in the weapons industry. Without them,
the wars would not have been won in the name of democracy.
I feel a lot of compassion and gratitude when I think of these
people, like my father, who was a member of the Fusiliers
Mont-Royal, who went overseas to liberate Europe. It was an
important cause. It was a global cause. It was the global cause
of the day.
1140
Today, we speak of the globalization of the economy, but in
those days, there were governments trying to undermine democracy.
They wanted to spread their influence over all of Europe.
Everyone knew that it would spread beyond Europe.
These people contributed to the war effort. My father went to
Europe and helped liberate Holland. During this time, my mother
worked at the Singer company in Saint-Jean. She worked 12 to 18
hours a day in the production of ammunition, which my father was
no doubt using.
Why should we now say that my mother did not make a contribution,
because she did not go to the front? Had my father not had
bullets to put in his gun, we would not have won the war.
The NDP motion acknowledges such contributions. It allows us to
recognize the efforts made by Quebec and Canadian women to win
that war. It would not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We
are talking about 12 or 15 statues. Quebec jealously guards its
jurisdictions, but if Canada proposed to put up a statue to pay
tribute to women veterans, to those who supported the economy
during the war, I do not think there would be many objections
raised.
It is important that the federal government be the one investing
money in that area. I do not agree that these should be optional
measures, that some people should go back to their town, city or
province and say that it would be a good thing. Veterans come
under federal jurisdiction. They are honoured every year. The
Department of Veterans Affairs sends wreaths in every riding of
Canada to honour our veterans. We see them marching to the war
memorial on Remembrance Day, but there are only men.
I think that my mother should march with them. We could also
honour these women on that day, but not only in front of a war
memorial. There should also be a statue for women veterans.
I do not think that veterans would have any problem recognizing
that women supported them during the last war, not just on the
medical front, as members of health teams, but also in the
production of military supplies. It was women who held Canada
and Quebec together, not men; they were all at the front.
I do not want to get into the whole business of conscription,
but my father did his duty and went overseas. I would like my
mother to be honoured as well. She did her duty; she worked 12
to 18 hour days for four years making munitions for the front.
What we are asking for today is some sort of recognition.
I do not buy the explanations of the Liberal Party. We have no
objection to the motion. I think the government should send a
clear signal to the women of Canada and Quebec and tell them
“Thank you very much for what you did. It was not just the men
who went to the front who saved us; without you, victory would
not have been possible”.
If the hon. member were to seek unanimous consent, the Bloc
Quebecois would be delighted to give it. I think that one day,
if not now, then as soon as possible, recognition must be given
to the women of Canada and of Quebec for their great contribution
to the war effort. We would therefore be prepared to support
this approach at any time.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is certainly an honour and a privilege to stand in support of the
motion presented by my left leaning colleague to my right.
First, I should say to the hon. member from the Bloc before he
leaves that I could say hear, hear to his speech and sit down,
because he covered the issue extremely well. He indicated for us
what women went through during the war, as well as how he
addressed the response from the government.
1145
I sat in amazement as I listened to the government member try
to explain why we should not do anything to recognize women who
served during the war either directly or indirectly through their
involvement in the ammunition factories, in the preparation of
bandages or by keeping the home fires burning. There is a line
in a poem which says “they also serve who only stand and wait”.
So many people waited for their husbands, brothers and sons to
come back, and many never did. How can we recognize the trauma
these people went through?
The member of the governing party asked which women veterans
would be recognized. My answer is that all of them should be
recognized regardless of the confrontation and regardless of how
they were involved. The member has also said that there were
other agencies that could work with the provincial and municipal
governments. I say to the hon. member that if provincial or
municipal governments balk or throw blockades at suggestions like
this, then they are just as bad as the government opposite.
For too long we have found red tape and bureaucracy to put in
the way of doing what we should be doing. We spend more time and
waste more money finding reasons for not doing something than if
we had gone ahead and done it in the beginning. That is typical
of the government opposite.
I was born during a time when people were not involved in major
wars, such as World War I or World War II, but I knew many of my
relatives, friends, neighbours and countrymen had been. The two
countries that fought in the war—unlike my colleague from the
Bloc I am not saying Canada and Quebec—were Canada and
Newfoundland. Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time.
It was a country on its own. The contribution made by
Newfoundland, now a proud province of Canada, was second to none.
The contribution made by Newfoundlanders was recognized not only
here in the new world but by countries the world over. Many
Newfoundlanders paid the supreme sacrifice to give countries,
such as the homeland of my hon. colleague, the freedom they now
have. We are very proud of that.
The soldiers who fought so valiantly in the wars would not have
been able to do so without the support on the homefront and the
involvement of women, whether it was direct involvement or the
supportive roles that many of them served. As our veterans came
back home and tried to fit into life after the wars, the trauma
they went through is something they have and always will carry
with them. It has not been easy for them to come back and live a
normal life, carrying the memories that they carry with them. The
support of the women on the homefront has helped carry them
through it.
I think of the Canadian Legion branches established all across
the country. If we listed all of them we would find that many of
them are active today because of the involvement of the women
legionnaires. One of them is Elizabeth Lee who is from my area
of Riverhead-St. Mary's Bay. Long before my involvement in
active politics and all during my political years, whenever there
was anything on the go it was Elizabeth who was organizing it.
She sought out the funding and to enhance the facility. It is
women like her who have been the backbone behind the efforts of
keeping this great country going.
1150
It is not a question of being able to afford to do something for
these women. It is that we cannot afford not to do something for
them. The excuses, red tape and hurdles that have been put in
place because of a very simple suggestion give us an idea of what
we are going through. We should all be together, proud of our
heritage and culture. Yet people just sit and fiddle while Rome
burns.
In about 10 minutes the issue will die on the order paper, but
if my hon. colleague who introduced the motion is satisfied to
keep it alive, I am sure many of us, certainly on this side of
the House, would be satisfied to work with him to make sure it
does stay alive.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, like others I was not totally
prepared to speak to this excellent private member's motion.
However, having listened to the debate I felt I had to rise to
address it at least in some small way.
As my colleague in the Canadian Alliance has said, we cannot
help but remind all other parties in the House, as we work
through private members' business in these dying days of the
opening session of parliament, of the need to make all motions
and bills votable. It is high time to move toward that.
As the member for Elk Island indicated, regardless of what party
members represent, when they go to the trouble and effort to
draft motions or bills and bring them before the House, it is
incumbent upon all of us to participate in the debates; to listen
very carefully to the points being made, either for or against;
and ultimately to have the process culminate in a vote. As
happened in the case of a couple of my private members' bills, to
have some of them non-votable is a huge disservice to the whole
democratic process to which we have all talked about adhering.
Like my colleague in the Progressive Conservatives, I was
appalled at the remarks of the member for Sault Ste. Marie in his
role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs. He stood in his place and criticized the motion before
us by questioning who should be honoured and who should pay.
We have recently gone through a process in this place whereby
the government in its infinite wisdom rammed through pay and
pension benefits for its own members in a very quick fashion. It
seems ludicrous to me in the extreme that the government can look
at a motion like this one which would honour people who certainly
warrant the highest honours bestowed upon them, shrug its
shoulders and say it is easier said than done.
The government certainly did not adopt that attitude when it
came to its pay raises. It was very quick to ensure it was
pushed through the House as quickly as possible regardless of
whether members were for it or against it. It did a disservice
to the issue and to parliament. It left an impression with the
electorate, with Canadians in the real world outside the Ottawa
bubble, that somehow there were members who were ashamed of the
process so it had to be fast tracked.
1155
Regarding the question of who should be honoured, we should
bestow the honour upon all women who participated in the war
effort, regardless of whether they worked in the fields or in the
factories; whether they went overseas; whether, as was indicated
by a number of members, they were involved in the nursing
profession; whether they drove a lorry; or whether they were a
chauffeur for a general. Regardless of what role they played or
whether they supported the families left behind, all women who
were involved in the years our country was at war deserve to be
recognized and honoured.
The very point the parliamentary secretary was trying to make
about this somehow being divisive and questioning who should be
honoured was ridiculous.
Who would pay? It is a bit early in the process to say who
would pay. It could be a joint private-public enterprise as we
have seen many times before. Which level of government does not
have to be spelled out or that we want to exclude organizations
from involvement. Special committees might spring up across the
country.
As my colleague from Elk Island said, many cenotaphs, statues
and other ways of honouring people in society who have done great
deeds in the past have been financed either at the local level or
through a truly national initiative.
It is a bit of a red herring for the parliamentary secretary, in
representing the government, to say we should do nothing because
we have not got down to the basic about who will pay. That does
not do any service and does not reflect well on our institution
and on members of parliament to adopt that attitude.
In summary, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion.
I commend my colleague from the New Democratic Party for bringing
it forward. I believe very strongly that all Canadians,
regardless of gender, involved in the war effort protected the
rights all of us enjoy today: the right to speak openly and to
represent all different political stripes and parties in the
Parliament of Canada. These rights were protected by the people
who we wish to honour.
We honour and recognize them today if only by our words. I hope
the motion will not die and that there are ways in which we can
keep it alive and move it forward to proper recognition of women
who contributed so much during those very difficult years.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this is a huge issue. It is a pity the government did
not bring forward this excellent private member's motion. We are
speaking about women veterans now, but in terms of paying respect
to the men and women who did such amazing work for us and
thinking about the sacrifice many of them made, it seems a shame
the government was not willing or keen to bring the matter
forward and say that we need to recognize them.
In my rural constituency of Beaver River, now Edmonton North, I
spent many a Remembrance Day going around to various towns and
paying tribute to the people who did such amazing things. Every
Remembrance Day I pay tribute to the veterans at the Calder
Cenotaph and then visit the army, navy and air force vets
association on 127th Street.
There is a huge turnout of people young and old. It excites and
amazes me when I see people in the generations coming along
behind us taking time out, whether they are cadets or
grandchildren of veterans, to pay tribute to those who went
before us. It is essential. It is amazing to see legions packed
to the rafters on Remembrance Day and at other times as well.
Surely the least we could do is take time out of our busy
schedules to pay tribute to that.
1200
Again, my congratulations to the hon. member who brought the
private member's bill forward. It is a word of encouragement, I
suspect, to the government to make sure it pays tribute here. If
the Speaker simply gets up and says that we spent a nice hour
discussing it and then the issue gets the drop kick and is gone
forever, that would be a pity. If that is our attitude and the
respect we pay to veterans, it is truly a sad day for parliament
and for Canada.
I would certainly ask the government to pick up the ball and run
with it and pay tribute to the veterans who have done such an
amazing job for us. Those of us who are too young to remember
the war, the baby boomers and those who have come along behind
us, need to pay attention to the issue and keep it burning all
the time.
A couple of blocks from Parliament Hill is the war memorial.
What an amazing place it is for so many thousands of Canadians
certainly, but also for people from all over the world who come
to pay tribute to the new tomb of the unknown soldier and to the
veterans who served in the wars.
I would again recommend to the government that it treat the
issue as a fairly high priority. I know when it puts things in
high priority they can whiz through this place faster than the
speed of light. It would certainly be a good, healthy,
respectful, positive thing if it could do that today.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues on this
side of the House and even my good colleague from Sault Ste.
Marie. I believe if he had put down the department's notes and
read from his heart we would have heard a different speech from
him. That is the problem. When one is in government one must
sometimes speak the government line. If the department does not
want something to happen it simply does not get done.
I appeal to my hon. colleague from Sault Ste. Marie. He says
that the government does not want to do things based on gender. If
that were the case it would never have addressed the status of
women. We even have a secretary of state, a minister, dedicated
strictly to the status of women.
Why? It is because a forward thinking government years ago
understood that issues of women were not being addressed properly
by the government or by the country and that women were left
behind in many aspects of society. It therefore created the
ministry to build up women and give them an opportunity to
address their concerns.
It was therefore disappointing to hear the hon. member say that
the government does not want to do things based on gender. It
was disappointing and I know personally that he probably does not
believe it.
I thank my hon. colleagues from the Alliance Party, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Conservative Party who spoke so eloquently on
the motion.
In reality it would not cost much money. In all likelihood the
government would get tremendous support from the citizens of the
cities where the monuments would be. Most important, the
government would once and for all be able to tell the women of
Canada, who served so valiantly and bravely that, yes, it
recognizes them.
It is never too late to do a good thing. The motion is a
no-brainer for the government to accept. Mr. Speaker, if it were
votable I could almost assure you that the majority of Liberals
back there would vote for it. I do not see how they could not.
I would at this time, Mr. Speaker, seek the unanimous consent of
all members in the House today to make the motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to make this item a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[English]
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-11, an act to
amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada
Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf
of the Minister of Industry in support of the expeditious passage
of Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations
Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts.
During second reading debate on Bill S-11 several hon. members
took note that the bill would represent the first substantive
amendment to the CBCA in over 25 years. In that time there have
been significant developments in corporate governance practices
driven primarily by the globalization of capital and business
markets. These developments are only exceeded by the tremendous
advances in technology that have made globalization possible.
Hon. members may recall that the bill is the product of
extensive review and analysis that began in 1994. Consultation
with stakeholders was comprehensive. There were nine discussion
papers, coast to coast meetings by Industry Canada and parallel
national consultations by the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce.
The reforms in the bill would improve and modernize four
important areas of the marketplace framework statutes that govern
business corporations and co-operatives. First, they would
expand the rights of shareholders by facilitating wider
communication and encouraging more participation in corporate
decisions through the shareholder approval process.
Second, they would help eliminate barriers to global
competitiveness by allowing corporations more flexibility in
choosing directors from a wider international pool of talent.
Third, they would more reasonably define the responsibilities
and liabilities of directors, officers and shareholders.
Finally, they would eliminate unnecessary regulatory duplication
and reduce the cost of compliance.
All the reforms in the bill would give corporations and
co-operatives greater flexibility in pursuing marketplace
opportunities. Because of this, shareholders large and small can
be more confident in the future value of their investments.
The reforms are a response to the new ways Canadian companies
are doing business today. They would encourage corporate
governance practices that are geared to long term growth and they
would provide a sound framework for prospering in the global
marketplace.
The level of agreement on the provisions of the bill is
exceptionally high. The witnesses who appeared before the Senate
committee were all but unanimous in their support of the
principles of the bill as it appears before us. As well,
virtually every stakeholder who appeared before the Senate
committee urged quick passage of the bill. They included
representatives from the corporate community, large institutional
investors, shareholder activists, provincial securities
commissions and co-operative associations, among others.
The reforms in the bill are long overdue. Corporations want
them so they can take advantage of the efficiencies and cost
savings the bill would deliver.
1210
Investors too want a modern corporate law that helps protect the
value of their securities. Shareholder activists want to be able
to use the liberalized shareholder communication and proposal
provisions, especially before next proxy season.
Consideration of the previous version of Bill S-19 was postponed
by the dissolution of parliament last October. However the
interruption allowed the government time to give further
consideration to representations made before the Senate
committee.
The bill would incorporate the resulting improvements, and that
is what we would make into law. I am confident that hon. members
will agree that we should approve the recommendations of the
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and then
approve Bill S-11 as amended.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-11, an act to amend the
Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act.
As the main federal law governing corporations in Canada, the
Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA, sets out the legal and
regulatory framework for more than 155,000 federally incorporated
businesses. The Canadian Alliance supports the bill, which would
amend the CBCA for the first time since 1975. That is quite a
period of time.
Several changes are necessary, in our view. It is a real
understatement to say that business has changed fundamentally
since the mid-1970s. It is high time the Canada Business
Corporations Act reflected the transformation to the global
economy.
The previous act to amend the CBCA was tabled in the Senate
during the last session of parliament as Bill S-19. The bill
never made it out of the Senate. It died on the order paper when
the federal election was called. The Senate committee
nonetheless heard from over 30 witnesses between April and the
end of June 2000. People from the Canadian Bar Association, the
Canadian Co-operative Association and the taskforce on the
churches and corporate responsibility were among those who
testified at the Senate committee.
Bill S-11 is substantially the same as Bill S-19 but it
reflects and incorporates the recommendations that came forward
from the hearings. It deals with the concerns identified by the
people who came forward as witnesses.
The amendments seek to modernize the Canada Business
Corporations Act in four areas: first, by recognizing the global
nature of the marketplace; second, by clarifying the
responsibilities of corporate directors and officers; third, by
reducing federal-provincial duplication; and fourth, by expanding
shareholder rights.
Bill S-11 would reduce residency requirements for board members
to 25% and eliminate the requirement entirely for board
committees. The change is long overdue and would help Canadian
companies compete as global players.
That is where we are these days. There is more investment
outside Canada by Canadians than there is direct foreign
investment in Canada. We have seen a sea change in what is
happening in terms of investment in the last few years. Canadians
are reaching out and servicing the marketplace around the world.
However, it is regrettable but characteristic of the government
across the way that certain sacred cow sectors would be exempt
from the residency requirement reduction. We question the
rationale regarding the book publishing industry,
telecommunications and transportation. Under Bill S-11
Petro-Canada would not be permitted the flexibility to appoint
directors based on their qualifications but would do so based on
where they live.
Another welcome change is an amendment that would allow Canadian
federally incorporated companies to compete with foreign
multinationals while expanding globally. Bill S-11 would do this
by authorizing foreign subsidiaries of Canadian corporations to
acquire shares in their parent corporations under limited and
clearly defined circumstances such as acquiring or merging with
foreign companies and corporations.
Bill S-11 would replace the good faith reliance defence for
directors with a due diligence one which would allow corporations
to pay for defence and investigation costs, thus encouraging
directors to take more appropriate risks. Bill S-11 would also
clarify responsibility for corporate officers and directors by
replacing the current joint and several liability regime with one
of modified proportionate liability.
1215
However, joint and several liability would continue to apply in
cases of fraud and to designated categories of plaintiffs such as
the crown, charitable organizations, unsecured creditors and
small investors.
Bill S-11 also spells out in law that under a unanimous
shareholders' agreement the directors' liabilities and defences
are transferred to the shareholders.
Bill S-11 seeks to end the costly and time consuming
administrative and legal burdens on federally incorporated
businesses by eliminating conflicts and overlaps between federal
and provincial statutes and regulations. We applaud that. For
example, the CBCA's provisions for takeover bids would be
repealed to allow the comprehensive provincial codes for takeover
bid regulations to prevail. Bill S-11 would also repeal the
federal duplication on provincial insider trading requirements
while increasing the maximum fine for insider trading from the
current $5,000 to $1 million.
Bill S-11 would allow for greater participation by small
shareholders in corporate decision making. It would do so by
relaxing the rules under which shareholders communicate among
themselves and would allow proxy solicitation through public
broadcast or newspaper advertisements instead of by direct
mailings.
The amendments would encourage corporations to employ new
technologies. The technologies are not so new now, but in a 25
year timeframe they do seem new. These include e-mail when
communicating with shareholders and conducting regular
shareholders meetings. Bill S-11 is trying to bring Canada up to
speed with what has been happening in the massive changes in
communications in the last 25 years.
The legislation would also liberalize mechanisms for individual
shareholders to submit proposals and aims to restrain management
ability to block or refuse proposals from being considered.
The Canadian Alliance believes that Bill S-11 reflects the
transformation of business since 1975 with respect to the global
marketplace, the electronic revolution and the rise of
shareholders' rights, as well as the necessity for reducing
federal and provincial redundancies. Because of the four changes
I have mentioned, we believe that this would bring us into the
modern era in terms of the regulations surrounding the Canada
Business Corporations Act. The Canadian Alliance is happy to
support the passage of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3, an act to
amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
1220
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill
S-3, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 at third reading. Bill
S-3 was tabled in the Senate on January 31 and was examined and
reported by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and
Communications. In the House it received second reading on May
15 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and
Government Operations chaired by my hon. colleague from
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
The committee heard from a number of witnesses, including:
Transport Canada, the sponsoring department; public safety
organizations like CRASH, otherwise known as Canadians for
Responsible and Safe Highways; the Canadian Trucking Alliance,
which represents the for hire trucking industry; the Forest
Products Association of Canada, whose members ship products by
truck throughout North America; the Manitoba Department of
Transportation and Public Services, the director of which was at
the committee representing the federal-provincial-territorial
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. We also
heard from the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association,
whose members ship products by truck, and the Canadian Bus
Association, representing the scheduled intercity bus transport
and bus charter industries.
These witnesses presented many different perspectives on road
transport. All supported the principles of Bill S-3 and none
opposed its passage, but there were some good suggestions made
nonetheless.
That is not to say that passage of the bill would solve all the
problems of motor carrier regulation and heavy vehicle safety.
Two principal concerns came to the fore during the discussions
and these concerns were remarkably consistent among the different
witnesses.
First there was a concern that commercial vehicle safety needs
more leadership and that such leadership should be provided by
the federal government. Second and more specifically, the
national safety code for motor carriers, based on the 1987
federal-provincial memorandum of understanding, is being
inconsistently applied across the country. This inconsistency
has possible safety implications. As well, it causes
difficulties for the national and international motor carrier
industry.
I take those concerns as statements of the challenges that exist
in motor carrier regulation. We are taking note of those
statements and suggest that this House do the same. Bill S-3 is
an important step toward effective solutions. The bill states
that its objective is to ensure that the national transportation
policy is carried out with respect to extra-provincial motor
carriers. Specifically it states:
(a) the regulatory regime for those undertakings is focused on
safety performance assessments based on the National Safety Code
for Motor Carriers; and
(b) the operating standards that apply to those undertakings are
applied consistently across Canada.
Bill S-3 reflects the challenges that remain for motor carrier
regulators. While it does not provide complete answers for all
issues it provides an important framework or umbrella legislation
with clear goals to address them. Heavy truck traffic is
increasing dramatically, and as we have confidence that our
economy will continue to grow trucking will surely continue to
grow with it. It is important that we recognize this inevitable
result of economic success and take the necessary measures to
ensure that commercial road transport is carried out in the
safest possible manner.
This point was recognized in 1987 when the national safety code
memorandum of understanding was signed by federal, provincial and
territorial ministers. It was also recognized in 1997 when the
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, representing
all Canadian governments, began development of national safety
code standard no. 14, safety rating.
Safety rating is very simple in principle but very complex to
carry out. First, it requires that all accidents, traffic
violations and non-compliance with motor carrier safety
regulations be recorded in a consistent manner wherever they
happen. This may be anywhere in Canada or North America. Second,
it requires those records to be related to a particular motor
carrier and transmitted to the home province of that motor
carrier. Third, it requires the home province to receive data
from all other jurisdictions and to develop a profile of that
motor carrier. From that profile a rating is calculated by the
home province in such a way that the result would be the same as
in any other jurisdiction.
None of these steps is automatic and all require development and
co-operation among provinces as well as judicious use of advanced
communications technology. The result is, however, far reaching.
A key goal of safety rating is expressed in the introduction to
standard no. 14, which states:
Responsibility for motor carrier safety resides, first and
foremost, with motor carrier management.
1225
This is most important. With many thousands of vehicles
operating in every corner of our country and into the United
States and Mexico, no government by itself can take
responsibility for all aspects of commercial vehicle safety. The
full co-operation of each and every motor carrier is an essential
ingredient of safe road transportation. Safety rating is
designed to demand and foster that co-operation.
Safety rating by one province is recognized by all other
provinces so that duplication of safety enforcement effort is
avoided together with unnecessary impediments to motor carrier
movement. Sources of information on the safety of operation of
any motor carrier are multiplied since data is received from
wherever the carrier operates.
This is likely to produce red flags against unsafe motor
carriers much more quickly than when each jurisdiction enforces
in isolation. It will help to ensure that motor carriers who do
not operate safely will be rapidly removed from the road. In a
more positive vein, when the accumulated information consistently
shows a motor carrier to be operating safely, that motor carrier
will have freedom to operate throughout Canada and North America
with a minimum of red tape.
Safety is a primary goal, but the importance of trucking to our
economy means that efficient and objective safety regulation and
enforcement is a real bonus. The same applies to the bus
industry. Extra-provincial bus transport is a much smaller
activity in Canada than trucking, however, it supplies a vital
transport need to many Canadians and does so with an impressive
safety record. The bus industry also requires clear and
consistent safety rules. Safety rating addresses those
requirements.
I would like to return to the two challenges identified during
the committee hearings, that is, for the federal government to
show leadership in motor carrier safety regulation and to take
the necessary steps to ensure that the national safety code is
implemented consistently across the country.
The Motor Vehicle Transport Act authorizes provincial
governments to regulate extra-provincial motor carrier
undertakings. Without the federal act, provincial governments
are not able to regulate the federal motor carrier entity and can
therefore only enforce safety standards in a piecemeal manner.
This legislation alone is an important demonstration of
leadership by the federal government.
The federal-provincial-territorial consensus, national safety
code standard no. 14, will be the standard base upon which the
provincial governments will regulate extra-provincial motor
carriers as well as their own local carriers. In this way, not
only are national and international motor carriers subject to the
same safety standards across Canada, but so are local carriers,
which represent nearly half the heavy trucks and buses on the
road.
There are currently two sets of regulations under the Motor
Vehicle Transport Act. The proposed motor carrier safety fitness
regulations would replace the current extra-provincial truck
undertaking licensing regulations and would base motor carrier
regulation firmly on safety performance.
As part of the effort to implement these regulations, Transport
Canada is contributing funding of about $5 million per year to
provincial governments. The department is also active in
supporting research and in participating on committees and
working groups of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport
Administrators.
The federal government is taking the lead on a project group to
examine remaining issues of consistent national application of
standard no. 14 and of other national safety code standards. The
other regulation under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act is the
commercial vehicle drivers hours of service regulations, which
are based upon national safety code standard no. 9. These are of
great interest to the public and to the industry.
Amendments to standard no. 9 have been proposed by the Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators. These proposals will
be the subject of further review by the Standing Committee on
Transport and Government Operations. This is another example of
federal leadership in developing a consensus based national
standard that is applied by provincial governments.
In conclusion, the bill we are about to pass would provide an
important new framework for national safety standards that apply
consistently to local, national and international bus and
trucking companies. The objectives of the legislation are to
pave the way for the best available national safety standards and
to have the many thousands of motor carriers in Canada take their
own full responsibility for the safe operation of their buses and
trucks.
Much work remains to be done to fully achieve these objectives.
However, the federal government along with its provincial
partners is committed to following through to ensure that the
regulations in the national safety code would provide the right
regulatory framework to achieve the objectives.
1230
We look forward to our provincial colleagues to ensure that
their safety rating regimes are in place and fully consistent
with the national safety code standard. The ultimate objective
is to have Canada's roads the safest in the world while
commercial vehicles continue to provide efficient and safe
transportation of our people and goods.
I therefore urge all members to support Bill S-3.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on this important bill.
I noticed that the parliamentary secretary who just spoke stated
“the bill which we are about to pass”. I just cannot let that
go without comment. He is presuming that all members of
parliament will vote in favour of this bill. Maybe he heard
rumours that the official opposition will be supporting it.
Perhaps he has also heard rumours that the Liberals will be
voting for it, so maybe it will pass.
That was just a little comment there, a little sarcasm. I guess
Hansard does not report that the member was dripping with
sarcasm when he said that.
I would like to address this whole issue of transportation.
When we look at the broad picture, Canada is a vast country. I
think that members of parliament from Ontario probably do not
recognize it, but I am presumably a member of parliament from the
west. When I cross over from Ontario to Manitoba my flight from
Ottawa to Edmonton is half over. In other words, the
Ontario-Manitoba border is approximately the midpoint before we
start hitting what is called the west. Then of course there is
another equal distance from the border all the way to Edmonton
and another 1,600 to 1,700 kilometres from central Alberta to the
west coast.
To unite and serve our people with delivery of goods and
services and to move our products across the country, not only to
each other but also for the export markets most of which then
goes on to ships at various places, we need to have an efficient
transportation system. We also are very aware that the
transportation of people is very important, so we think of
trains, planes and automobiles. I make no reference to the very
famous movie in which John Candy starred. However, nowadays some
of the things that we go through in Canadian airports reminds one
of that movie.
There are many aspects to transportation. Certainly the
magnitude, the very size of our country, is one of the largest
considerations. The fact that we are fragmented to the point
where each province has its own rules and regulations, in some
cases makes it very difficult if not impossible for transporters
from neighbouring provinces to enter into the neighbouring
province. That is a detriment to our economy, our efficiency and
indeed our productivity. Productivity is a buzzword which the
government is starting to use, that is, how productive are we?
How much productivity do we get for each worker?
This bill is paying specific attention to the safety aspect,
which is of course that is important. We want to do everything
that we can to provide for the safe transportation of people and
goods. That has to be of primary importance to all Canadians. I
am sure they would support some level of co-operation between the
federal and provincial governments so that this goal could be
reached.
It just so happens that transportation, like health care and
education, is constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the federal government has a substantial challenge in
trying to bring the provinces together in the area of safety.
I would like to say a few things about the safety aspect.
I guess when I look back at my life, some of my happiest years
were spent in a truck. I drove the big rigs when I was
a youngster. I put myself through university driving the
semi-trailer units. I was fortunate to live in an age before
young people were automatically discriminated against as they are
now.
1235
Right now if a young person of university age would like to get
a job driving a big rig, he or she would be out of luck. Young
people are considered to be high risk. Therefore, most
transportation companies will not hire youngsters under the age
of 25 because their insurance rates escalate.
I would like to say one thing about that. During my tenure as
a truck driver, I worked both behind the wheel and also in another
aspect of trucking during the years. In all those years most of
the accidents I saw involved people who were older than 25. The
young guys were eager and like myself liked to drive.
I took great pride in handling my unit. I used to practise
driving with my right wheels on the edge of the right line, so I
gave the maximum space to the left. People behind me could see
if they wanted to pull out to pass and also it gave the maximum
distance for people coming from the front.
I always practised an exit route. When two cars were coming
toward me I always practised in my mind what would I do if the
one following the first vehicle pulled out to pass and suddenly
was in my path. I practised that exit strategy in my mind.
I was always very careful when I had a load. One thing I hauled
was machinery. I always inspected my load to make sure that
none of it was insecure. I was not the driver but I know of one
instance where a shaft from an implement came off a truck and dug
into the pavement. It made about a six inch hole in the
pavement. Fortunately there was no car there, because this thing
landed in the oncoming lane.
The act in Saskatchewan where I worked specified that it was the
driver's responsibility to make sure the load was secure. I took
that responsibility very seriously. That is certainly an area
where there should be agreement among all provinces so that these
types of accidents do not occur.
Another thing which I find interesting is the evolution with
respect to brakes. Surprisingly enough, back in the mid-fifties
and early sixties when I was driving, the braking system on the
trucks was entirely different from what it is now. At that time
we had an auxiliary tank on the trailer so that when the trailer
became disconnected from the tractor unit the air in that
auxiliary unit would automatically activate the brakes on the
trailer. If the trailer became disconnected the brakes were on.
Unfortunately, the whole system, whether the units were
connected or not, was dependent on the supply of air. If the air
failed and if the driver failed to take note of it, then he or
she would suddenly be driving a unit down the road that weighed
many tonnes without any brakes. It was a very uncomfortable
feeling, if the truck was approaching a hill.
There were all sorts of warnings. The trucks I drove the most
had two warnings. One was a buzzer that buzzed if the air
pressure in the system went below 90 pounds per square inch. One
truck I drove actually had a little metal flag that was up behind
the sun visor. It was held up there by air pressure. If the air
pressure failed, the thing came down and waved right in front of
the driver indicating that the air pressure was below 90 and that
driver had better stop the truck while there were still some
brakes.
We always carried chocks for blocking the wheels if we had to
stop. When the air was gone the only brake we had was that
little emergency brake which did very little.
The braking systems on trucks now have been vastly improved. In
my day the loss of air supply meant the loss of brakes. Now they
are set it up in such a way that the part of the braking system
is inactivated by air pressure. There are huge springs that
actually apply the brakes when the air is removed. I think we
would have to say that is a good plan and is certainly better
than in our day. Now if the air system fails, our emergency
brakes on the trailer unit, as well as the tractor, come on. This
is much safer.
1240
By the way, I have never heard of a unit actually becoming
disconnected from the towing unit because the safety mechanisms
are in place. However, I suppose it could.
I want to digress and tell the House a sidebar. One thing we
did was pull a travel trailer. This is another issue where
perhaps governments across the country should start looking at
some better restrictions and better training for drivers who
drive the big motor homes and the travel trailers.
Having grown up on a farm in Saskatchewan and having been taught
by my dad that safety always comes first, I always paid close
attention to the hookups when we pulled a trailer. I had that
mandatory hookup so that if our travel trailer became
disconnected from the towing vehicle, then the emergency brakes
would be activated by the onboard battery in the trailer.
We were in Los Angeles with this unit. In Los Angeles there are
some intersections where U-turns at the intersections are
permitted. One could either turn left or do a U-turn and go
back. We missed our turn and had to make a U-turn. Somehow the
little cable which pulled the plug on my emergency brake became
tangled in my hitch mechanism. My emergency brakes came on in
the middle of an intersection in Los Angeles. Of course I could
not drive forward because my brakes were on. Fortunately or
unfortunately in the trailers, electric brakes only work in the
forward direction, so I was able to back up to straighten my
vehicle enough so I could free up that little thing and get back
underway. It was a rather embarrassing, however it shows again a
mechanism to provide for additional safety.
Unfortunately, the trailer brakes on travel trailers are
woefully inadequate. Electric brakes are activated only in the
forward direction. Their backward braking effect is almost zero,
which means that if people end up with a motor failure when going
up a hill with a travel trailer combination, then start backing
up, they better depend on the towing vehicle for brakes because
the towed unit does not have adequate brakes in the reverse
direction.
Now back to the issue. We are talking about interprovincial
transportation. When I was driving, again I hauled across the
provinces and also into the United States. For efficiency sake,
for cost sake and for safety sake it is important for there to be
constant regulations. People should not be required to do
something in one province, then when they cross the border into
the next province suddenly the vehicle is illegal. There should
be standardization. I believe this can be accomplished in
co-operation with the provincial ministers of transport. That
needs to be done in order to provide for safety.
I think of the issue of drivers. Truck drivers generally do not
make as much as airline pilots. Airline pilots are given a work
regimen which theoretically would prevent them from ever flying
an airplane when they are totally fatigued. They have only so
many hours that they fly, then they have mandatory time off until
their four week work cycle has ended. Then it repeats again.
Last fall we had a number of flight cancellations because the
union said a number of Air Canada pilots had put in their hours.
Therefore, Air Canada no longer had any pilots at the end of the
month. That is important for airline pilots but it is also
important for truckers. Truckers should be able to drive only
when they are awake and alert. They should not be driving when
they are sleepy.
1245
I have another personal anecdote. One of my colleagues where I
worked got married. He was the boss' son. He happened to have
the nicest truck in the unit. When he got married he said to his
boss, his dad, that he did not need anybody else to drive his
truck. He said “Only Ken Epp can drive it because he is the one
who is fussy”. I got to drive the boss' son's truck for a whole
week while he was away on his honeymoon.
Of course that meant that the truck I usually drove was driven
by another person, but I had a wonderful time driving that big
Mack H-67. Anyone familiar with the old units knows that there
are two sticks, three on one and five on the other; it is a
15-speed. It is quite a good experience. Once one gets to know
the gears, truck driving is actually not a boring job.
I was driving from Edmonton to Saskatoon on a beautiful moonlit
night. At about two o'clock in the morning as I came around a
corner, off in a field I saw a semi-trailer with its wheels up in
the air. Obviously the driver had gone to sleep, had gone off
the road as he went around the curve and rolled the truck. Since
it was the middle of the night and I knew the truck had not been
there when I was driving toward Edmonton, I stopped because I
thought I should check to see whether the driver was still there
and take whatever action was necessary. I took my flashlight and
went out there. I was totally surprised to realize that the
truck with the wheels up in the air was my truck. It was the
truck that one of these other sleepyheads took over while I was
driving the boss' son's truck.
The truck driver was not there. I looked all over the field for
him, all the way from the highway up to where the truck had
stopped. I checked with my flashlight and in the moonlight to
see whether I could find him. He fortunately was not hurt and
got a ride before I got there. However, I again underline the
fact that this was a driver who was obviously driving while he
was not alert.
We need regulations, but what regulations? How are we going to
come to a conclusion on this?
I usually drove single. I had a single unit so I could drive
for as long as I wanted to or for as short a time as I wanted to.
In the outfit I worked for the boss said that we needed to be
sure to sleep when we were sleepy. He assured that by picking up
any hotel bills we encountered. When we were sleepy, we stopped
and slept and then we carried on with the load. That was a very
important principle in this firm I worked for.
In those days I had my own personal motto, which was “If you
don't have time to get there safely, what will happen if you
don't get there at all?” I used that motto and I often thought
of it. If I got tired I would stop and sleep for a while.
Sometimes if it had been quite a while since I had slept, I would
stay in a hotel for a while, get some rest and then carry on.
However it is very important that this is balanced, because as I
said earlier, truck drivers do not make the money that airline
pilots do. They do have to work and most of them get paid by the
mile or kilometre, some by the hour. It is mandatory that they
be given the right, without harassment or without any negative
ramifications, to stop and sleep when they are tired. At the
same time, I am totally opposed to arbitrary rules. The one size
fits all rule usually does not.
If somebody had told me when I was driving that I had driven 12
hours and had to quit, what would I have done? Who gets up at
eight o'clock in the morning and goes to bed at eight o'clock at
night? No one. We are able to survive on eight hours of sleep
very nicely, which means there are sixteen hours left. When a
truck driver is on the road, there is really nothing else that he
should be doing but his work. There is no point in walking
around in a park somewhere and using up the waking hours that
way. That is non-productive. The only thing that must stand is,
as I said, that every trucking organization must be such that
there is no penalty for the person who does stop when he or she
is sleepy in order to ensure public safety.
1250
I know there were times when we probably drove more hours than
we should have, yet my rule was that if I was feeling sleepy I
would stop and sleep either inside the truck or sometimes in the
shade underneath the truck if it was a nice day. Somebody would
wake me, and that time was usually sufficient to get me going
again and away we would go.
Let me speak about vehicle safety. Over the last number of
years there has been quite a bit of publicity about various parts
of trucks coming off, particularly in Ontario, where wheels have
actually become dislodged, a very unnecessary and devastating
thing. Something should be done by way of regulation regarding
this, just as private aircraft are required to undergo a total
inspection and in some cases a motor rebuild after a certain
number of hours. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulation
to require that wheels be taken apart, with x-ray techniques used
in order to determine whether or not the steel holding the wheels
onto the truck is beginning to fatigue.
Most reputable trucking and busing companies would agree to do
this to keep their vehicles safe, but most times laws are
designed in order to pull into the plan those who refuse to go
into it voluntarily. Some companies have to be forced into it. I
think that a set of uniform regulations should be enacted and
enforced all across Canada. There is no excuse for truckers who
do not keep their loads and their vehicles intact, thereby
endangering the lives of other people with whom they share the
road.
Speaking of roads brings me to the next topic in my presentation
today, that is, I think we rely too much on our road system. Our
national transportation system has so diminished the use and
importance of railroads in Canada. I really regret that. I am
thinking particularly of the prairies where I grew up and where
many rail lines have been abandoned and are now being torn up.
That puts huge pressure, literally, on all the roadways in the
country, especially when it comes to hauling grain and potash and
the other commodities that we trade around the world.
Canada must have a strong railroad system. I am disappointed in
the federal governments of the last 25 or 30 years for allowing
the deterioration of a very valuable railroad service in Canada.
There should be more room for competition. Farmers and others
should have the ability to move their product to market by using
a very efficient railroad system which is designed to carry heavy
loads and is certainly less harmful than a lot of trucks plying
Canada's rural roads.
Many of these roads are now in deplorable condition. I believe
that the federal government has a responsibility to use more of
the money collected in fuel taxes to support Canada's
infrastructure. There is a huge lack in regard to this. The
government takes millions of dollars out of the economy in the
form of fuel taxes and yet the amount of money it puts back into
the provinces' coffers in order to provide for the building of
roads is something like three cents on the dollar. It is
deplorable and it is not acceptable. There is no reason why
Canadians who pay fuel taxes and provide transportation should
not have those taxes used to provide them with decent roads.
I would also like to say something about our millennium project.
We had quite a celebration in the year 2000. The Prime Minister
and the finance minister announced millennium projects three
years before this event and had people from all across the
country send in projects and proposals. There were all kinds of
projects such as trees being planted in a pattern to represent
this or that, and there were many other projects that may have
value in themselves.
1255
At the time I promoted a project that I think would have been a
true millennium project. It did not get anywhere but I believe
it should still be done. It would have been an ideal time to say
“The millennium is the year when the Canadian government will
undertake to build a modern, divided highway system right across
the country”.
We have a highway called the Trans-Canada Highway. I remember
when it first came in, way back in the 1950s and 1960s. I
suppose parts of it were already called Trans-Canada before that,
but then it was designated Highway No. 1 in every province.
Mr. Speaker, you will smile at this, I am sure, but when I was a
youngster the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway No. 1, where I lived
was a gravel road. Of course that was early in our history. When
I was a youngster, it was very early in Canada's history.
Subsequent to that, of course, the roads were paved.
I want to remind the House of the former member of parliament
from southwestern Saskatchewan, Mr. Lee Morrison. Many times he
stood up in the House during private members' statements and on
other occasions and talked about the deplorable conditions of
Highway No. 1 in the western portion of the province of
Saskatchewan. I happen to be very familiar with that road
because I grew up at Swift Current. It is from Swift Current
west that the road is in really bad condition. It is a narrow,
single lane road, with vehicles passing each other just feet
apart. There are numerous places without adequate visibility
because of hills and curves. It is a very dangerous road. Only a
year or two ago there was a devastating crash there involving two
buses and a semi-trailer truck. I think five people were killed.
That was just one of those situations that could be attributed
at least 80% to the design of the road. It is inadequate. It is
archaic. It follows the path used when we travelled across the
country with ox carts, for heaven's sake. Here we are, following
that path, calling it the Trans-Canada and having these
devastating accidents on it.
What is a life worth? We spend a lot of money on health care
and other measures. We are talking about reducing cigarette
smoking to help prolong people's lives. I think it is high time
that we spent money on infrastructure for a true Trans-Canada
Highway, a two lane, divided road right across the country, built
to standards of safety.
Here again we need to look ahead a little. In many areas of the
United States if the Americans had a road the quality of the
Trans-Canada Highway they would label it an unsafe road and
advise drivers to stay off it. I remember driving down there on
a road that was two lanes divided, with crossing traffic every
four or five miles. Huge signs warned people of crossing
traffic. We can hardly find a place in Canada where it is more
than five miles or eight kilometres from exit to the other. In
most instances we have crossing traffic. For example, in
Edmonton on the major roads there are stoplights, crossing
traffic and accidents galore. Every week there are tragedies.
I am appalled at the indifference that the government shows when
it comes to actually building safe roads. Sure, we can have
rules and regulations affecting truckers and we can have rules
and regulations that limit the things that bus companies, the
people transporters, can do, but how about the role of the
government itself in designing, building and funding safe roads
to start with? I believe that so much can be done in that area.
Another aspect of the lack of standardization is with respect to
traffic lights.
1300
In some provinces, when people approach a traffic light that is
red they stop. In some provinces, when there is a green arrow
people can make a right turn without stopping. In other
provinces, people have to stop first and then make a right turn.
In some provinces, if people approach a red light without a green
arrow they must stop and then make a right turn after ensuring it
is safe to do so. In other provinces, people who come to a red
light cannot make a right turn even if it is safe to do so
because it is against the law. We need to have standardization
because truckers, bus drivers and many Canadians travel from
province to province.
I have another serious gripe with red lights. We have this
presumed problem of people running red lights. That is a simple
mathematical problem with a very easy solution and yet no one
seems to be willing to implement it. I would like to see it
implemented right across the country.
What am I talking about? When I drive my motorcycle and the
light turns amber, I can stop every time. A motorcycle can
almost stop on a dime. The thing we need to worry about the most
is how close the person behind us is because if we stop too
suddenly the person behind us will end up going through the
intersection with us sitting on his hood ornament. We need to be
careful about that.
If the light turns amber, I can come to a grinding halt with my
little Mazda. It is a different story when I am pulling my
travel trailer with my Suburban. It then takes a little longer
to stop. When I am driving a semi-trailer unit with a couple of
trailers behind weighing 50 or 60 tonnes, I am talking a whole
new kettle of fish. It now takes a long distance for that unit
to come to a stop. Surely in our modern day with the technology
that we have available there should be a way of determining how
long lights have to be amber before they turn red.
In many provinces now, Alberta included, we have politicians who
think they are going to solve the problem by putting in cameras
and taking pictures of people who run red lights. I have done
the math. Everyone knows I love math and I like solving math
problems.
I went to some intersections in Edmonton and Sherwood Park and
used my stopwatch to see how long the light stayed amber before
it turned red. It was mathematically and physically impossible
to stop at many intersections in the country. No one could clear
an intersection from the time the light turns amber until the
rear of the vehicle clears the intersection unless he or she were
going 400 miles per hour, and I do not think we would advocate
that. Even then we would be in trouble because the point at
which we would make a decision is farther back.
There is a very simple solution and I am proposing it today. I
hope it hits the front page of every paper across the country.
What we need to do is very simple. Whether I am 100 metres from
the intersection or 1,000 metres back, at a certain speed I am
either going to get through the intersection on a green light or
I am not. It will turn amber before I get there.
Why are the legislators withholding the warning to the point
where it becomes an emergency stop if someone is going to stop in
time? It is unconscionable. Currently we know how the green
light goes off and the amber comes on, which tell us it will turn
red and we should prepare to stop. If someone is very close and
cannot stop, then he or she proceeds through. If that same
person is back far enough to make a judgment, then he or she will
stop.
I would simply do this. Five hundred metres back from the
intersection, farther back on highways, I would put up a sign.
That sign would be round with a line through the middle with
green on the top and amber on the bottom. It would be a two
coloured green and amber semicircle sign. It would indicate that
when someone sees the green light up ahead with the amber, in
other words when both lights are on, it would mean that a person
would not be able to clear the intersection when travelling the
speed limit and should prepare to stop.
1305
As a semi-trailer driver I can now start gearing down. I can
come to a safe stop and there is no danger. As an ordinary
vehicle driver I would be going along at the speed limit. I know
I will not be able to make the next light because I have just
been given a warning. The cost is almost zero.
In advance of some intersections a flashing light is planted.
That is very costly as wires have to be run, a big standard has
to be erected for the light and electronics have to be built in.
My solution would be very simple. We would just have both lights
on, the green and the amber. If a vehicle is behind such a sign
it means it has to stop. If it is ahead of it when that happens,
the vehicle can safely go through at the speed limit. I believe
it would save thousands of lives.
I wonder whether you would mind, Mr. Speaker, using your
influence to make sure that this is on the front page of every
newspaper across the country. Let us get this thing rolling and
let us start doing something tangible to save lives instead of
thinking it can be done by passing laws which defy the laws of
science as surely as we cannot pass a law to ban airplane crashes
by repealing the law of gravity. We cannot do it, but there are
things that can be done.
We cannot physically change the amount of time it takes to
travel from point A to point B. We cannot physically change the
length of time required to stop a vehicle safely. Every
youngster who takes a driving test knows stopping distances. We
know that the average reaction time is three-quarters of a
second.
Another three-quarters of a second is used in Alberta as an
awareness time. That province says that for normal drivers it
takes three-quarters of a second from the time they see a reason
to stop until they actually start the motion to stop and it takes
on average three-quarters of a second from the time they have
actually moved their foot from the accelerator to the brake. Then
there is the physical part of stopping the vehicle.
Simple physics says that the amount of distance required to stop
varies as the square of the speed. If we are going twice as fast
as another vehicle of equal mass, it will take four times as long
because of the energy that has to be dissipated.
Those changes can be made. Why does the federal government not
take some leadership? Why does it not take the idea I have
proposed to every transportation minister? Let us get it going
in the United States as well thereby saving literally hundreds of
lives at intersections instead of losing them. It happens over
and over.
Another lack of standards has to do with left turns. I am
appalled at the number of intersections in the country at which
we can make a left turn from the second lane. In other words
there are two left turning lanes but the left lane is also the
overtaking or the speed lane. That is wrong. If there is an
intersection where we are permitted to make a left turn from two
lanes, it should be an absolutely mandatory standard in every
province that the left lane is not a driving lane.
There is one intersection in Edmonton that I would be ashamed of
if I were the engineer who signed off on that plan. There is a
left turn lane which is out of the way and then there is the next
lane which has the up arrow and a left turn. People stop there
and big trucks pile into them and kill them.
The city engineers there had the gall to put up a sign that says
“Caution: dangerous intersection”. I say why the dickens did
they build it. There is lot of space there. All they would have
to do would be to design the road one lane wider and have the
lanes go through. They would then have two lanes that turn left
and we could not do anything but turn left if we were in that
lane. It is just an anomaly and unfortunately it is a life
taking anomaly.
I could go on and on. I am sure the Liberals would love me to
because there is so much for them to learn when it comes to a
safe transportation policy. I am appalled we are so far behind
in terms of our thinking and in terms of our application of true
science.
The reason is that too often we simply allow political
considerations to enter into these decisions. We do not use our
heads and do true math and physics in making our calculations. I
urge the government to do what it can to bring the provinces
together to work co-operatively to save lives on our highways.
1310
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-3, probably my
last opportunity before the summer recess.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill for the pure and
simple reason that this is not the time for the government to be
introducing it to this House.
Once again, this is evidence of a government that is in over its
head and is trying to mark time. We all know that the session is
going to be over earlier than expected. Probably, then, there
has been an order passed down to each minister and deputy
minister to table some bills. Bill S-3 is a striking live example
of a bill that ought not to have been introduced in the House at
this time.
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987,
is described by the government as a highway safety act. Everyone
in this House, including my colleagues and the parliamentary
secretary, is making wonderful speeches about how this bill
should enhance safety on Canada's major highways, and
particularly the monitoring of highway carriers.
However, reading clause 3 of the bill:
3.(1) The objectives of this Act are to ensure that the National
Transportation Policy set out in section 5 of the Canada
Transportation Act is carried out with respect to
extra-provincial motor carrier undertakings, and, more
specifically, that
(a) the regulatory regime for those
undertakings is focused on safety performance assessments based
on the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers; and
(b) the operating standards that apply to those
undertakings are applied
consistently across Canada.
This is far from being a bill that will guarantee safety on
major highways across Canada. It targets extraprovincial motor
carrier undertakings and its purpose is to subject them to a
consistent national evaluation and monitoring regime.
Be that as it may, the monitoring and implementation of the
regime come under the jurisdiction of the provinces and
territories. It is important that Quebecers and Canadians realize
that the Government of Canada has no means, no monitoring policy,
no effective policy to guarantee the monitoring of undertakings.
It is the provinces and territories that are responsible for
implementing the standards that they themselves set.
The provinces and territories have had safety standards for
decades. Moreover, they agreed to adhere, among others, to
standard 14, which is part of the national safety code for motor
carriers. The provinces and territories made it their objective
to implement this standard. Finally, the proposed bill would have
the effect of implementing standard 14.
In order to implement such a standard, we must be able to set
up, in each province and territory, a system of evaluation and
compatible assessments across Canada on which, as I said earlier,
the provinces and territories agree.
In order for the system to be effective, there must also be a
penalty and downgrading process, including the cancellation of
permits for major offenders, and also an effective monitoring
system.
This is where the problem lies because, as we are speaking, the
territories have still not been able to come to an agreement with
the federal government to implement this system of evaluation,
assessment, penalties and monitoring. Implementation costs are a
major factor.
1315
The implementation of an evaluation system with ratings,
penalties and monitoring would be very costly for the provinces
and territories. Right now, not all provinces and territories
have the financial means and the capacity to implement that
evaluation system with ratings, penalties and monitoring.
Discussions among the provinces have been ongoing since 1999,
when a standing committee was struck by the provinces, the
territories and the federal government.
The committee is studying the best way to put in place an
evaluation system with compatible ratings, the necessary
penalties and the monitoring required to reach the objective.
There is still no agreement.
Why introduce Bill S-3 if, in the field, the recommendations
contained in the bill cannot be implemented? Once more, here is a
government that does not care. I do not doubt the sincerity of
the parliamentary secretary or the Liberal members of the
committee. However, the bureaucrats were let loose and they
proposed a bill to try to kill time. Finally, we have too much
time. Right now, the rumour is that we will adjourn earlier than
expected.
Public servants were left to introduce the bill, which cannot be
implemented in the provinces and territories for the simple
reason that no agreement has yet been reached on how to
supervise, harmonize the entire assessment and rating system,
lower ratings, or cancel permits, and for the regime as a whole.
The government has not reached any agreement with the provinces
and territories.
Worse yet, the officials had the gall to come before us in
committee and say they had the agreement of all the provinces and
the industry. On three occasions, I had to correct the
government officials. I told them that Quebec had not given its
approval when Bill S-3 was introduced for the simple reason that
Quebec's standards are higher than the Canadian ones.
If a province applied the rating of this standard to its
industry, it would limit the industry's competition. Imagine if
a province or territory decided to sanction its carriers more
strictly than other provinces or territories. It would make the
motor carrier industry less competitive if the industry had to
meet tighter standards and face stricter sanctions with fines
attached.
This would threaten competition among industries in Canada, and
this is why it is important to have a single standard across
Canada. Each of the provinces and territories must also have the
means to implement this standard.
From the very start, with the lack of cohesion in relations
between the provinces and the federal government, I said
whenever I spoke in committee that the bill had been introduced
too soon.
The provinces are in agreement with standard 14. The problem is
that there is not enough money to harmonize Canada wide in such a
way that the trucking industry is not worse off in one province
than in the others.
The government kept telling us that there had been consensus.
Again, I had to remind officials that, as far as I was concerned,
Quebec had not given its approval.
In committee, we were able to hear from industry stakeholders,
because the committee had decided that it would be a good idea to
invite them to appear before it anyway. The following is from
the brief submitted by the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which
represents 70% of the trucking industry. It sits on the standing
committee and therefore represents the industry at the table, and
is very knowledgeable about harmonization problems and the
provinces' and territories' lack of financial resources to
enforce the standard:
However, it is our fear that without a significant commitment of
political will and increased funding on the part of the federal
government to ensure that the National Safety Code ...is
consistently applied in all jurisdictions, leadership will be
lacking and the safety rating standard may prove to be an
unattainable goal.
1320
The representative went on:
In our view, the time has now come for the federal government to
expend the political capital and financial resources necessary to
effectively exercise its constitutional authority over trucking.
Obviously, this is a strong appeal from the Canadian Trucking
Alliance, which represents 70% of the industry.
It says that there is indeed a problem with respect to
harmonization and that the federal government has to set a
Canada-wide standard. However, the government must also provide
the necessary funding to ensure the implementation and
enforcement of this standard by the provinces and the
territories, who are the only ones who have the required
monitoring equipment and the resources.
In spite of the amendments recommended by the Canadian Trucking
Alliance, there is nothing in Bill S-3 to include the setting up
of a standing fund to support enforcement and harmonization.
In this bill, even if all the stakeholders, including the
industry, say that there is a money problem and that it costs a
lot of money to have the rules enforced from one end of the
country to the other—since the provinces and the territories
do not all have the same capacity—in spite of this problem,
even the industry, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which
represents 70 % of the industry, has not even dared to ask the
federal government to pay its share in the enforcement and
monitoring of this standard.
This is where the problem lies. I come from another environment.
I spent 18 years in municipal government before coming to this
House.
I have great difficulty understanding that stakeholders, people
as aware as the representatives of the Canadian Trucking
Alliance—70% of the industry—realizing that the federal
government collects excise tax on gasoline, the GST on gasoline
and finally half the taxes on everything that truckers or motor
carriers pay in most jurisdictions, do not even dare—they are
shy—ask the federal government for money, and indicate that the
federal government “should”.
Even in their recommendations and their amendments, believe it
or not, they asked for this instead, “the minister shall, by
order, remove the power of delivering certificates from the
provinces that are unable to ensure follow-up and monitoring”.
So, instead of asking the federal government to pay its fair
share, the industry suggested—probably on the recommendation of
federal government officials—to remove from provinces the power
of delivering certificates, whereas the federal government does
not even have a single person able to do so in the whole
country, for the simple reason that this is a provincial
jurisdiction.
Of course, once again, the pressures the industry may face from
government representatives, particularly at such a crucial
moment, are due to the fact that, even though work began in 1999
and all the provinces and the territories are discussing and
trying to find solutions, the issue of funding for all those
measures has not yet been resolved.
It is not enough to just put in place standards with which the
industry must comply, there must also be a mechanism for
monitoring this standard. Monitoring costs big bucks.
I repeat, I am a representative of Quebec. The province of
Quebec is not the one that lacks the means to ensure compliance
with standards at this time. In some ways, Quebec standards are
stricter than the national safety code, particularly as far as
motor coaches are concerned.
The industry in one province must not be penalized because it
enforces stricter standards and stricter penalties, lays
comparatively more charges against certain types of industry than
in other jurisdictions.
Obviously, if there is to be healthy competition, the principle
of this bill must be applicable and applied across Canada,
which is far from the case at this time.
In conclusion, this is a consensus that must be obtained before
such a bill is introduced. That is what should have happened. As
I have said, the provinces did not give their okay to the
introduction of this bill; Quebec did not.
1325
In closing, I would just like to state that I believed the
departmental officials when they told us that all provinces and
territories were in agreement with Bill S-3, despite the fact
that I had told them on three different occasions that this was
not the case for Quebec. They insisted it was the case for all
provinces and territories, and for the entire industry.
Obviously, I will share with the hon. members what Teamsters
Canada had to say before the committee as well as the content of
their brief. They are hardly insignificant, representing as they
do 80% of unionized truck drivers throughout Canada. They said,
in part:
Moreover, it was stated that provincial governments and
industries were consulted on this and that they agreed on Bill
S-3. Teamsters Canada does not believe that all the provinces
agree with this bill. In the eyes of the public, Teamsters is
synonymous with the trucking industry. We are the pillar of
highway transportation and we were not consulted on this bill.
It is difficult for me to support this bill, especially when I
hear the statements by government officials. Again I am not
blaming the parliamentary secretary or the Liberal members who
sit on the committee. The bureaucracy is the one to blame. It
probably received a mandate from the very top to try to fill the
time in the House, because we will be adjourning earlier than
expected.
I blame public servants for presenting a bill that cannot be
implemented and that may create a malaise between the industry
and the provinces that had not given their approval. This malaise
could jeopardize the implementation of that standard, which is
meant to be acceptable to the provinces, the territories and the
industry. The problem is that this bill is being introduced too
soon.
It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill
S-3.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic
Party to third reading of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor
Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
New Democrats will be opposing the bill at this important
juncture for reasons I will elaborate on shortly. I will not
spend 20 minutes giving our concerns. I do not think it will
require that long. However I will lay out our concerns and why
we oppose the bill.
Bill S-3 would establish a framework for harmonizing the way
provinces administer parts of the national safety code for motor
carriers. The national safety code pertains to buses and
transport trucks and is administered at the provincial level.
The code was introduced by the Mulroney government in 1987 in
response to safety concerns due to the deregulation of the
trucking industry. However the federal government left the
provinces to adopt and administer the code themselves. So far
none have fully adopted it. In essence, therefore, the national
safety code is nothing more than a set of suggestions. That is a
major concern for us as New Democrats.
The framework established in the bill would allow provinces and
territories whose safety compliance regimes are compatible with
the national safety code to give extra provincial bus
undertakings a safety rating and to issue safety certificates. It
is a nice idea, but unless all or most of the provinces adopt the
code it is functionally useless. That does not appear likely in
the foreseeable future.
In the words of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the safety code
harmonization framework is putting the cart before the horse.
Regardless of the administrative framework the federal government
comes up with, the national safety code will remain toothless
unless the provinces adopt it.
The Liberal government has the constitutional authority to
impose the national safety code on the provinces but is not doing
it. We need federal leadership in this area. Regrettably we are
not seeing that from the Liberal government.
New Democrats have other issues with regard to the crafting of
the bill. Several concerns about Bill S-3 arose in committee but
were not dealt with. In their mad rush to pass the bill before
the House recesses for the summer the Liberals restricted many of
the witnesses to unreasonably short presentations. As mentioned
by the Bloc member, the teamsters were very concerned by the
process.
The teamsters, who are central to the trucking industry in
Canada, expressed concern that the government did not consult
them while drafting the bill. However the government maintains
it held wide consultations in drafting the bill. There is a real
contradiction there.
1330
Several witnesses raised specific concerns about the national
safety code, notably the hours of service regulations for motor
carriers. The Liberal government is changing the regulations to
allow truck and bus drivers to be on the road 84 hours a week.
Hon. members should stop and imagine what it would be like to be
behind the wheel of a truck 84 hours a week.
I live in a province where truck traffic is already involved in
many of the accidents on our highways. I shudder to think that
the number of accidents could be drastically increased by having
exhausted drivers behind the wheels of trucks.
By endorsing proposals from the Canadian Trucking Alliance that
would put many truck drivers in the position of having to work an
84 hour week, week after week, we would be ushering in by far the
most lax regulations for truck drivers' work hours in the western
world. That is not a record we should be proud of.
Politicians and bureaucrats have apparently been convinced that
improved trucking industry profitability would be good for the
economy. There appears to be little concern about the likely
downside of the change: more deaths and injuries on the road.
Governments and the trucking industry are proposing that truck
drivers work five consecutive 14 hour days, take one day off and
then drive another five days. The result is that drivers could
be legally required to work 84 hours in a week. An alternative
work cycle would let truck drivers drive up to 96 hours every
second week. That is insanity by any sense of the word.
The NDP is greatly disappointed and frustrated by the lack of
progress on this vitally important bill. Unless we see real
commitment to a national safety code that is truly national in
nature, we cannot support Bill S-3.
Furthermore, the changing of the hours of service regulations is
another grave concern to us. As I have just stated, it could
lead to untold tragedy with increased accidents.
At this point I regret to say that the New Democrats will be
opposing Bill S-3.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will say a few brief words on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor
Vehicle Transport Act.
This is the third transport bill to go through the House in very
short order. The word on the street is that the minister might
soon be taking off on a diplomatic career. We get the impression
he is trying to clear the decks before his successor takes over.
Bill S-3 outlines the federal government's role in
extra-provincial bus and truck transport. An updating of the
same is in order from time to time. We have no problem with
that.
Bill S-3 would allow provinces and territories whose safety
compliance regimes are compatible with the national safety code
to give an extra-provincial carrier a safety rating and to issue
a safety fitness certificate. Such a certificate would be
recognized by other Canadian jurisdictions.
Bill S-3 would also allow a province or territory to apply
sanctions to extra-provincial carriers for poor safety
performance. Such sanctions would include downgrading their
ratings and revoking their safety certificate. It is about time
we had standardization across the country.
1335
Bill S-3 would allow Canada to enter into arrangements with
other countries for reciprocal recognition of carrier rating
standards. This refers to enabling legislation which outlines
the framework under which regulations are made for the safe
operation of commercial vehicles on our nation's highways. As
such, we can support the bill. We have a problem with the
regulations and standards coming under the bill, not the bill
itself.
Last August Mr. David Bradley, head of the Canadian Trucking
Alliance, the chief industry association, said that the national
safety code upon which the ratings system would be based was
neither national nor a code and that not one of the sixteen
national safety code standards agreed to by the provinces in 1988
had been officially adopted across the country.
In 1987 the federal, provincial and territorial governments
signed a memorandum of understanding to implement the national
code by 1990. The most recent status report in 1998 showed that
no province had by then adopted all fifteen mandatory standards
and the one voluntary standard. The standards dealt with hours
of work, driver training, driver testing, vehicle maintenance,
roadside inspections, et cetera.
In February of this year the Ontario Trucking Association stated
that safety rating systems lacked consistency across the country.
Consistency is important to carriers because safety ratings are a
matter of public record. Shippers and insurance companies are
encouraged to use them in choosing a carrier or setting insurance
rates. Consistency is also important to drivers, the majority of
whom cross borders on their runs.
A standard issue which is a source of controversy relates to
proposed hours of work for drivers. While changes to hours of
service standards are not part of the bill per se, the act that
the bill amends sets out provisions whereby the codes and hours
of service may be changed.
As I said earlier, the bill is enabling legislation. The
problem is in the details of regulations that can be made under
the act.
While the trucking industry and the government appear to be
singing from one page of the same hymn book, truck driver unions
and public safety advocates are singing quite a different tune.
What is being proposed is quite incredible. It would give Canada
the least safety minded regulations in the western world. That is
not something we should be proud of.
Sleep impaired drivers could be required to work a maximum 84 to
96 hours a week, forgo two consecutive nights of rest and drive
without on board recorders, black boxes as we call them, to keep
track of it all.
As we listen to what drivers could be expected to do under the
legislation, we think of old trucking songs that led to an
understanding of the dangers inherent in being a truck driver.
One that stands out which everybody knows is Six Days on the
Road and I'm Going to Make it Home Tonight. If regulations
are not tightened up some of our truck drivers will be six days
on the road.
The transport committee has been asked to study a federal
government proposal that could see truck drivers on Canada's
roads having to drive 14 hours at a stretch or up to 16 hours on
alternate days. When this boils down to a truck driver's work
week that can run anywhere from 84 to 96 hours, surely it is not
in the best interest of either truckers or members of the general
public with whom they share the road.
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented
there has been a large increase in north-south traffic. However
American truckers are not required to work more than 10 hours per
shift. Given the increasing integration of the North American
economy, I do not see why there should be such a difference
between American and Canadian hours of service.
It was proposed in the transport committee that we hold hearings
across the nation on this important issue. However the
government majority on the committee, as usual, voted down the
proposal.
1340
Truckers' hours are a matter of driver and public safety. The
government would do well to err on the side of caution on the
issue. That is certainly the public's view. An Angus Reid poll
found that 84% of Canadians surveyed favoured a maximum 60 hour
work week for drivers and 78% of Canadians wanted black boxes on
trucks to monitor what is going on.
The government gives lip service to the need for consistent
regulations across the country but stands by while the provinces
fail to implement the national code. Mr. Bradley of the Canadian
Trucking Alliance, quoted earlier, said last August:
The federal government has the constitutional authority to
introduce federal regulations and standards, to show national
leadership, but it does not appear prepared to wade in—
One final point is that the bill would provide for, and
Transport Canada is working toward, an agreement with the United
States and Mexico to give motor carriers seamless regulatory
treatment across North America. NAFTA requires nothing less if
we are to ultimately see the free flow of goods across the
continent.
The bottom line, however, is that the federal government has
done a poor job of leadership when it comes to providing a
seamless web of transport regulations and standards within the
country. How does the government expect to harmonize with the
United States and Mexican systems if we have not yet harmonized
ourselves?
Bill S-3 has laudable goals. The problem is that such a bill
would require considerable leadership and detailed groundwork,
things the federal government has so far failed to take
seriously. Leadership on the file would require hard work and
consistency. Leadership in a federal democracy is never easy but
we have a government that prefers a quick and inadequate fix. It
is a babe in the woods compared to our neighbours to the south.
The new rule of the road, whether one drives a car or a
transport truck, is: Drivers beware; government asleep at the
wheel.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this
afternoon and speak briefly to Bill S-3, the amendments to the
Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
As my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party
noted during his remarks, Bill S-3, despite the speedy process
with which it has been brought through the House, has some rather
lofty goals. I will start by informing the viewing public what
Bill S-3 hopes to accomplish.
The summary at the front of the bill states:
This enactment modernizes and streamlines the regulation of
extra-provincial motor carrier (truck and bus) undertakings in
Canada, building on the reforms introduced in the Motor
Vehicle Transport Act, 1987. The objective is a consistent
national regime for motor carriers focused on carrier safety
regulation.
The key components of the enactment include:
(a) a national regulatory framework for provincial administration
of a safety performance-based regime for extra-provincial motor
carriers, based on the national safety standards developed by the
governments of Canada and the provinces in consultation with
industry and embodied in the National Safety Code for Motor
Carriers;
(b) provision for national policy direction supporting the
implementation of that framework; and
(c) provision for international arrangements for mutual
recognition of carrier safety performance assessment.
As my colleague and several speakers prior to me have indicated,
some rather lofty goals are contained in Bill S-3. However, when
we look at the history of how the government has dealt with the
issue and with the bill, we find reason for concern. Given the
way Bill S-3 is drafted, we must ask whether it would be able to
accomplish the rather lofty expectations laid down in it.
1345
I would like to raise a concern regarding subclause 7(2) which
states:
An hon. member: How do we get uniformity across the
country?
Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. My colleague asks how we get
uniformity across the nation if that is the case. That would be
my concern.
The bill attempts to establish a national safety code which
would be adhered to from coast to coast, something that is quite
reasonable. It is also reasonable to expect that there would
have to be, as it states in the preamble, consultations not only
with provincial governments but also with the industry. We do
not want the heavy hand of some Ottawa bureaucrat coming down and
deciding what the code will consist of and enforcing it from
coast to coast to coast.
After all, to have it taken into consideration in the bill that
the safety fitness certificate need not be in any particular form
only invites non-uniformity across the country. Subclause 7(3)
continues:
Laws of a province respecting the safety of motor carrier
undertakings apply to an extra-provincial motor carrier
undertaking to the extent that those laws are not inconsistent
with this Act.
In other words, as long as the provinces adopt those parts of
the national safety code, draft and design their own provincial
safety fitness certificate and do not contradict the act, that is
good enough. I suggest to members and to Canadians that is not
good enough, given the lofty goals of the legislation itself. It
goes on in clause 9 to state that under certain circumstances:
The minister does have that power, but it does not clear up any
criteria or specifications as to what would be encompassed by the
safety fitness certificate and how the minister would exercise
that power given the fact it very clearly states they need not be
in any particular form.
Clearly there is a bit of a contradiction in the bill. As my
colleague from the New Democratic Party pointed out in her
intervention, a number of these concerns were raised in
committee. However, because the government decided to speed it
through it did not allow enough time for witnesses to appear or
for opposition parties and the opposition in industry to appear
and put forward their concerns. It is questionable as to why the
government decided to push the bill through in this manner.
Let us look at the whole issue of ministerial exemptions because
as a number of speakers have indicated it is of some concern.
Clause 16 deals with exemptions. I would like to read it so that
perhaps other members, and certainly the viewing public, can try
to understand it:
The Minister may, after consultation with the provinces that
would be affected by a proposed exemption, exempt from the
application of any provision of this Act or the regulations,
either generally or for a limited period or in respect of a
limited area, any person, the whole or any part of any
extra-provincial motor carrier undertaking or any class of those
undertakings, if in the opinion of the Minister the exemption is
in the public interest and is not likely to affect motor carrier
safety.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: He can do what he wants.
Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. He can basically use his own
discretion. I also note there is something that is pretty hard
to follow. It sounds like the usual bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo
that absolutely confounds industry when a piece of legislation is
designed with clauses like that in it. The problem, as my
colleague from Kelowna has indicated, is the final line that the
minister may allow for an exemption if it is in the public
interest and is not likely to affect motor carrier safety.
It does not say anywhere in there what criteria he or she may use
when making that assessment. That should be of more than a
little concern.
1350
Most members of parliament and many Canadians are concerned
about safety on our roads. Keith McArthur, a transportation
reporter with The Globe and Mail, wrote a series of stories
on fatigue in transportation that included the airline industry
with pilots and other air crew on the ground, truckers, train
engineers and other trainmen. In his story on the trucking
industry, because that is specifically what Bill S-3 is dealing
with, he wrote:
In 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available,
just 67 people died in aviation accidents, compared with 2,969 on
Canada's roads and highways.
This clearly shows a serious problem on our highways. It
continued:
In 1998, there were 360 collisions involving trucks in which
people lost their lives in Canada. But police identified fatigue
as a factor in only two of the accidents.
When the bill was before the committee there was a difficulty in
assessing when fatigue was a factor in an accident. It is very
simple to assess post-accident if alcohol or drugs are suspected.
A blood test could be taken and either of those factors could be
discounted or confirmed. However it is very difficult for a
police officer at the scene of an accident to rule in fatigue as
part of the reason an accident actually occurred. Therein lies
part of the problem.
I am certainly not opposed to ministerial exemptions for this
type of legislation. The proof will be in the pudding and that
is always the case when we get into a situation allowing
exemptions.
As I pointed out in committee, in my former life in the
real world outside Ottawa politics I have had experience in
trucking and working in the oil patch both in northeastern
British Columbia, northwestern Alberta and into the territories.
I understand there is a vast difference between driving a heavy
truck hauling oil field equipment down an ice road in the
Northwest Territories and driving a heavily laden fifth wheel
semi-trailer in rush hour traffic in Toronto.
There is a huge difference when we are talking about stress on
the operator. There is a huge difference in trying to come up
with regulations that make sense in terms of how the truck is to
be operated and what restrictions would be placed on the trucking
company that employs the individual.
It is very difficult for us to come up with a uniform set of
regulations that make sense in all corners of the country.
Therein I find myself in some agreement with the legislation that
allows the minister some flexibility and some manoeuvring room.
This makes sense in a country as vast as Canada.
I refer to the example raised about hours of operation. I
suspect the stress involved for a trucker on the 401 going
through heavy traffic in cities like Toronto, with bumper to
bumper traffic in four lanes, would be incredibly more difficult
to handle on an ongoing basis than operating a truck on a wide
open stretch of highway in western Canada or an ice road in the
Arctic where there is virtually no traffic. The greatest fear if
one happens to fall asleep is driving off the road and getting
stuck in a snowbank or perhaps bumping into a caribou or
something.
1355
There is a vast difference between what is necessary to ensure
safety on our highways depending on what part of the country the
truck or the bus is being operated in.
I support the need for some flexibility, but at the same time I
am concerned that there is no criteria or specifications set
down. Basically we have allowed the minister to have a wide
open hand in this area.
I have just returned from a trip to Portugal with the Minister
of Transport. We attended the European conference of
ministers of transport with over 40 countries in attendance. One
of the controversial issues those ministers of transport were
grappling with when they met for their annual meeting was the
whole issue of trucking rights and running rights in Europe and
in the European Union.
I found it incredibly informative and interesting to listen to
the debate that took place there because in many cases the
unresolved issues they were dealing with were very similar to the
issues we deal with in Canada.
The physical size of Europe, even with the expansion to include
more eastern bloc countries in the European Union, is about the
size of Canada. The problems they are trying to confront with
trucks travelling across international borders are very similar
to some of the problems we are having in getting a truck from
Montreal to Vancouver and across provincial borders. Some
interesting debate took place there.
They were also talking about other many of the same things. They
were talking about having unrestricted access for a trucking
company from Holland or Germany to Portugal and what it would
mean for the local economy. I have heard the same issues
regarding trucks being given complete unfettered access from
eastern to western Canada and what that would do to the local
economy if it happens too often.
I have heard about the need for accurate maintenance of log
books to ensure that truckers are only operating their trucks for
the allowable period of time. The same debate took place in
Lisbon.
There can be no doubt there is a need for harmonization of our
national safety code to protect the public on our roads. I would
have liked to have taken perhaps a bit more time and spoken about
the need for infrastructure and dedicated revenue to improve our
roads. I could launch into a whole other debate about the need
to refocus on our railways and our railroads for heavy traffic,
heavy freight hauling, to get more trucks off the road. There
are ways in which we could work for intermodal transportation. We
have been making some gains in that regard, but a lot more needs
to be done.
If anything, the debate today has clearly shown that the
national safety code is a myth. Anybody that would argue it is
anything else is fooling himself or herself and attempting to
fool the travelling public. We need to work a lot more closely
with the provinces. The bill sets us on track to do that. It
will be interesting to see what we have gained in a few years'
time: what exemptions, if any, the minister has allowed and why
they were allowed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech of my colleague. I am actually
rising on more of a comment than a question.
In my speech I was talking about the solution to running red
lights. I missed a very important point that I wanted to put on
the record. I talked about showing an amber light and a green
light simultaneously to warn people approaching the intersection
that the light would be red by the time they got there. I forgot
to include that at some stage the green light would go off and it
would be amber only, as it is now, so that people would know they
must stop. I did not get to that because I was running out of
time.
That is a very important feature. It is one of the points I was
promoting in my speech as something we could do across the
country to promote safety.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
right to freedom of association, the right to join a trade union
and the right to engage in collective bargaining are fundamental
rights guaranteed under the universal declaration of human
rights, the charter of the Organization of American States and
the conventions of the International Labour Organization.
1400
These fundamental rights, the pillars of a democratic society,
are under sustained assault in Colombia involving also an assault
on the right to integrity of the human person, indeed the very
right to life itself.
The data are staggering. Since 1991 over 1,600 trade unionists
have been killed while thousands more have been detained, beaten,
harassed, kidnapped and tortured, all for merely trying to
exercise their right to freedom of association. Ninety per cent
of all murders of trade unionists in the world take place in
Colombia. Over 50 have been killed in 2001 alone. In a word, it
is the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists.
I ask the Canadian government to call on the ILO to convene a
mission of inquiry into these human rights violations and ask the
government of Colombia to protect its workers who are also at the
forefront of the struggle for peace and help put an end to this
culture of impunity.
* * *
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the United Nations has declared 2001 the International
Year of Volunteers. In order to recognize volunteers in my
constituency of Kelowna, a call has gone out to local
organizations for the names of those who volunteer their time.
The response has been overwhelming.
The efforts of our volunteers are widespread. Some volunteer
for large organizations like the United Way. Others give their
time to smaller organizations such as the Abbeyfield Orchard City
Society. There are many more: those who help their elderly
neighbours, a parent who volunteers as a soccer coach, and
someone who canvasses once a year for local Scouts and Brownies
to raise money for a worthy cause.
Volunteerism is the lifeblood of a stable society and of a
caring and vital community. I urge all members to reach out and
honour the people in their communities who volunteer.
* * *
JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to acknowledge the
accomplishments of Jewish Child and Family Services of Winnipeg.
This month it is celebrating its 50th anniversary, and I
recognize that over the past half century it has provided
significant contribution to the Jewish community and to all
residents of the city of Winnipeg.
Jewish Child and Family Services celebrates its golden
anniversary, knowing it has carried out a mandate of providing
services which will strengthen the family and personal lives of
its clients. It seeks to prevent personal and family breakdown
by keeping its service delivery close to the philosophy of Jewish
values and traditions.
With services ranging from counselling for individuals, families
and groups, to providing services for older adults who wish to
maintain their independence in the community, to providing a
multitude of support to young people as well as the integration
of newcomers to the country, the impact of this organization
cannot go without accolade.
I know it will maintain high quality work into the future and
that it will continue to respond to the changing needs of the
diverse community they serve.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, most of the members of the Canadian forces deployed within
UNMEE, the United Nations' peacekeeping mission at the border
between Ethiopia and Eritrea, are preparing to come home.
For nearly six months, over 450 of our soldiers have been making
a significant contribution to the process of establishing peace
between the two neighbouring countries. By helping to establish
a temporary safe zone, the Canadian force has enabled two countries
formerly in conflict to withdraw their troops from territories
that are in dispute.
This operation makes clear Canada's commitment to peace and
stability in Africa. Moreover, it represents the first
deployment of the United Nations standby forces high-readiness
brigade. Canada enthusiastically joined this initiative, which
was launched by Denmark and the Netherlands in 1995.
We may be proud of our soldiers' professionalism. We wish them
a good trip home and we wish continued success to the six
officers who are continuing Canada's commitment in the Horn of
Africa.
* * *
ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in La Presse, the letter of the week was from Montreal
lawyer Sylvain Lallier, and was headed “Time to act”. The letter
concerns the government of Quebec's innumerable promises to
legislate.
We are still waiting. What is the argument for the lack of
action? The hard core. Do members know what the “hard core” is? It
is Quebec's 4,000 chronic drunkards, who are untouched by the
province's laws and sanctions. The people who fear nothing,
neither police, nor fines, nor road blocks, nor judges nor
prison. They are not moved by public awareness campaigns or
society's scorn.
Each time a tragedy occurs, the SAAQ fails to react, saying it
is inevitable because the law would not reach the reckless
driver, however severe it might be.
And then there is the “no-fault” aspect of it, which provides
unlucky drunks who injure themselves in an accident with generous
compensation by the SAAQ. These unacceptable privileges are
being stubbornly maintained.
* * *
1405
[English]
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, veterans say the government is
continuing to ignore them. This certainly was the case with the
Canadian War Museum. What will happen to the land at Rockcliffe
which was previously dedicated to the war museum? Will it be sold
to developers? Where will the profit go?
Why did the veterans have to raise money for a war museum when
other museums did not have to do so? Why did the government say
it needed the vets' money and then turn around and spend twice as
much money as originally planned for the new museum, which most
veterans will never see?
Why is the war museum treated like a second class museum? Why
does it have to be under the arm of another museum? Will the
minister take the war museum out from under the arm of the Museum
of Civilization and give it a status that it deserves?
I urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to give the war museum
its own board of directors, make it an independent museum and
start showing some respect for our vets.
* * *
NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising in support of Nelson Mandela becoming an
honorary citizen of Canada.
Nelson Mandela is a living saint who embodies human rights and
reconciliation. He exemplifies the rule of law and not of man.
Mr. Mandela is an inspiration to people from all walks of life.
He transcends all borders, whether they are social, economic,
religious, racial, political or even intellectual. He teaches us
the value of conviction and endurance.
Let us name Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, but
also in his name let us bring justice to the citizenship
revocation process and let us put justice into our Immigration
Act. This would entail access of people like Nelson Mandela to
Canada and would ensure that Canadian citizenship would not be
revoked without a right to a judicial appeal.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week the industry, science and technology
committee heard from members of the Canadian e-business
opportunities round table. One of the strongest messages coming
from the group was that in today's globally competitive
environment those who stand still will fall behind and that we in
Canada need to react to this by moving further and faster in
reducing taxes.
Mr. John Eckert, the e-team captain and managing partner of
McLean Watson Capital, expressed this very well when he stated:
There's much work that still remains to be done. We don't think
that the changes that have been enacted or proposed with regard
to tax reductions at the personal, corporate or capital gains
rate are sufficient; that we've seen the U.S. move further ahead
now with recent tax drop initiatives; and that for Canada to
really get its share of the e-business and economic slice of the
pie, that we have to work harder and be more aggressive to close
that gap and make it more advantageous to invest in Canada.
I call upon the government to listen to Mr. Eckert and the
Canadian e-business opportunities round table and move
immediately to further reduce personal—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of
the Americas is one more illustration of why Quebec must become
sovereign.
Who would not agree that our values and our institutions would
be better defended by representatives from Quebec than by the
federal government in negotiations for the free trade area of
the Americas?
What jurisdiction does the federal government have to negotiate
anything directly or indirectly related to language, culture,
health, education or labour? How can the government in Ottawa
defend Quebec's culture, when it daily denies the existence of
that culture? What sort of effort will it put into seeing that
our unique approach to the management of farming is not
endangered?
The sovereignty of Quebec, the sixth largest economic power in
the Americas, will give us access to the negotiating tables of
the free trade area of the Americas. This will make it possible
for us to make our choices and to build alliances so that the
agreement benefits the Quebec people and the other peoples of
the Americas.
The sovereignty of Quebec is the only way.
* * *
[English]
THOROLD REED BAND
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Thorold Reed Band was formed in 1851 in the present city of
Thorold, then just a village. In 1900 the band was so popular
there was a waiting list to join, even though each member had to
pay 10 cents for rehearsal.
On July 1, Canada Day, the Thorold Reed Band will be celebrating
its 150th anniversary. To honour past and present members a
march has been composed by the band director of music, Mr. Brian
Williams. The Battle of Beaverdams March is named for the
battle that took place on June 24, 1813, between the United
States and Canada in Thorold, Ontario.
Copies of the 150th anniversary celebration have been sent to
other bands across the nation to be performed as part of their
Canada Day celebrations.
1410
The constituents of Niagara Centre and indeed all Canadians join
with me in offering best wishes to the Thorold Reed Band, a band
that has played uninterrupted through the depression and wars, on
its 150th anniversary, and congratulating it on the launch of its
musical composition Battle of Beaverdams March.
* * *
ARTS AND CULTURE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night
in Venice two Alberta artists, Janet Cardiff and George Bures
Miller, won a special prize at the prestigious Venice Biennale
International Art Exhibition.
This is the most recent example of the world class art being
produced by Canadians and supported by the Canada Council.
Funding went to Cardiff and Miller for the creation of “The
Paradise Institute” and to Winnipeg's Plug In Gallery for the
presentation and promotion of the work. Only weeks ago Inuit
filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk won the Camera d'Or at the Cannes
International Film Festival.
In an increasingly globalized environment it is crucial that
Canadian artists have the opportunity to find audiences. They
would not be able to do this without public funding and, in
particular, the Canada Council's support.
Like public investment in science and technology, public arts
funding is an investment in Canadian creativity, paying off many
times over in enhancing our reputation as a dynamic, vital and
above all passionately artistic nation. I salute our Canadian
artists.
* * *
[Translation]
GAMES OF LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is proud today to be able to encourage Quebec's
athletes who, when they take part in the Games of La
Francophonie, to be held from July 14 to 24, will do so for the
first time as representatives of Quebec.
At long last, Quebecers will have the pleasure of seeing the
fleur-de-lis hoisted high for victories and will be able to share
their pride in the performance of our Quebec athletes.
We all know how talented those athletes are.
Now they will be able to show that they are a magnificent,
resounding force that is here to stay.
This is only the beginning for our athletes from Quebec. Soon,
as ambassadors of our sovereign nation, they will be able to
display Quebec's colours, anthem, and flag. One day, they will
wear the fleur-de-lis as a symbol of victory over adversity and of
hope.
We salute them all and wish them good luck.
* * *
GENEVIÈVE JEANSON
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the second time in her young cycling career,
Lachine's Geneviève Jeanson was named personality of the week by
the daily La Presse.
On June 3, Geneviève Jeanson won a spectacular victory in a
women's world cup road cycling event held on Mount Royal. She
took off and rode alone for 75 kilometres, crossing the finish
line with a lead of 7 minutes and 26 seconds over her closest
competitor.
At barely 19 years of age, Geneviève Jeanson is one of the best
among the world's elite female cyclists. On my behalf and on
behalf of the residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I
congratulate this young athlete who is an example of perseverance
for us all, and I wish her other great victories.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, Surjit Goraya's husband told me that his
wife was a healthy pregnant woman until she lost her baby because
of overcrowding at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
Canada's fastest growing cities are unable to keep pace with the
demands made on our hospitals and emergency medical services
because of the massive cuts in federal health care spending. The
government is responsible for tearing $26 billion out of Canada's
health care system. This weak Liberal government has created bed
shortages and equipment shortages in our hospitals. These
shortages have caused unnecessary suffering and even death.
This massive cut in federal health spending has also caused
brain drain and labour problems with nurses, doctors and support
staff going on strike.
What can the health minister tell the people of Surrey? What
can the Prime Minister say to a 25 year old grieving mother who
lost her baby? She and her family were helpless.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the honour to join with
cadets from the 219th Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps from New
Glasgow who were participating in a national environmental
initiative entitled “Cadets Caring for Canada”. In conjunction
with cadets from 750 communities across Canada, 1,100 corps of
squadrons took part in this extraordinary event.
At home the local project involved 30 fine, keen young cadets
who under the able direction of Ross Bland and Don Hussher
undertook to clean up the Lansdowne outdoor recreational park by
expanding and enhancing upon this beautiful site.
LORDA is operated by a great Canadian, David Liese. It provides
senior citizens, mentally and physically challenged individuals
and others, who rarely have the opportunity to enjoy the
outdoors, to participate in various events such as fishing,
camping and recreational activities.
1415
Events held annually at LORDA include the children of Chernobyl
fund day, the Pictou county mental health day, the commercial
travellers picnic for the disabled and the war veterans picnic.
* * *
MAX KEEPING
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to pay tribute an extraordinary Canadian
citizen.
Journalist Max Keeping of CJOH television has been a cornerstone
in our community and the recipient of numerous awards, including
the Order of Canada, the Ontario Good Citizenship Award and the
key to the city of Ottawa, to name a few.
Through the Max Keeping Foundation, thousands of children in our
community benefit from life skill programs, such as Child and
Youth Friendly Ottawa, and his tireless efforts working for sick
children and CHEO. Just name the cause, call Max Keeping and he
is there to help.
Max Keeping is an outstanding citizen, compassionate, committed,
determined, hardworking, an achiever, courageous, a planner,
consistent, patient and a true leader.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House and all Canadians, I
want to say thank you to Max Keeping.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one of the most respected investment
banks in the world is now predicting that Canada may sink into a
recession later this year. Other economists are predicting some
planning deficits. We now know that the government is actually
indulging in the sharpest spending increases since the Trudeau
era.
We all want to be optimistic, and we should be. Prudence,
however, demands that these voices of concern be heard. We
should not just reject them out of hand.
To calm the waters of concern, will the government please
abandon its present plan to go two years without a full budget
and commit today to tabling a budget as soon as possible?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps it is too much to ask the research department of
the Canadian Alliance to go beyond the National Post, but
rather than simply reading the headlines, at least members
opposite ought to read the article. The article states that
Canadian indicators remain healthy, that employment levels are
stable, that trade continues to be standard, that tax is steady
and that tax rates and interest rates have fallen.
I just do not see the weakness that would lead to a recession.
Peter Duncan from the Rotman School of Management in the very
same article.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is not dealing with the question
of this unprecedented possible two years without a budget.
The level of lack of accountability is extraordinary. We need
to see this happen to address these concerns that we are hearing
and also to address the concerns that we see with the United
States moving ahead aggressively on its tax and debt reductions.
Last year was a record year for Canadian investment out of
Canada into the United States. As the United States moves ahead
with a reduction in its income tax, in its marriage penalty and
in its elimination of death taxes on family savings, we will
continue to see a record investment out of the country.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. members knows, in the October statement we
brought down the largest tax cuts in Canadian history.
The hon. member ought to know that in the spring update we
announced the largest debt reduction in Canadian history.
If the hon. member wants to take a look at the numbers what he
can see is that while Canada is currently creating employment,
the United States is losing employment.
The fact is that we are weathering the storm, and those are the
real facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government must show Canadians that
it will take the necessary measures to protect them against a
recession and against the United States.
My question is on behalf of all Canadians. Is this government
prepared to speed up the tax reduction process to protect
Canadians against an anticipated recession, possibly, and also
against the United States?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition should look at what we just did.
1420
Not only did we lower the Canadian debt by a record $33 billion
over a four year period, including $15 billion just for last
year, but at the same time we helped our economy with $17 billion
in tax reductions and $7 billion in spending. This far exceeds
what the Americans have done.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is ignoring what credible economists
are saying and the signals of concern they are raising. Today
George Vasic said that a mild technical recession through the
second and third quarters of 2001 is a credible prediction.
The finance minister talks about being tax competitive with the
United States. Taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic
product are 42% versus 31% in the United States. How can the
finance minister stand up here day after day and tell us that we
are becoming more competitive with a nation whose total tax
burden is nearly a third lower than ours?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given the fact that it is the same preamble, let me give
the hon. member exactly the same answer in case he missed it.
The fact is that the chief economist of the Rotman School of
Management has given the numbers on why we are doing very well. The
majority of economists, as referred to in that article, have said
that we are not in a recession. In fact one economist does not a
recession make and the hon. member ought to stop fearmongering.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who is fearmongering. Whenever
reasonable voices of concern are raised about the direction of
our economy he accuses those voices of fearmongering. Instead of
doing that, why does he not bring forth a responsible budget
which would accelerate tax relief and debt reduction and restore
absolute confidence to the markets? Or, is he happy with the
fact that disposable incomes are 30% less than the United States,
that we have a 65 cent dollar and that our tax burden is a third
as high as in the United States? Is he happy with those facts?
Does he think those fundamentals are right?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I am happy about is the fact that Canadians' real
disposable incomes are now at a record level. I am happy about
the fact that the Canadian economy is creating jobs. I am happy
about the fact that it is projected that the Canadian economy
will have one of the strongest growth rates of any of the
economies of the world.
If the hon. member wants to see us cut taxes, why did he take
such pride a couple of months ago in stating that he specifically
voted against the government's tax cuts?
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the tabling of the unanimous report by the standing
committee on human resources two weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois
has been asking day after day for the government to follow up on
the committee's recommendations before the end of this session.
On each occasion, the government has refused to commit, when
Bill C-2, which has just been passed, is clearly insufficient for
the unemployed.
Can this government explain its unwillingness to help the
unemployed by following up now on the unanimous report by the
standing committee on human resources?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that it is
this government that has on many occasions updated the Employment
Insurance Act to reflect the specific needs of Canadians.
By asking these questions over and over again, as the hon.
member has, it is becoming clear that what all the Bloc members
are trying to do is cover up for the fact that they made a
mistake last fall in voting against Bill C-44 and again this
spring by voting against Bill C-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it was not even voted on, they pulled it. But we stand against
organized crime.
The unanimous Human Resources Development Canada report bears
the title “Beyond Bill C-2” which means, in case the minister
does not understand, that the government must go beyond it so
that young people, women and seasonal workers are no longer
penalized by the eligibility rules; so that older workers may be
retrained; so that the self-employed, who are not covered at
present, may benefit from it.
Are we to conclude that she has just turned a blind eye to all
the recommendations of the standing committee on human resources
development, recommendations—
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources
Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should understand is
that this government works very closely with Canadians to ensure
they have a system in place that will support them when they find
themselves through no fault of their own between jobs.
The hon. member needs only to look at what we are doing in the
province of Quebec with that government in support of older
workers where together we have pilot projects that focus
specifically on the needs of that part of the labour force.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on human
resources development, which is recommending significant changes
to employment insurance, is the product of an election promise
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport made to the unemployed in an
effort to defuse a demonstration by unemployed persons in
Shawinigan in the middle of the election campaign.
With the government's successive refusals to act on our request
for a thorough revamping of the employment insurance system, are
we to understand that the recommendations of this committee will
join the unfulfilled election promises of this government and
that the unemployed will have been misled by this government once
again?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government committed to Canadians
that immediately upon returning to the House it would reintroduce
the amendments that we tried to pass last fall.
I would remind the hon. member that when the member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis was asked about supporting our
motion last fall, she said the following:
We conveyed the message to this government that we would not
support the motion, even though it really saddens us to do so,
considering all the positive measures, however temporary, that
the bill may provide for, among others, seasonal workers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can we call the fact that, in the
middle of the election, two ministers promised a committee to
look into the employment insurance system never intending to act
on its recommendations after the election, anything other than a
game of political cynicism played out on the backs of the
unemployed?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we promised to deliver the amendments
that have now been passed in the context of Bill C-2. We are
working in communities in the provinces of Quebec and New
Brunswick with workers and employers because for us it is not
only about providing benefits through employment insurance but it
is also about finding real jobs. When will members of that party
figure that out?
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the
FTAA summit in April, the Prime Minister staged a spectacular
retreat from Canada's earlier commitment to remedy the damaging
effects of NAFTA's chapter 11.
A letter from 29 American multinationals, written on the eve of
the Quebec summit but released only today, offers a clear and
plausible explanation for the Prime Minister's reckless retreat.
The question remains, why is the government more beholden to
American multinationals than to Canadians who value their public
services and their environment?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to illustrate what a silly statement that is, in
the context of the trade agreement we have with the United States
and Mexico, we have seen a huge increase in exports of Canadian
goods and services to the United States and Mexico. That has
accounted for an incredible increase in jobs and prosperity for
Canadians, which is what we care about, jobs and opportunities
for Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it must
show that the government no longer cares about chapter 11.
United Parcel Service, not surprisingly, is among the
multinationals that are pressing governments to retain NAFTA's
chapter 11 investor state provisions. UPS is currently suing the
Canadian government.
Before the Prime Minister caved in on chapter 11, did he consult
Canada Post officials, including his old friend André Ouellet,
whose mandate is to deliver postal services uniformly to
Canadians and, if so, could the government honestly say that
Canada Post officials recommended that the Government of Canada
toss in the towel on chapter 11?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
First, Mr. Speaker, our position with respect to the UPS case is
clear and it is proceeding before the relevant tribunal. Second,
we have not changed our position on chapter 11.
I think what the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party ought
to do, instead of trying to make up allegations about the
government's policy, is to keep an eye on the seats behind her
where they are thinking about starting a new party.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister says that he will decide by the end of summer
whether to have a fall budget. The minister knows that budget
planning does not happen overnight. In fact, daily budget
planning meetings begin months in advance of an actual budget
day.
Will the minister confirm if in fact meetings to plan a fall
budget are currently taking place within his ministry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have stated that the government will make a decision
as to when a budget is required, depending upon the
circumstances.
In the meantime, extensive consultations are going on with the
finance committee and indeed with the minister himself going
across the country, and those will continue.
1430
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
whether or not the minister likes it, the UBS Warburg most recent
report on Canada has said that Canada is currently in a
recession. Growth is projected to be only 1.5% for the entire
year, which is almost a full point lower than the growth rate of
2.4% the minister was predicting a month ago. A 40% slower
growth rate clearly threatens the minister's projections.
With all the economic uncertainty, with UBS Warburg saying that
Canada is in fact in a recession, will the minister commit today
to tabling a fall budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not surprised at the Alliance, but I might have
expected something better from the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
He knows that the 2.4% came from the consensus of 19 economists,
and a number of them were much higher.
Following that we then met with the chief economists of four
major economic projecting firms and the chief economists of the
major Canadian banks. In all cases they said we were not in a
recession, as did the article this morning.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday we released a forensic analysis of the Prime Minister's
bill of sale for his golf course. The professional opinion of
the analyst was: “There is a high degree of probability that the
numerals 1, 9, 9 and 3 have been altered but in fairness this opinion
is qualified subject to examination of the original”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister today commit to releasing that
original document for independent study?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am told that, according to the Alliance's handwriting
analyst, the nine in ninety-three may have been changed from a
five or an eight, meaning that the date may originally have been
1953 or 1983, if I understand her opinion.
I assure the House that the Prime Minister did not sell his
shares in the golf course before he purchased them.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot even figure out which
nine the consultant was talking about. Ninety-five or
ninety-eight were the two suggestions.
The Prime Minister was quick to call a loan authorization by the
Business Development Bank a forgery and he fired it off to the
police, but when it comes to his own document he just does
nothing. If there is nothing to hide, he would release the
original to prove to all Canadians that the bill of sale is
legitimate.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Who have that
document in their possession today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now I know why the nine is mentioned in the analyst's
report. It refers to where the Alliance Party is in the polls.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
election, Liberal ministers toured Quebec and, with their
candidates, promised voters the earth. They would right the
inequities of the system if they were elected.
Where are these members, who yesterday intimated to the
unemployed of Quebec that they would correct the injustices they
faced? Where are they today? They are very quiet and fearful.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the continuing attempt of hon. members to
cover up their political error in voting against Bill C-2 gives
me an opportunity to remind the House of the many things we have
done to change employment insurance.
We have gone to an hourly basis, which is very good for seasonal
workers because every hour counts. We are working with provinces
and territories to build pilot programs in support of older
workers. We have doubled parental benefits. We have repealed
the intensity rule. We are committed to continuing to monitor
the Employment Insurance Act.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said, in Le Soleil on
November 9:
Once a Liberal majority is elected, we will reinstate the
process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet the
needs, for the most part, of the people of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
He made a personal commitment.
I ask him today, if he does not wish to be taken for a coward in
all of Quebec's regions, will he convince his colleague to
deliver the goods he promised in order to get votes?
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we have
made these changes. We have repealed the intensity rule. We
have changed the clawback rule to be more supportive of
Canadians. We have made it fairer to those who are re-entering
the workplace.
More specific, we are working in Lac-Saint-Jean with employers
and employees there because they want more than just employment
insurance. They want jobs.
If the hon. member had any sense he would be working with us in
this regard instead of criticizing.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this spring it was revealed that the Business
Development Bank loan authorization contained a footnote implying
that the Auberge Grand-Mère owed a debt of $23,000 to the Prime
Minister's personal holding company.
The Prime Minister claimed it was as forgery. Two months ago,
on April 12, the BDC sent it off to the police for a forensic
audit. After two months of waiting is the industry minister
prepared to announce to the House whether or not the document was
a forgery?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, unlike the party opposite we do not hire private
investigators. We put these matters in the hands of the RCMP and
we rely upon the professionalism of the RCMP.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what I am talking about, the RCMP. In
fact the minister said on April 23 in the House that the
allegedly forged document was still with the RCMP. It is almost
two months later and he still does not have an answer for the
House.
It is obvious the minister is dragging his feet. What are they
hiding from Canadians? Why will they not release the results of
this examination?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Because,
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in hiring secret agents in the
mould of Maxwell Smart. We do not believe in hiring handwriting
experts.
We on this side have a plain, old fashioned, strong confidence
in members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and we do not
tell them how to do their job.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada Day
president Serge Savard has announced the amounts to be spent in
Quebec for Canada Day. Apparently, $5 million, or 75% of the
entire Canada Day budget, is for Quebec alone. If that is not
propaganda, how does the minister explain that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: If that is not propaganda, what does the
minister call it?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I inform the hon.
member opposite that over 2.5 million people in all regions of
Quebec celebrate Canada activities. In addition, communities all
across Canada celebrate Canada week.
Whenever those applications come in from all across Canada, not
just from Quebec and including New Brunswick, most of the
applications are accepted.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 75% of the
budget being spent in Quebec can be called propaganda.
Does the minister think it is right that the opposition is
unable to obtain these figures in the House and that it must
rely on others and on the newspapers to obtain the answer to
legitimate questions? What was the minister afraid of that she
would not answer our questions?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the
opportunity to answer the supplementary question.
The Celebrate Canada Committee in Quebec gets funding to allow
20 regional centres to actually have Celebrate Canada activities
and in addition provide money for celebrations in more than 200
communities.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after a dangerous sexual offender has served his court
imposed sentence there is no—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is only Monday. The hon.
member for Provencher.
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, it is an energetic Monday
afternoon. After a dangerous sexual offender has served his
court imposed sentence there is no nationwide ability to track
his whereabouts.
Despite the significant danger these individuals continue to
present, members of the police do not have an effective national
sex offender registry. Why will the Liberal government not take
the necessary steps now to create an offender registry so that
all Canadian children are protected?
1440
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when individuals are released from
serving their full term the police forces have the jurisdiction
to apply for a peace bond. In many cases they have done that.
If they have served in a Canadian institution for a criminal
offence they are registered on CPIC.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister was sitting beside the RCMP commissioner
when the commissioner admitted that the ineffective CPIC registry
requires legislation, money and technology. Yet the Minister of
Justice and the Solicitor General continue to stonewall these
requests to protect children from sexual predators.
How many more children must fall victim to sexual predators
before these two ministers will act?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague would never wish
to mislead the House. The fact of the matter is that he was
sitting there as I was sitting there. He understood that
provincial legislation needed to be changed in order to have
addresses implemented in the CPIC system. He is well aware of
that.
We have also indicated that we will receive the addresses if the
provinces wish to input the addresses on CPIC, and there are
addresses on CPIC.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
urban centres face a range of urban transportation challenges
including greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, congestion,
safety, and an increase in operational costs.
What initiatives is the Minister of Transport taking to
encourage communities across the country to adopt effective urban
transportation strategies?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I appreciate his concern for urban issues.
In addition to the Prime Minister having already announced a
caucus task force on urban issues, today the Minister of
Transport announced a $69 million initiative to promote
sustainable transportation, namely the urban transportation
showcase.
The plan calls for the creation of community showcases to
demonstrate and evaluate ways of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation sector. Initiatives such as
these show Canada's commitment to developing better planning and
practices for transportation and land use, recognizing that
different solutions are required for different regions of Canada.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today a United Nations conference opens in Paris to
examine the growing worldwide concern about BSE or mad cow
disease.
As other countries review the precautionary measures they have
taken to protect their citizens, what will Canada say: that
unlike Europe we continue to feed cattle parts and cow blood to
other livestock or that we have not stopped deer or elk that
could carry chronic wasting disease from being used in commercial
food production?
Could the health minister explain to Canadians and to the world
why the government is so reluctant to take strong steps against
this horrific threat to our health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we go to that meeting we will tell the simple truth. The
simple truth is that Canada is recognized by the World Health
Organization as BSE free.
This is a global issue. We cannot be complacent. We have to
continue our efforts. It is for that reason we banned the giving
of blood by people who have spent certain times in Europe. It is
for that reason we are careful about feed for cattle.
The hon. member has her facts wrong. Canada should be proud of
our record but concerned about the future. We will take the
steps to make sure Canadians are safe.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when this session of parliament began I called upon the Deputy
Prime Minister to explain his government's inaction in addressing
the concerns of thousands of Canadians faced with crippling taxes
on their U.S. social security benefits.
The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions have
all promised that they would take some action. Yet five months
later nothing has been done. When will they move on this issue?
When can we expect a response from them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I pointed out in a letter to my hon. friend, I
believe in February, I have raised this matter with the Minister
of Finance. He assures me that he and his officials are looking
into it.
* * *
1445
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I was just sent a copy of a letter from the premier of Nova
Scotia to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury
Board. In that letter Premier John Hamm has added his voice to
the growing opposition to the discriminatory employment practices
used by the federal government to only hire people from the
Ottawa area for Ottawa jobs in the federal government.
Premier Hamm says this policy contravenes the agreement on
internal trade and section 6 of the Constitution Act. Has the
government changed this offensive and discriminatory policy? If
it has not, when will it?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Public Service Commission met with various
parliamentarians and even testified before the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, and has promised to review this
whole issue in the Public Service Employment Act.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the same minister. Apparently all the premiers
who were asked about this problem agreed with Premier Hamm, with
the exception of the premier of Newfoundland who basically said
that it was okay to hire strictly from the local region.
What does this do to foster a great nation like Canada? If that
is the case, could a Newfoundlander apply for the Prime
Minister's job in Ottawa?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are discussing a very important principle right now. The
provisions of the Public Service Employment Act allow the
commission to place area restrictions. It is not obliged to do
so.
Further to the various representations made by parliamentarians,
the commission is in the process of reviewing the rules in
question.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
Bjorn Lomborg, a former Greenpeace member and noted scientist,
says in a soon to be released book that the cost of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions far outweighs the benefits and only
postpones the problem by six years.
Developing nations will be the most affected by climate change.
Canada must help them leapfrog massive industrial pollution by
providing them with new technologies and training.
Will the minister stop posturing about Kyoto and help develop a
more realistic approach to climate change?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously climate change is a very serious global issue
and for there to be a solution it must be global in scope.
I am very pleased to note that in the various announcements we
have made on behalf of the Government of Canada, including our
action plan on climate change last year and the budget of
February last year, we included very specific provisions to
assist countries in the developing part of the world to catch up
with new technologies and to apply those technologies so that
they too may enjoy the benefits of clean air.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, these agreements are only good if action follows them.
Canada is wasting over $1 billion on this protocol that will not
work. The signing of this protocol was done without proper
consultation, without proper study and will not achieve the
results without the participation of developing countries.
Will the minister agree to scrap his ill conceived dedication to
Kyoto and move on to a new and realistic commitment to dealing
with climate change?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member for the Alliance
Party is articulating the position of the United States.
On our part, for the people of Canada, we stand by the Kyoto
targets. We have announced $1.1 billion worth of initiatives
that will get us at least one-third of the way toward those
targets.
We are working constructively on energy efficiency, ethanol
production, wind power, solar power, energy conservation, new
petroleum technology, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration,
and new generation vehicles. It is only the Alliance Party that
is trapped in the 19th century.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is settling for prefabricated replies to people
suffering trauma and permanent effects from their participation
in missions to the Persian Gulf and the Balkans.
What is stopping this government from showing some compassion by
recognizing the traumas experienced by military personnel and
providing them with the support they now need?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do. We are going to great lengths, putting in a
lot of money and investing a lot of time and effort to help
people who go into a deployment situation, one of our operations,
and come back ill.
1450
In fact for post-traumatic stress disorder alone we have set up
some five clinics across the country. We have medical staff on
site in the various camps and in these various missions to help
anybody who suffers in such a way.
We want to make sure that we do everything we can to look after
the health needs of the Canadian forces personnel. They deserve
no less.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the health
problems experienced by our military have changed as the nature
of the conflicts in which they participate has changed.
The way war is waged has changed from what it was 50 years
ago, and the concept of what constitutes a veteran must be
adapted to fit today's reality.
What then is the government waiting for before reviewing the
definitions and eligibility criteria for veteran status, so that
these military personnel may be provided with the care and
benefits to which they are fully entitled?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department has had
concerns about these personnel. It continues to examine the
situation, and we are going to go still further in order to
ensure them of the best possible treatment.
It is absolutely false to claim that the Canadian government is
not concerned about all these people. It is absolutely false to
claim that we are not there for them, and will not be doing
anything further for them.
* * *
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said last week “the decisions made on access to
information are at arm's length from my office”. Yet we have
learned that in her own corporate sector a special committee has
been established to vet the approval of all access to information
requests by the official opposition to gain access to information
on a file.
Why does the minister claim the process is at arm's length when
it obviously is not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the access to information process is
under the direction and the authority of the deputy minister.
The hon. member makes reference to a special committee that the
deputy minister put together because, and it is no surprise to
the House, my department has had an increase in requests for
access to information. The deputy wanted a committee of
associate deputies in place to collect the information from the
field to provide as much information as can be provided in a
timely fashion. That is the process.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, requests for documents pertaining to
Canada jobs fund grants in the Prime Minister's riding, the
Auberge Grand-Mère and Placeteco, have gone unanswered for months.
In the case of the Placeteco file, the access to information
office sent it to the HRDC corporate sector on April 6 for
approval, but two months later we have heard nothing.
Why is the minister breaking the law to delay information
pertaining to the Prime Minister's riding, and are the Placeteco
documents in the minister's office?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has specific concerns
about particular requests, there is an appeal process and I would
ask her to use that process. However let me say that
traditionally my department has had a very good record in
responding to requests for information.
I say again that there has been a significant increase in the
numbers of requests but the department, under the authority of
the deputy minister, is doing its best to get as much information
out as it can and in a timely fashion.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, harmful emissions from the growing number of vehicles in
Mississauga and other cities across Canada are causing great
concern.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House what our
government is doing to aggressively combat this growing problem?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment, the
Minister of Transport and I participated in an announcement in
Toronto about several Government of Canada initiatives totalling
well over $100 million and directed toward the very issue the
hon. member was referring to.
Specifically, for my part, we announced $16 million for motor
vehicle fuel efficiency initiatives and $23 million for the
Canadian Transportation Fuel Cell Alliance. On the fuel cell
alliance, we expect that market in the world to add up to more
than $100 billion worth of potential for Canadians over the next
two decades.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a disturbing story this weekend has Canadians
alarmed. A whole host of noxious substances, including known
carcinogens, are found and routinely used in pesticides.
1455
These formulants have been considered non-active ingredients and
therefore are not listed on the packaging. Such residues may
remain and be consumed in food products. The list includes
formaldehyde, also used in embalming, and methyl chloride, also
used as paint stripper.
Why are these toxic compounds not listed on the packaging? If
they are truly non-active, why are they permitted at all?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I share that concern and that is why, when we responded to the
environment committee's report last year on pesticide regulation,
we agreed with the recommendation that those formulants should be
either taken out of the products or listed on the packages. We
will introduce legislation in due course that will do just that.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health
Canada actively denied knowledge of the facts until confronted
with the evidence.
There seems to be a culture of cover-up in the government, in
the PMO, in national defence and now in the health ministry.
Last month the cover-up was mercury in tuna and swordfish. Now,
dangerous substances in the residues of pesticides may well be
consumed in food.
What other toxic substances are Canadians consuming that the
health minister does not think we need to know about?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
games aside, we hope that the parties opposite will support the
legislation when we bring it before the House. It will be
intended to strengthen the regulatory capacity of government to
make sure that Canadians know what products are being used to
control pests and to make sure that food products are as safe as
they can be.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, traditionally, Quebec has been able to fish 95% of the
turbot quota. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reduced the
quota to 88% so as to give the rest to Newfoundland. On May 31,
the minister told fishermen to limit themselves to three-quarters
of their quota.
Are we to understand that the minister is preparing to announce
a new distribution of quotas between Quebec and Newfoundland,
once again to the detriment of Quebec? Are we to understand
that this unjust, cynical and arrogant government will again
wait until the end of the session to make the announcement?
[English]
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question from
the hon. member has to do with the turbot in the gulf.
I will say that the minister has instituted a committee. The
committee has reported to the minister. We have a majority
report and the decision on that will be forthcoming in a few
days.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while Bloc
Quebecois members insist on engaging in petty politics for show,
Liberal members from Quebec are at work.
Since it is important that the Government of Canada promote long
term economic development in Quebec's regions, my question is for
the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
What is the government doing to support small and medium sized
businesses in terms of innovation and market development,
particularly in the Outaouais region?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
excellent and important question.
Indeed, members on this side of the House do work hard to
promote economic development in all the regions of Quebec, but
also of Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Since members opposite do not work at all
for regional development, they are heckling so that people will
not hear what I have to say.
But I will nonetheless say that this morning we announced, for
the great region of the Outaouais, about 10 projects
representing contributions in excess of $3 million to create over
400 jobs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: This is what this government wants to do
for all the regions.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, public service
employees want the government to stop treating them like second
class citizens. MPs, senior managers, judges, members of the
RCMP and military personnel have received large salary
increases.
Why does the minister not send a clear message to her employees
by promising in this House not to apply a double standard?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
always strive to ensure that our employees are paid fairly,
based on market conditions. We are currently at the bargaining
tables. Fortunately, we have signed agreements with certain
groups and we hope, through collective bargaining, to arrive at
a settlement for all our employees.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1500
[English]
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table a document entitled “Individual Members' Expenditures for
the Fiscal Year 2000-01”.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to present pursuant to Standing Order 34, in both
official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the
Canada Europe Parliamentary Association to the second part of the
2001 session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of
Europe held between April 23 and April 27 of this year in
Strasbourg, France.
* * *
PETITIONS
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present four petitions
signed by constituents and other concerned citizens across the
country expressing their concern about the problems that alcohol
causes for pregnant women.
The petitioners have acknowledged support for the work we have
done in the House toward a movement of labels on all alcohol
beverage containers. They ask us to move with speed and call
upon the government to mandate the labelling of alcoholic
products to warn pregnant women and other persons of dangers
associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition from over 4,500 people in the greater
Bois-Francs area.
The petitioners urge the House of Commons to amend the taxation
legislation so that the estate only pay taxes on capital gains
when real or other property are sold and not on a presumption of
sale as currently stipulated in the legislation.
1505
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, three
petitions.
The first two petitions are from people of the province of
Quebec who call upon parliament to make every effort to make sure
that Canada remains a unified nation.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have a petition from people from the province of New
Brunswick who are concerned with the national missile defence
program of the United States. The petitioners ask that Canada
play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile
flight tests in the world.
FALUN GONG
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today to present two petitions.
The first is from Canadians who are very concerned about the
practice of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China and how
practitioners of Falun Gong have been subjected to persecution
and arrest.
This petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to strongly urge
the Chinese president to release all arrested Falun Dafa
practitioners in China immediately and to lift the ban.
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Canadians who want to express their
concern to the House about increasing homelessness in Canada. The
petitioners urge the government to adopt a national housing
strategy and housing supply program that would commit an
additional 1% of federal budgetary spending to meet this very
basic human need for housing and shelter.
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and
to present another petition calling on the government to
reinstate the coast guard dive team.
The petitioners note that the coast guard dive team was
withdrawn from service in February of this year and that it may
have contributed to the death of Paul Sandhu. We are concerned
because the service was instituted recognizing the fact that the
Strait of Georgia is the busiest waterway in Canada. The
petitioners feel that this dive team should be reinstated.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a petition regarding the Canadian involvement in the United
States national missile defence program. It is based on the
premise that the missile defence program is a unilateral
initiative by the United States government based on the premise
taken from the United States command document “Take Vision for
2020” which states “dominating the space dimension of military
operations and integrating space forces into war fighting
capabilities”.
The petitioners call upon parliament to declare that Canada
objects to the national missile defence program of the United
States. Second, they call on parliament to play a leadership
role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
PESTICIDES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area
who are concerned about the overuse of pesticides on residential
landscapes and public green spaces. The petitioners point out
that the Canadian Cancer Association, the lung association and
others have shown there is a strong link between such pesticides
and physical ailments such as childhood leukemia and other
cancers. It lowers the immune system and damages pituitary and
thyroid glands.
Therefore, these petitioners call upon parliament to enact an
immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides
until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be
safe and the long term consequences of their application are
known.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition in the series that I have been presenting from
citizens of the Peterborough area who would like to see VIA Rail
service restored between Toronto and Peterborough. The
petitioners point to the environmental advantages of this, the
reduction of greenhouse emissions and the reduction in accidents
on the highways. They also point to the advantages for our
community as a business centre, a tourism centre and educational
centre.
1510
I was delighted that today in Toronto in response to these
petitions, the Minister of Transport has given a clear indication
that this service may well in the near future be restored between
Toronto and Peterborough.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 46 and 48.
.[Text]
Question No. 46—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to finalized claims as a result of hearings at the
Immigration and Refugee Board: (a) what is the average approval
rate resulting from the hearings for the years 1995 to 2000;
(b) are there any differences between Canada's approval rate
and those of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the
United Kingdom; and (c) if so, why?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Insofar as Citizenship and Immigration is concerned, the
following table shows the results of refugee claims finalized by
the Immigration and Refugee Board from 1995 to 2000.
With regards to the question of how Canada's acceptance rate
compares to that of other countries, it is almost impossible to
provide meaningful comparisons since refugee determination
systems vary significantly among refugee receiving countries. For
example, in some countries, such as the United States and in
Australia, there is more than one institution that can determine
refugee status. In other countries, such as France and the United
Kingdom, more than one type of status may be granted. Finally,
international comparisons are made difficult by the widely
varying mix of source countries among the various receiving
states. That being said, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees UNHCR, the recognized body on refugee data, produces an
annual report that provides information on approvals, rejections
and other status decisions.
Differences in approval rates are the result of many factors.
For example, in some countries the composition of asylum seekers
now includes more persons in need of protection than is the case
in other countries. Interpretation of the Geneva Convention,
based as well on national jurisprudence, may vary from one country
to another.
Question No. 48—Mr. Keith Martin:
With regard to the installation of Rogers and Seacoast
Communication' towers and transmitters in Colwood, B.C.: (a)
did Industry Canada comply with their own rules in the granting
of approvals; (b) if not, has Industry Canada taken corrective
action and instructed the owners to relocate their towers; and
(c) did the Minister of Industry consult with the municipality
of Colwood?
Mr. John Cannis Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry , Lib.): (a) The antenna towers in question were
authorized by Industry Canada in accordance with the procedures
and standards in place for this purpose. Our requirements
regarding the radio station application process, compliance with
Health Canada's safety code 6, and municipal land use
consultation procedures were met prior to the issuance of
approval by Industry Canada. Letters to the city of Colwood from
the assistant deputy minister, Spectrum, Information Technologies
and Telecommunications, as well as our local director have
explained the department's process and position with regard to the
approval of these radio towers.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Industry Canada's procedures require consultation between
the applicant and the land use authority so that the land use
authority is aware of significant antenna proposed within its
boundaries and has an opportunity to make its views known. The
mandatory notification and consultation with the city of Colwood
did take place prior to the issuance of these authorizations. In
this case, no concerns were raised to Industry Canada during this
consultation process. The local bylaws provided for radio transmission
towers as a permitted use and building permits were issued by the
municipality. Industry Canada officials have been in contact with
the city of Colwood on this matter and continue with ongoing
communications with the municipality.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, an
act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I was responding of course in comment to the speech given by the
member for Prince George—Peace River. I was talking about the
fact that during my intervention earlier I talked about having a
dual light system to increase the safety so that vehicles and
drivers could stop before entering an intersection when the light
was red and before the momentum of the vehicle made it impossible
to stop with the normal brake reaction time. I was glad to put
that on the record.
I am proposing that both the amber and the green lights be shown
at a point indicated by a sign well back from the intersection.
Then everybody, whether it is a motorcyclist or a truck driver,
would have enough time to plan to stop at the next light. Any
person who was behind the sign would have to stop. Anybody who
was ahead of the sign when both lights came on would of course
know that he could make it safely through. On the other hand,
the amber only light would indicate that now it was time to stop
because the next phase would be the red light, which comes in one
and a half, or two seconds or whatever it is.
Having done that, the hon. member may want to respond to my
proposal. If not, I am thankful for the opportunity to be able
to complete my speech, because I ran out of time before.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elk
Island for in effect finishing his speech. I note that as the
first speaker for the opposition, he had some 40 minutes to
speak.
I followed the circuitous routing of his speech throughout the
40 minutes with great interest. He raised a lot of very relevant
topics, one of which was to enlighten the House to a certain
extent with his own personal experience as a former truck driver
quite some years ago. I think he referred to ox carts and dirt
trails or something like that.
At any rate he raised a number of interesting issues, one of
which was the safety issue of our intersections. All joking
aside it is a very serious issue as he noted. The results of
that are innumerable accidents, many of them involving death or
substantial serious injury over the years at our intersections.
He proposed a very interesting potential way to help alleviate
some of those accidents, and I certainly support his thinking in
that regard.
I think it is quite appropriate because the issue that we are
discussing of course is the need for national safety regulations
as it pertains to trucking and buses. I want to use a bit of
time now to use an example, as he did when he used several
examples during his intervention, to talk about how ridiculous it
is to have different regulations from province to province.
Last summer I was made aware of an incident in my riding of
Prince George—Peace River involving a bus of tourists. Of
course tourism is a very important industry in British Columbia,
in particular northern British Columbia. We always welcome and
try to extend western and northern hospitality to all tourists
who make it up to the beautiful riding of Prince George—Peace
River and the Peace River area of Alberta and British Columbia.
In this particular instance a bus of tourists from Quebec
travelled all the way across Canada. Of course as such the bus
had to stop at weigh scales as it travelled across the provincial
boundaries and borders. Then it arrived in the Peace River
district of British Columbia.
When they pulled into the weigh scale at the city of Dawson
Creek, lo and behold they found out that they were overweight.
They were fine in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta.
1515
They were to travel up the Alaska Highway to Yukon and Alaska as
part of their summer trip. Many of them had planned this for
probably a year in advance. They were quite excited about this
trip up the Alaska Highway, but when they got to mile zero of the
Alaska Highway the bus was brought to a standstill because the
regulations concerning the maximum vehicle weight for buses is
different in British Columbia.
They tried to sort it out. We can imagine a busload of tourists
held up and inconvenienced. They have places they have to be at
certain times. Their schedule is planned for meals and for
overnight stays at hotels on up the route. There they were
stopped at a weigh scale in Dawson Creek.
Finally they had to hire an old school bus, in effect, and
offload the luggage from their Greyhound style sightseeing bus
onto the school bus, which carried the luggage behind them and
followed them to Alaska or at least until they got out of British
Columbia. I do not know what happened when they crossed the
border into the Yukon. Maybe they loaded all the luggage back
onto the bus and carried on, but for that 500 miles or so from
Dawson Creek to the Yukon border they had to have this extra
vehicle.
We can imagine what this does for tourism. I see that my
colleague from the Liberal Party who represents the Yukon is
here. Maybe he could add some words to this debate. We can
imagine what that type of inconvenience does for the tourist
industry in northern British Columbia and on into the Yukon and
Alaska.
It is more than appropriate that where there are genuine safety
concerns we have uniformity and harmonization of trucking and bus
regulations and safety rules, with the national safety code
harmonized across the country. What I am trying to allude to is
that there is a need for it in very practical and economic terms,
certainly in the area of tourism. That is the real point I am
trying to make with this story.
With that I will conclude and see if anyone else would like to
add something to this debate about the national safety code and
the need for harmonized trucking and busing regulations across
our country.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to agree with the sentiments that were just expressed about
the border between Yukon and British Columbia, and not just
related to the safety code. For years we have had complaints
from truckers about regulations in B.C. that make it very
difficult for Yukon truckers to simply carry a load across the
border.
I think it is part of a proliferation of internal trade
barriers, which my colleagues across the way have also referred
to. I brought to the attention of some of the witnesses in
committee that I hoped they would try to diminish these internal
trade barriers which really cut down on commerce in the country
and specifically in my constituency of Yukon.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of my
colleague from Yukon. As he indicated, there are ongoing
problems. As I indicated earlier as the representative for
Prince George—Peace River, the Alaska Highway starts in and
travels hundreds of miles throughout my riding before it enters
the riding of the hon. member for Yukon and carries on through to
Alaska. There are some problems with the different regulations,
which he alludes to. I think it is incumbent upon all
territorial and provincial governments, along with the federal
government, to resolve this. The example I used of the one
busload of tourists from Quebec is simply one specific example.
1520
For example, north of Fort Nelson and up toward the Yukon there
are load restrictions in spring, restrictions that really limit
truckers to a very small portion of what otherwise would be a
legal load for their trucks. That raises the cost of produce,
especially fresh produce that obviously all citizens need for a
balanced diet, during the winter months especially. During the
spring road restrictions, the costs of those products go up
correspondingly because the trucks can only haul a portion of
what they could otherwise haul.
I think it really points to a need for, dare I mention it again,
greater investment by governments in the infrastructure and the
road network. The Alaska Highway is one example of where there
is a substantial need for investment.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division stands deferred
until after government orders, later today.
* * *
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here is an
amendment to the anti-money laundering legislation that was
passed by the House a year ago. These amendments spring from a
review of the legislation in great detail by the Senate.
I would like to commend hon. senators for the way in which they
gave the bill a great deal of scrutiny but did not hold up the
passage. They said they would come back and revisit it but would
allow the bill to pass in its original form. I would like to
thank them for the scrutiny they have given it and for the way
that they have expedited the passage, at the same time achieving
a bill that fulfils the purposes and needs.
Money laundering in Canada is anywhere between $5 billion and
$17 billion a year. The bill would fight organized crime and the
proceeds of crime through a mandatory reporting of suspicious
transactions and the reporting of large transfers of money across
borders, which would be carried out by the Financial Transactions
and Reports Analysis Centre. The institutions would report to it
and it will be able to analyze the data. What I think we have
achieved, which may be unique in the world, is that we are
respecting the privacy of individuals and at the same time
fighting crime.
That is the balance we have struck and I believe it is a very
good balance.
1525
I would like to thank all members of the House for their
consideration of the bill and for its speedy passage in the same
manner that they gave speedy passage to the main bill itself one
year ago.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I know that the Liberals are always delighted when I rise in
debate as one of the first three speakers who, according to the
rules, has 40 minutes available.
I did that in debate on Bill S-3, the transportation bill. I
hope that my intervention there will actually result in a ball
starting to roll that will change the laws of the country. I am
hoping for changes to the laws right across the North American
continent so that there will be uniformity, so that there will be
understanding on what the rules are and so that in obeying them
we will save lives. That is the objective.
Now we are speaking about money laundering and the role
government has to play in order to prevent criminal activity on
the part of members of our society who choose to engage in crime.
The motivation of criminal activity is almost always that of
earning money in an illicit fashion, so this money somehow has to
be brought into the system without it being identifiable.
I know that a lot of people in the country have some concerns
about the potential for some day having a cashless society.
Actually I am one of them. It has one interesting feature if we
stop to think about it. If instead of actually having cash in
our wallets, all of us had computer cards that represented cash,
it would of course be easy for people to transact business. It
would really be equivalent. Instead of withdrawing four $20
bills from a bank machine in order to have $80 in cash, I could
simply put my cash card into the machine and ask the machine to
transfer $80 from my chequing account or whatever it is to the
card. When I wanted to purchase something, instead of tendering
$12.38 and then getting change I could simply give my card. The
machine would subtract that from the balance on the card and I
would walk away.
That could be done anonymously. It would be great. However, it
could also be tracked and that in fact is one of the great
objections that many Canadians have to that kind of scheme. There
is genuine concern that if we ever get to that then the term big
brother is watching would take on real meaning. It would mean
that even if we stopped to buy a pop and chocolate bar there
would be evidence that could be hauled out later. Most Canadians
reject that kind of monitoring of our activities, so there are
some problems with it. However, it could be legislated that such
data could be used only in an investigation of criminal activity.
If we had such a scheme, just look at how difficult it would
make it for people who engage in crime. They would somehow,
either through a bank account or through a cash card, have to
force other people to put money into their account in one form or
another. It would be traceable and therefore it would be a lot
easier to put a brake on a lot of criminal activity. I sometimes
think it would be quite hilarious if someone walked into a bank
with a gun, pointed it at the teller and demanded that $30,000 be
transferred to an account. It would hardly be an anonymous
transaction. A person would not get very far before officials
were able to catch up with him and charge him with the
appropriate crime.
That is not what we are talking about today. We are talking
about some other means of tracking financial transactions that
are related to the criminal industry. I have never heard of a
criminal who demands payment by cheque when he or she does
something illegal, because cheques are in fact traceable. It is
called a paper trail.
About 10 years ago when the GST was brought in there was an
awful lot of illegal activity, because in order to avoid the GST
people said they would do renovations to houses or fix cars for a
certain amount provided that they were paid cash and there was no
paper trail.
Then there was no GST and they did not have to declare it on
their income tax. Basically, it was tax free money which meant
they could do it for half the price.
1530
I understand that sometimes they charged three-quarters of the
price, so they basically split the earnings so to speak, but it
was illegal. If Revenue Canada, as it was called at that time,
found out about it, then appropriate actions were taken. However
this was the lack of the paper trail.
How do we get a paper trail on criminal activity? Obviously
these criminals will avoid the paper trail. Bill S-16 is
actually the completion of Bill C-22, which was given assent in
the previous parliament, if I am not mistaken. I do not know if
hon. members will recall, but I believe that was the bill that
eliminated the $1,000 bill. It is much more difficult for large
amounts of money to be transacted if people literally have to
have truckloads of $20 or at the most $100 bills to do the
transaction.
That was also the bill that included some of the measures which
we are talking about today. As the parliamentary secretary said
now there are some refinements being made. I would like to say a
few things about them.
First, how long can this information be retained? The bill is
amending the new organization called the Financial Transactions
and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, commonly called FINTRAC.
If financial organizations transact a large amount of money in
cash they are required to report it. Those financial
institutions, like banks or credit unions, will report their
transactions to FINTRAC.
This raised a number of questions. As I said, how long can the
centre retain this information? For example, if I went to my
bank and deposit $50,000 in cash, and maybe $50,000 is not very
much money to some members but it sure is to me and my friends,
people might wonder how I got it. They might wonder if I got it
through some illicit operation. However, that would never
happen. In case someone else did something like that, the
financial institution would report the cash deposit. If I
reported it, FINTRAC would then have the obligation to look at
it. If it was suspicious it would turn it over to the law
enforcement agencies for investigation.
Let us say that I am investigated and there was nothing wrong.
The institution would have his information. How long would the
centre retain the information it collects? Bill S-16 deals with
that. It says that the information reported to them cannot be
kept more than five years. If it is transmitted onward to the
law enforcement agencies, then the information can be keep for
eight years but no longer, in which case that information must be
deleted from all computer files and all paper files must be
destroyed.
When and how will it dispose of that information? That is also
in this particular bill, as I have just indicated. What
information may the centre disclose to law enforcement
authorities? That is another very important question because the
original bill just said similar information and it was left
undefined. Similar to what? One thing this bill does is to
insert only one word in one of the clauses.
It inserts the word identifying information. In other words, a
certain amount of information such as name and address can be
included. The information which it is entitled to keep and
transmit must be identifying information in terms of the
suspicion, or the details of the transaction itself or the
identification of the individual. It cannot go on a wild goose
chase.
1535
Clause 3 of the bill deals with the jurisdiction of the courts.
There is always a problem with this. If a government agency has
the right to do something and I disagree with it, can I appeal?
That was not clear in the original act. This clause in the bill
will clarify this and allow courts to have jurisdiction over any
disputes.
What happens if an agent from the centre feels that it is
information which could lead to a criminal charge? Does he or
she give it to the law enforcement agency without any
accountability? The fact of the matter is we are dealing with
people who may be innocent.
We want to do as much as we can to find evidence against those
kinds of individuals, convict those who are guilty and bring them
to justice. At the same time, however, we do know if many people
are charged with certain activities of which they are not guilty.
They should be able to defend themselves.
The issue of the courts is one thing. Another is that any
information which is deemed eligible to be reported, cannot be
reported without the person first being given the opportunity to
contact a lawyer. One may wonder why, if it involves an
accountant for example.
At the present time accountants do not have the solicitor-client
privilege that pertains to the legal profession. That person
could refuse to give information and decide to withhold it as
being client privilege. The person now would not be required to
give that information without first having the opportunity to
contact a lawyer who could look at it, then on behalf of the
client say it was client-professional privilege, and he could
take it. This is a safeguard which should be included in order
to protect those people who are innocent and, to a degree,
protect the process so the person who is guilty cannot get off on
the technicality that his or her rights were abused. That is a
very important clause.
I thought it would be useful for members of the House and for
anyone else who happens to be observing the debate today to know
a little more detail about Bill S-16. It is a bill which
strengthens the money laundering legislation in Canada so those
people who are involved in criminal activity can be correctly
identified and brought to justice. I support this bill.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on the third
reading of Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) Act.
On June 29, 2000, Bill C-22, or the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act received royal assent. The purpose of this
statute is to make it easier to prevent money laundering of the
proceeds of crime by creating a financial transactions and
reports analysis centre responsible for gathering, managing,
analyzing and distributing reports of suspicious operations and
any other pertinent information.
In fact, the inauguration of a mechanism for the reporting of
suspicious transactions and major transborder capital transfers,
as provided for in Bill C-22, was in response to the problems
raised by the financial action group against money-laundering.
1540
This would be a good opportunity to point out that the Bloc
Quebecois had supported this government initiative, out of a
concern to protect the Quebec population from the calamity
represented by organized crime. Moreover, in order to make
money laundering more inconvenient, the Bloc Quebecois were the
ones behind the withdrawal of $1,000 bills and the requirement
for banks and other financial institutions to report any
suspicious financial transaction involving $10,000 or more in
cash.
Before I go further, money laundering may be defined as follows.
It is the process by which the proceeds of crime are converted
into assets whose origins are difficult to trace. Despite all,
we know that 70% of the money laundered in Canada is drug money.
The remaining 30% comes from activities as varied as under the
table gaming, tobacco and alcohol smuggling, fraud,
counterfeiting and petty computer and telecommunications crime.
As we know, money is the sinews of war, and the one waged by the
authorities against organized crime is no exception.
Internationally, proceeds from crime entering the financial
market represents hundreds of billions of dollars.
So, considering that the prime motivator behind organized crime
is lucre, and here I am speaking of huge sums quickly pocketed,
the confiscation of such laundered proceeds hurts a lot more
than the usual sanctions of fines and prison terms.
Legitimate or not, every business aims at making a net profit.
By way of example, let us look at a business whose activities
are on the up and up. Suppose that for some reason or other
the business is taken to court and for purposes of discussion,
let us imagine that at the end of the trial it is sentenced to
pay a fine or to pay damages. Of course, the business will feel
it but this comes with the territory.
The same holds true for organized crime.
A jail sentence or a fine is among the inherent risks associated
with criminal activities. However, by depriving an organization
of its most profound motivation, we destroy the directly
proportional relation that exists between the risks and the
benefits. So, getting our hands on that organization's assets
will weaken it from an economical and moral point of view. In
other words, we must show that, indeed, crime does not pay.
Even though it does not at all change the substance of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, Bill S-16 does address
some issues raised during the hearings held on Bill C-22 by the
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The
four changes included in the bill should address the following
issues.
How long will the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis
Centre of Canada keep the information that it collects? When and
how will it dispose of the information that it will have
gathered? What information can the centre transmit to law
enforcement bodies? Will the federal court have the power to
order the centre to transmit the file of an individual under the
Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act? Finally, who
is authorized to make a claim of solicitor-client privilege?
We must ask ourselves if Bill S-16 adequately addresses these
concerns, and this is what we are going to do.
First, we can say that clause 1 responds satisfactorily to the
first two questions raised before the standing Senate committee.
This amendment sets out the circumstances justifying the
maximum retention period of eight years for reports and all
information.
This retention period shall be enforced when the centre forwards
information either to law enforcement authorities or to the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Security and
Intelligence Service, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, an agency in a foreign state or an international
organization with a mandate similar to the centre's.
Moreover, the addition of paragraph (e) to section 54 of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act provides that each
report received and all information received or collected shall
be destroyed on the expiry of the applicable period.
This paragraph therefore adds certain necessary clarifications
regarding the duration of retention and the destruction of
information.
1545
Similarly, with the addition of the term identifying information
in paragraph 55(7)(e), the purpose of which is to clarify to what
the information is similar, the second clause of Bill S-16 thus
responds to the third question. The purpose of this amendment
is to clarify that the identifying information in question is
that found in paragraphs (a) to (d).
In our view, this clarification was not needed since paragraph 2(e)
is interrelated to the previous ones. But since this is a
catch-all paragraph, I guess someone felt the need to make this
clarification which does not change anything to the original
provision. If this amendment can clarify things for some people,
great.
With respect to the fourth question, clause 3 of Bill S-16 was
drafted because initially the federal court was not allowed to
make an order for disclosure. In fact, such an order could only
be made pursuant to subsection 60(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act.
The amendment ensures that no provision in this legislation can
prevent the federal court from ordering the director of the
centre to disclose information under the Access to Information
Act and the Privacy Act. It seems that it was always intended for
the federal court to enjoy this authority, which will now be
clearly stipulated in clause 3 of Bill S-16.
With this amendment, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering)
Act will now give the federal court some judicial control over
the disclosure of information.
As for the fourth clause, as we mentioned at second reading, it
certainly would have been possible to word it to make it easier
to understand. Unfortunately, it was not, and we have to live
with it.
In addition, following the explanations we were provided with at
the Standing Committee on Finance, we believe that, even if this
amendment answers our fifth question about who could invoke the
solicitor-client privilege, it seems that it does not deal with
the concerns that led to its drafting.
Before the Senate committee, accountants maintained that they
have very high standards of confidentiality to meet, just like
any lawyer.
Consequently, they say that they should also be allowed to claim
solicitor-client privilege. However, clause 4 of the bill
responds only partially to this demand. An accountant or any
other person, other than a lawyer, cannot personally claim
solicitor-client privilege.
Indeed, the protection of documents in the possession of a
person who is not a lawyer depends on the involvement of such a
legal counsel in the matter under investigation. Therefore, the
possibility of claiming solicitor-client privilege remains
restricted to the lawyer.
How does this work in practical terms? First, the client gives a
legal mandate to a lawyer.
I must insist on the fact that the nature of the mandate is
crucial because a lawyer who would act as business adviser could
not claim solicitor-client privilege.
In fulfilling his or her mandate, the lawyer may work jointly
with other professionals, such as an accountant for example.
Having doubts regarding the legality of the activities conducted
by the client, the authorities decide to investigate. The person
authorized to conduct the search will not be able to examine the
documents handed over to the accountant by the lawyer.
Therefore, it is through the lawyer, the only person who can
claim solicitor-client privilege, that the documents in the
possession of the accountant will remain confidential.
In this context, it would be fair to think that, in order to
enjoy absolute protection, money launderers will systematically
go to a lawyer first, who will hand the documents over to the
appropriate professionals.
1550
Yet the situation is not as simple as it may appear. Even if
the solicitor-client confidentiality required of the lawyer at
this time provides considerable guarantees of confidentiality,
this is not an absolute concept but one subject to a number of
conditions and restrictions, which I will not list in the context
of today's debate.
When an individual or organization involved in money laundering
requires the services of any professional with a view to
facilitating the perpetration of a crime, regardless of whether
or not a lawyer was involved, the seized documents cannot be
protected by solicitor-client privilege.
In short, this amendment adds nothing new to the present
situation, in that it merely codifies existing principles which
have long
been in place under common law. The concept of solicitor-client
privilege therefore remains exclusive to the performance of the
duties of a lawyer.
This notion can, moreover, be extended to other persons when
their services have been retained by a lawyer, in order to enable
him or her to meet the obligations of his or her mandate as a
lawyer.
Under these circumstances, one might say that the
solicitor-client privilege is not a right transmittable to a
third party. It is instead a real right involving transmitted
documents which, as the bottom line, are the purview of the
lawyer.
We believe that the law will meet the objective of this
provision, that is to ensure that specialized professionals such
as lawyers and accountants cannot act as accomplices to the money
laundering mechanism.
As we have already stated, Bill S-16 ought to respond to five
very specific questions raised before the Senate committee.
Despite the fact that accountants do not really enjoy the same
privileges of client confidentiality as lawyers, we still
consider that Bill S-16 effectively addresses all these issues.
Obviously, as we supported the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act and as the four clauses the present debate
addresses are intended simply to clarify the intent of the
provisions they amend, we will also vote in favour of Bill S-16.
However, we wish to point out to this House that we are
supporting the government today for the same reasons we became
involved in the introduction of new coercive measures.
We are satisfied these measures will enable the authorities to
more effectively fight organized crime and therefore to ensure
the safety of Quebecers.
In addition, it is unfortunate that the people of Quebec must
once again put their faith in the goodwill of a federal government,
which, more often than not, does what it likes when it comes to
resolving problems that, despite their application to Quebec
society specifically, fall under the jurisdiction of the federal
government because of the distribution of jurisdictions, which
gives it exclusive jurisdiction in matters of criminal law.
It is therefore appropriate to mention that this dependency will
be eliminated with a sovereign Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her remarks. She
obviously grasps the importance and the relevance of this issue
at this time in Canada.
In response to concerns raised by the Senate banking committee
and the important efforts and work it did in that regard, we see
Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act, coming
forward to legislate in the areas of solicitor-client privilege,
the disclosure of information and records retention.
I should indicate at the outset that I had intended to split my
time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants. Subject to his
arrival I may just carry on.
Money laundering, as we all know and are very aware, is the
process by which criminals attempt to conceal profits earned from
crime so that the money looks as if it came from very legitimate
sources. It is literally an attempt to clean dirty cash. It is
also an attempt to hide or cover up the illegal means and sources
from which the money originated. Typically it involves vices
such as extortion, prostitution, illegal gambling, drugs and
other contraband.
The particular legislation is aimed at attempting to track the
origins of the money and to get at the source itself.
1555
The legislation speaks of abilities to trace the origins of
money because the origins themselves are those which are most
often concealed and erased. If the money is successfully covered
up, it can then be used to buy goods and services the way any
other type of cash or exchange takes place.
It is estimated that somewhere between $5 billion and $17
billion in money from nefarious sources is laundered in Canada
each year. I do not mean to put too fine a point on it but that
sort of vague estimate indicates the size of the black market out
there. It is very disturbing. Exact figures are very difficult
to come by in that regard.
Obviously the black market is thriving in Canada. It is
straight profit that is hidden from Revenue Canada and from
government generally. The money is very often shifted between
countries, financial institutions and investment brokerages
without a paper trace that would allow law enforcement to get to
the source or to get to the origins. The more complex and
convoluted the trail, the more difficult to trace, eventually
prosecute and bring to justice those involved in money
laundering.
It is fair to say it is a world problem against which even the
world's most powerful nations struggle. For example, Vladimir
Putin, the Russian president, just last week held a conference on
money laundering in St. Petersburg. He outlined efforts to crack
down on the global illegal industry and the expansion of this
industry in Russia. Russia is currently a member of the FATF's
blacklist of nations because of its money laundering legislation,
or lack thereof, which does not meet international standards.
We do not want this to happen in our country. That is why it is
encouraging to all that the legislation is before us now. We
must ensure our global partners and neighbours, not to mention
our citizenry, that we are doing everything in our power to
address and confront this problem.
Corruption is a growing problem in Canada and most countries
recognize this point. They recognize the fact that it is very
diverse and takes many forms just like legitimate industries. Any
effort aimed at curtailing this type of underground economy and
outsourcing of money from illegal means is where we should be
focusing our attention. The magnitude and the reach of this
problem are staggering.
Canada has come under heavy criticism in recent years as being
an easy place for criminal organizations to launder their money.
Our biggest ally, the United States, has sent signals which
clearly indicate that we are leaving our neighbours to the south
open and more vulnerable to criminal activity respecting money
laundering because of a failing security system in our country.
The lack of resources contributes to that. The lack of
government support whether it be through funding or innovation
indicates to members of our law enforcement community that in
many instances their government is not behind them.
The response has been legislation such as Bill S-16, albeit
late. Bill C-22 originally imposed new reporting and record
keeping requirements and created financial transactions in the
reports analysis centre of Canada to receive and analyse
information. Bill C-22 was the predecessor for the legislation
before us. It died on the order paper when the pre-emptive and
very opportunistic election was called.
The banks would be required by law to adhere to a new reporting
regime that would be put in place over the next year. It would
help reorganize and report dubious transactions. It would
present banks with the obligation to act upon information of
which they might be in possession and report where there is a
suspicion of organized crime activity. It is clearly there to
try to unveil and unmask efforts by organized crime to use
financial institutions such as our major banks and other
financial institutions for illegal purposes.
A failure to report would result in certain sanctions. Those
sanctions include fines of up to $2 million and five years
incarceration. Therefore, this reporting scheme does have some
teeth.
1600
Concerns have been expressed however about the privacy and the
disclosure of certain information. Those were voiced by the
privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association and other
groups.
The Senate banking committee looked at the bill in June of 2000
and felt that there were numerous flaws and areas where it could
have been improved. The government at that time was unwilling to
entertain amendments to the legislation because it was late in
June and the House of Commons was going to recess. We know that
at this time of year ironically we are facing a similar attitude
on the part of government.
However, the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions gave a written undertaking to the committee that
certain changes would be made in a new bill to be introduced in
the fall. Those changes formed the substance of Bill S-30,
introduced in October of 2000. This bill was identical to the
bill we see before us and it went beyond those changes agreed to
in the letter from the secretary of state.
The Senate banking committee reported the bill with the
observation that the government should have given consideration
to other amendments that would further ensure that
solicitor-client privilege was protected by adding the phrase law
office in any clause where the term dwelling house appeared.
Second, the first annual review should be held after three years
not after five years as was indicated in the original
legislation. We find far too often that we are becoming very
slack in our review process that was initially intended to ensure
that the bill was living up to the breadth, width and intention.
Third and finally, it would require regulations under the act to
be tabled before a committee of each House of parliament. Sadly,
this bill does not include those further changes that were
recommended by the committee.
The Law Society of Upper Canada has asked for the deference of
the worst sections of this legislation. In many legal circles
around the country court action against the federal government is
not only being discussed but is being planned. This has happened
time and time again. It is a given that with legislation such as
this, and Bill C-24 is another bill, the lawyers are already
writing the briefs, and the games will begin as soon as this law
comes into being.
This bill will focus on the following legal aspects of this
particular legislation. Solicitor-client privilege is one, which
I mentioned previously. Where as Bill C-22 only dealt with
instances where there was solicitor-client privilege involving
legal counsel, Bill S-16 now clarifies that the officials of the
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre may not
examine or copy documents that might be subject to a claim of
solicitor-client privilege where the document is in the hands of
someone else until a reasonable opportunity has been made for
that person to contact legal counsel. This responds to concerns
raised by the Certified General Accountants Association of
Canada.
It is very much akin to the situation we see with the
information commissioner in Canada who would like to examine the
Prime Minister's agenda books. He would hold that information in
privacy and counsel and determine its relevance to the
individuals who have requested disclosure. It follows a
longstanding tradition that allows judges to determine relevance
and admissibility of certain information. So we support that
particular initiative.
Privacy under Bill S-16 will also allow individuals or the
privacy commissioner to take the Financial Transactions and
Reports Analysis Centre to court if they are denied access by the
centre.
This legislation has come under some criticism in the banking
committee because the bill creates onerous and very involved new
responsibilities. In fact, Margaret Beare, one of Canada's
leading experts on organized crime, recently stated that the new
legislation requiring banks to report suspicious transactions was
contradictory to some of the banks' principles, mainly that they
would be making a profit and reacting to customers' wishes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. It was understood that you would split your
time with your colleague. Before going to your colleague, there
are five minutes for questions or comments.
1605
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member speak and quite
clearly he is not finished his notes. My question is very
simple. What else does he have to say?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
hon. colleague for his intervention. It does allow me to
continue just momentarily with my remarks.
There were concerns with respect to the discrepancies over what
would constitute a suspicious transaction, which again led to
concerns that were expressed by Ms. Beare. There was also
indication that certain levels of the banking sector had problems
within their computer system or their system of reporting that
would also leave them vulnerable by not being able to live up to
the expectation of reporting. They would have an inability to
monitor the type of monetary transactions that may be taking
place on an ongoing basis, that was they could do so perhaps over
a sustained period of time. However, as we all know, these
transactions often occur in a very short time span.
Ms. Beare expressed a concern that lack of follow-up from police
in some instances posed a considerable obstacle.
As is often the case with catching criminals, it is the slip-ups
and lack of sophistication on their part that very often leads to
the arrest. However the legislation I would suggest moves in the
right direction in terms of arming those in the financial sector
to combat the very sophisticated and often very complicated and
nefarious means by which those who are trying to launder their
money will engage. Otherwise those who play the game very well
continue to thrive despite our best efforts. We have to
obviously strive regardless.
On that note, I will turn over the floor to my colleague from
Kings—Hants. I know that as a member of the finance committee
he has made significant contributions to this and other bills. I
know that all members will be riveted to their seats when the
hon. member for Kings—Hants assumes the floor.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
for his erudite comments.
The issue of money laundering is one that no Canadian should
underestimate. The fact that the estimates range between a $5
billion problem to as high as a $20 billion problem speaks
volumes about the degree to which we really do not have a very
good handle on the scale of the problem. What we do realize is
its impact on facilitating and enabling organized crime in any
range of applications, whether it is in particular on the side of
the narcotics trade, is significant.
We should also not underestimate the degree to which significant
resources are needed to fighting money laundering. In recent
years we have seen an exponential increase in the range and
complexity of financial vehicles available to criminals.
When we talk about organized crime, we are not talking about
underfunded agencies. We are talking about some of the most
sophisticated, well funded groups in the world with international
linkages and the economies of scale to attract and to invest in
the very best technologies. That is why, whatever we do in terms
of new agencies and new approaches to money laundering, we have
to ensure that the funds are committed to our RCMP and our
enforcement capabilities. Otherwise all that will occur is the
government will take baby steps in the right direction but really
not achieve the goals of reducing the incidents of organized
crime and money laundering, which should of course be the goal of
the legislation.
The government has had a terrible record of underfunding, the
RCMP for instance. Clearly while new agencies and new approaches
might be helpful, if they are underfunded, it will not achieve
the goals that the government has attached to this legislation.
1610
We have some concerns relative to issues of privacy and the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough articulated some of
those concerns. It is important as well to ensure that the new
agency's mandate and efforts are separated assiduously from those
of the Canada Customs and Revenue Canada Agency. If the customs
and revenue agency sees evidence of money laundering, it may be
appropriate to refer some cases to this new agency to deal with
money laundering.
That being the case, what we want to avoid in those cases where
this agency has not found sufficient evidence of money laundering
but may find some evidence relative to inappropriate behaviours
relative to one's taxes, is the agency to result in a souped-up
Revenue Canada to sink its teeth a little deeper into the ankles
of Canadian taxpayer.
The issues of enforcement, and particularly the onus being
placed on financial institutions, will be one that will be very
difficult from an enforcement perspective and from a privacy
perspective. We have to be awfully careful in this regard that a
significant level of education occurs at the outset and that our
financial institutions are prepared on a consistent basis
throughout various financial institutions and throughout a branch
of networks to carry out the mandate of this legislation. I
suggest to the government that this will be a significant
challenge and that the government has to be prepared.
The government has to be prepared to invest significantly in
technologically driven approaches to deal with money laundering.
Again, we are not dealing with amateurs. These are not
underfunded agencies and local yokels who are doing a bit of
criminal activities and do not really have the resources to carry
on their activities. The government is fighting some of the best
funded organizations in the world.
I would argue that we need to engage other countries more
actively than we are right now in a co-operative effort.
Clearly, money laundering and electronic transfers of money do
not recognize borders, particularly if one were to consider just
for a moment the impact of even the Interac system and its impact
on the ability to launder money, to hide transactions and to
break really large transactions into a multitude of smaller ones.
I am sure many of us in the House use online banking sometimes
and I would suggest all of us probably use our bank cards.
However, consider in the wrong hands and with nefarious motives
what extraordinarily powerful tools the Interac system and online
banking are. These are the simplest consumer available
technologies of which we are aware. We are not even considering
some of the extraordinarily powerful technologies being used in
the mysterious world of arbitrage and currency trading.
If we are not very careful to ensure the necessary resources are
committed to this fight, then we are sending this new agency, our
RCMP and others into battle with pellet guns which will not be in
the long term interest of the effort to reduce the incidence of
money laundering and organized crime.
1615
Accountability is of real importance. There is concern about
the growing trend toward agencies which the government has pushed
in recent years. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the
new money laundering agencies are not very accountable.
We must ensure, particularly in areas of privacy, that we do not
create agencies that are able to run roughshod over the rights of
Canadians. At the same time, however, agencies must have the
resources and ability to do their jobs. It is a balancing act. I
hope the government has a good understanding of what it will be
up against with the new agency.
We must invest properly and make sure the accountability is
there to protect ordinary, law-abiding Canadians. However
resources must also be committed to ensuring Canadians who do not
take the law seriously, who participate in money laundering and
globally powerful organized crime networks, are caught and dealt
with.
Those are some of our concerns. The legislation, like so much
of the government's legislation, represents a baby step in the
right direction. However given the power of organized crime
globally and the resources available to it, we are taking baby
steps in the right direction while the forces we battle are
taking gigantic leaps. We are not making the progress we should
be making in this place to ensure that money laundering and
organized crime are dealt with effectively in Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today is a special day in the House. We are debating
three bills that were introduced in the Senate. Bill S-16 is the
third of the Senate originated bills we are debating today. It
is also a special debate in the sense that the government side
seems not to be participating. It made a token one or two minute
speech and said we should get on with it.
Issues like this should be dealt with by giving considerably
more attention to detail. I commend the member who just spoke.
He was talking, particularly toward the end of his speech, about
the government taking timid steps in the right direction but
perhaps not doing enough. Would he like to enlarge on some of
his ideas with respect to money laundering and the curtailing of
criminal activity in Canada?
As precisely as possible, what further and stronger measures
would he propose to prevent Canada from becoming a haven for
money laundering activities by criminal organizations?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Elk Island, a colleague of mine on the House of Commons
finance committee, for his intervention.
First, we should not underestimate the importance of resources.
We must make an adequate commitment of resources to our law
enforcement agencies in this regard. The task at hand has grown
exponentially more complicated and difficult. Yet there has been
no commensurate increase in resources to deal with it. In a
general sense the resources must be committed. They have not
been to date.
Second, in a more specific sense we must work with the very best
technologies available to deal with the problem. Clearly these
are technologically driven problems. The challenge is to ensure
we have the tools to effectively deal with them.
Third, we need greater interaction and engagement with the
private sector agencies that will ultimately be acting on the
enforcement side. There should be engagement with the Canadian
financial services sector. Such engagement should take place
while the measures are being put together and not after the fact.
It should ensure the sector's commitment is a realistic one, not
one imposed by a government with little understanding of the
logistics of enforcement at the grassroots financial services
sector level.
1620
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague opposite for his comments but point out that this is
the second time I have been up in less than half an hour. It is
not true that we are not participating in the debate.
I thank him for raising the good point that three bills have
started in the Senate. In a bicameral system every bill must go
through both houses. If all bills started in the Senate the
House of Commons would sit around for a week with nothing to do
until something was passed, and vice versa if they all started
here.
I thank the hon. member for congratulating those who brought
forward the improvement of splitting bills so that both houses
could work on them. If the Senate could remove some of the fine
details in its extensive committee consultations we would not
have to worry about them and would have an even better bill when
we got it.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a more
eloquent plea from a member on the Liberal side for a seat in the
Senate. I suggest he make that plea on an individual basis to
the Prime Minister. I wish him luck in his quest for a
senatorial appointment.
I agree with the member that a significant amount of valuable
work is done in the other place on legislation like this one.
This House, the lower House, benefits from the work of many of
our senators, particularly at the committee level where there is
a significant level of expertise and talent.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to have the full attention
of the government House leader. The Canadian Alliance, as my
colleague has indicated, will support Bill S-16 which comes to us
essentially as legislative amendments the Senate has sought to
Bill S-22. I echo the concern of my colleague from Elk Island
about the growing practice under the current government of
initiating legislation in the other place.
However I would also highlight that Senate committees, in
particular the Senate banking committee in this instance, do good
work. Frankly they pay more attention to the details of
legislation of this nature than do some of our own committees.
The bill deals with the proceeds of crime, otherwise known as
money laundering. I rise to make the point as finance critic for
the opposition that Canada's laws with respect to proceeds of
crime are unfortunately not as robust as they ought to be. Other
jurisdictions have taken far more significant legislative steps
to plug loopholes which allow those who benefit from proceeds of
crime to secrete assets in Canada.
I also second the remarks of my colleague from Kings—Hants who
pointed out that although we have a legislative framework to deal
with the proceeds of crime, we do not provide nearly sufficient
resources to law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws.
In particular, the proceeds of crimes division or white collar
crime division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is
constrained by quite finite resources. This means major
fraudsters have pretty significant resources at their disposal.
These people benefit from tens, sometimes hundreds of millions
of dollars of defrauded moneys and assets. They can afford the
very best legal advice, lawyers, financial advice and accountants
to hide their illegally gained assets and launder them so they
become ostensibly legal funds. This is because police simply do
not have sufficient resources to combat the problem on a large
scale in Canada.
1625
Consequently, victims of commercial crime increasingly are
turning to lawyers to pursue civil remedies. That is a concern.
I want to raise in the debate the need to consider giving,
through our laws, greater latitude to victims of fraud to pursue
civil remedies in court. In many Canadian jurisdictions it is
difficult, if not impossible, for victims of fraud to
collectively pursue so-called class action cases against
fraudsters.
The legal framework in the United States allows for fairly
robust civil remedies. For instance, when a telemarketing scam
defrauds thousands of American seniors, they can put together a
class action suit. They can find and hire skilled lawyers to
investigate, track laundered assets, seek and in many instances
obtain judgments against fraudsters, and restore defrauded moneys
to the people to whom they rightfully belong.
In many Canadian jurisdictions similar remedies are not
available. Individual victims of fraud are not able to
collectively pool their resources and pursue legal remedies. In
Canada police do not have the resources or advanced legal
expertise to pursue money laundering cases, and affected
individuals cannot collectively join together to finance the
expensive investigatory and legal work required to pursue these
cases. I raise this as an important point.
We need to join growing international efforts to stamp out money
laundering. Literally billions of dollars are laundered in and
through the Canadian economy every year. Multiple billions of
dollars of assets in Canada belong to criminals indirectly and
are controlled by criminals. Our police forces do not have the
resources or expertise to fully trace the laundering process and
restore justice to victims of fraudulent activity. Our legal
framework limits the remedies available to those people.
I raise this as a matter of concern. I invite the government to
revisit the issue in a broader perspective to find out how we can
amend laws to be more clearly in compliance with the growing
international intolerance of money laundering. I invite the
government to find out how we can give more powerful civil
remedies to victims of fraud. Finally, I invite the government
to find out how we can better equip the RCMP and other police
services across the country to plug loopholes, track down
fraudulent and laundered assets and enforce the law to protect
the tens of thousands of Canadians who are the unwitting victims
of fraudulent scams.
I invite the government to consider all these things. However
we in the Canadian Alliance Party will be supporting the bill.
1630
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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 St. John's West, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak
on third reading of this very important bill, Bill C-24. The
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has reported the
bill to us with only a few changes. The bill deserves to be sent
to the Senate without delay. We know that police and prosecutors
need better tools to fight organized crime and criminal gains.
The bill is important because fighting organized crime is a key
part of ensuring safer communities and that is why the government
tabled the bill.
We know that the actions of organized criminals are felt across
the country and around the world. They are at the heart of
serious social problems like illegal drug use and organized
prostitution. Telemarketing, Internet and credit card fraud cost
victims thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, and
stolen cars from Canadian communities end up around the world to
feed illegal markets. Sometimes the costs are not obvious but
the impacts and costs are real and they often can be very
significant.
This is why the new definition of a criminal organization in the
bill targets those who seek “material benefit, including a
financial benefit”, through crime. These new provisions would
allow police and prosecutors to target the professional criminal
at the heart of so many of the criminal problems that we face. In
addition, the three new offences in the bill related to the
criminal organizations would further help us to focus on those
who lead gangs, those who participate in offences to benefit
criminal organizations and those who participate in order to
enhance the criminal organization's ability such as recruiting
youth or others into gang activities.
These tools are what the RCMP, other police forces and
provincial governments have told us that they need to deal with
the organized crime problem today and in the future. The
provisions on intimidation are very important for Canadians and
for the health of our institutions.
Intimidation of witnesses and jurors and criminal justice
officials can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice
process. Likewise we are all aware that parliamentarians and
other legislators can be subject to intimidation. This is
unacceptable in this democratic society. The new offence of
intimidation of a criminal justice system participant would help
us address this threat and take firm action against those who
would seek to undermine our institutions.
The standing committee did amend the bill to include journalists
in these provisions. This is very appropriate. The media are a
very important part of the democratic process and public debate
free of intimidation is crucial.
I would like to note the importance of the provisions in the
bill regarding proceeds of crime. Right now there are a number
of offences in which illegal profits can be seized by police and
ordered forfeited by courts, like drug trafficking or murder.
1635
The bill also expands the range of offences to include almost
all indictable offences. This would mean that police could take
away the proceeds of crime from criminals more effectively.
On the question of protection from criminal liability for law
enforcement officers, the bill would put in place important new
provisions to provide for limited justification for law
enforcement officers. It would allow designated officers, under
strict conditions, to perform for the purposes of investigations
acts and omissions that would otherwise be offences. The supreme
court has recognized that officers operating in good faith may
need to have such powers. It also recognized that it is up to
parliament to provide for them. That is exactly what we do in
Bill C-24.
During the committee hearings on the bill we heard from police
and other witnesses on the need for these provisions. Since the
supreme court's decision two years ago, many investigations have
been affected. It has been felt most strongly in complex
undercover operations against organized crimes. A number of the
operations have had to be suspended, modified or stopped
entirely, but the effect of the decision has not been limited to
organized crime investigations. It also has affected other
operations such as law enforcement purchases of contraband
tobacco and alcohol and counterfeit currency in order to gather
evidence.
Few would dispute that enforcement officers should have the
power to gather this kind of evidence, but the statutory
authority must be put in place. Also, there are serious crimes
outside the area of organized crime where these powers are
needed. Investigations in areas like murder and kidnapping
sometimes require undercover operations where officers must gain
the confidence of their targets before making arrests and
bringing an operation to an end.
The need for the limited justification for the police has been
well established, but the debate on how it should be put in place
has been useful and important. One of the main issues has
involved the question of judicial authorization. It was rightly
pointed out that certain law enforcement powers, like wiretapping
and search provisions, require judicial authorization. However,
it is not appropriate for this law enforcement justification
system. That was made clear during the standing committee
proceedings.
Unlike wiretapping and searches, this system does not involve
precisely defined police actions that can workably be made
subject to prior judicial authorization. As well, the broad
nature of decisions about police operations that a judge would be
asked to make during the investigations themselves would lead to
inappropriate judicial involvement in investigations.
Another important question also raised was whether the limited
law enforcement justification should be restricted to
investigations of organized crime. The effect of the supreme
court decision has not been limited to organized crime
investigations. An appropriate system must recognize this and
provide for the full scope of activities where the justification
is needed.
However, the concern about these powers being used for minor
operations is understandable. The concern is addressed in the
bill. A fundamental requirement of the bill is that the use of
the law enforcement justification must satisfy a condition that
the conduct is “reasonable and proportional” in the
circumstances. Enforcement officers would weigh matters like the
nature of the act or omission that would otherwise be an offence,
the nature of the investigation and the reasonable availability
of other means for carrying out of duties. Failure to respect
this requirement would be serious. The justification would no
longer apply and officers may be subject to criminal liability in
the courts.
There are many other safeguards in the bill. First and foremost
is the role of ministers responsible for policing in designating
those who are eligible for the law enforcement justification.
1640
As solicitor general, I will be responsible for designating
members of the RCMP. This role would provide an important
measure of control and accountability. The designations will be
based on the advice of senior law enforcement officials and
reviewed with them before they are made. They may be subject to
specific conditions. If designations are misused, they will be
taken away. I should also stress that the bill is clear that
this role would not involve ministers in individual
investigations.
Still more safeguards under the bill include: the exclusion of
certain types of conduct such as causing bodily harm, sexual
offences, or the obstruction of justice; the provision for a
public annual report; and the requirement to notify persons whose
property may be lost or seriously damaged.
As I said, if the enforcement officers step outside the
condition of the provisions, they would be subject to criminal
liability in the courts. Officers would remain subject to
internal discipline for unprofessional behaviour or other
misconduct and public complaint mechanisms would continue to
apply.
New provisions added by the committee include: specific
examples of conditions that ministers might apply; clarification
of the requirements on the police agents under the system; and
the requirement for a parliamentary review after three years.
The government supports these changes.
The law enforcement justification under Bill C-24 is not a blank
cheque for law enforcement officers, far from it. It is a
balanced system with strict limits and conditions. It responds
to very real and substantial law enforcement needs. Together
with the other provisions on criminal organizations, intimidation
and proceeds of crime, the bill represents a major step forward
in the public safety agenda.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to do something that does not
happen very often, at least for me, and that is to praise a
government bill. I am actually surprised that Liberals would do
the right thing on this issue. I know it was very difficult for
them given the fact that in committee most of the Liberals had
trouble supporting the bill. In fact, in committee the Canadian
Alliance had to encourage them to do the right thing.
I am pleased to see that the Solicitor General of Canada and the
Minister of Justice have brought the bill forward and have, I
think, moved in the right direction. I would like to thank the
minister for bringing forward this bill as well as the members
who have worked so hard to get this vital legislation before the
House.
Both government and opposition members have taken the proposed
legislation very seriously during the course of debate in
committee work and I am relatively satisfied with what has been
accomplished here to date. At long last we have legislation that
gives the police many of the tools they have been asking for and,
I might add, not simply because the police have been asking for
it. I believe that they have been asking for these tools for
solid public policy reasons.
We have known for years now that our law enforcement officials
are at a severe disadvantage in their efforts to combat organized
crime. We know that sophisticated criminal organizations have
access to virtually unlimited resources, state of the art
technology and unlimited funds, all derived from their illegal
activities, while our police forces are barely getting by.
When the solicitor general indicated that this was not a blank
cheque for the police, it would have been nice of him to say at
least that it would have been a bigger cheque in order to fund
some of these operations. I do not think the police forces
expect a blank cheque in terms of either the legislation or the
funding, but I think an increase in the amount of money available
to conduct this very worthwhile endeavour is of course necessary.
Frontline officers feel that they are fighting a battle without
ammunition.
1645
Bill C-24 is in many ways a long overdue response to a number of
concerns raised over the years by federal, provincial and
municipal law enforcement officials.
My praise is not entirely unqualified. Bill C-24 is a great
step forward but we must not close the book on this issue. We
must continue to ask ourselves as elected representatives what we
can do to ensure that our law enforcement officials have the
necessary tools for keeping Canadians safe and secure in an ever
changing world.
We must recognize that police power must be exercised for the
common good of the public. Police power is certainly a very
important one not simply for itself but for of us to enable
society to proceed and to develop in an orderly fashion.
I echo the comments of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli who said
that Bill C-24 was a work in progress. He said that many of the
amendments in Bill C-24 were absolutely critical, but he hoped
for more work in this area. He hoped that we as parliamentarians
would keep the radar screen alive. The commissioner is all too
aware of the ever changing nature of organized crime and that
these kinds of criminals always seem to be two or three steps
ahead of the law.
Beyond the very real need to continue our legislative work in
the area of our justice system I have to say, as I alluded to
earlier, that I continue to be disappointed with the level of
funding that the government has provided to fight organized
crime. Given the fact that a relatively simple prosecution under
legislation like this could cost up to $10 million or more, the
$200 million over five years the minister has announced is really
a small amount of money.
It seems strange to say that $200 million is a small amount of
money, but when we look at each individual case and the costs
involved, it is a staggering amount. I have had experience in
the provincial sphere of being responsible for the costs and the
administration of those types of cases.
We must make the money available for our police. If we do not,
it does not matter how good the legislation is or how good our
intentions are. If organized crime realizes that frontline
police officers do not have the necessary funding in place, all
of this is for naught, and that would be a disappointment.
During committee testimony on May 10, Toronto city police Chief
Fantino and Winnipeg police Chief Jack Ewatski both indicated
that the new funding they were to receive was insufficient. Chief
Fantino said he felt totally inadequate in his ability to direct
resources away from the day to day pressing issues he had to
contend with. He stated:
I do not have any direct federal funding to help me dedicate the
necessary resources to sustain the very labour-intensive,
difficult work that has to be done in this area to the extent
that we should.
I have to wonder about the $100 million we are putting into a
failed long gun registry. Everybody has acknowledged that the
long gun registry has failed. It is not doing the job and it
will never do it. Yet through blind political allegiance to a
failed idea the Liberal government continues to pump $100 million
into a registry that has not worked and will not work. The only
thing it is doing is destroying the hunting industry and the
tourism industry in my area.
1650
I do not understand it. If we gave that $100 million to
frontline police officers and asked them if they could do better
than the long gun registry, there would not be a police officer
or even a police chief who paid lip service to the long gun
registry who would not say, given that choice, that they would
put it into frontline policing. Why? It is because every police
officer in the country cares about reducing crime and is not
concerned about a failed political agenda.
Directing resources into very complex investigations often puts
tremendous pressure on routine policing operations. Our
frontline police officers are saying that they feel like beggars
trying to find the resources to do the things of national
priority. Because of the lack of resources our municipal forces
may not be able to support additional investigations regardless
of the legislation we pass today.
I urge the minister and the solicitor general to take a look at
areas where we can find existing funding that is not being used
appropriately. If we want to find $100 million today, we can
find it in the failed long gun registry which is making criminals
of ordinary hunters and farmers and destroying tourism and other
industries in constituencies such as mine.
Why will the minister not listen? Why will the minister not do
anything? The answer is simple. The minister would rather spend
$100 million a year than face the political embarrassment of
saying that they have made a mistake and have to find a policy
that will stop criminals.
There has been a fair amount of public debate on certain aspects
of the legislation, particularly in the area of the immunity
provisions for peace officers. I should like to discuss that
briefly because it is a very important topic.
The legislation would not give police officers any additional
rights that they did not enjoy over the last 100 years or so.
They always assumed that they had a measure of protection when
conducting investigations where in certain situations they were
called upon to break the law. That is a very difficult thing for
a police officer or anyone to do. Yet it was a necessary aspect
of carrying out some very delicate operations.
Police chiefs and crown prosecutors knew about it. It was
accepted. It was done in the vast majority of cases in a
responsible manner because police officers knew of their
responsibilities to our citizens. Crown attorneys and police
chiefs who supervised police officers understood it was necessary
but uncomfortable, given the fact that it was a breaking of the
law.
Therefore the legislation sets out in statutory form with clear
criteria the conditions under which this may occur. This is not
granting police officers new powers or new steps that they did
not exercise before. It simply is a response to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
For those concerned about constitutional issues, if one looks at
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and the legislation
in place, I do not think the Supreme Court of Canada was asking
that there be any pre-authorization by judicial figures in this
matter. It simply said that police officers do not enjoy an
immunity in respect of these matters.
1655
If we as a society expect police forces to do the necessary
things on our behalf, we must give them legal sanction to do it.
I liken it a bit to war because when we are dealing with crime we
are at war. In the context of war, our soldiers must do things
that would not be otherwise acceptable in society. Our soldiers
kill on behalf of our country when it is necessary for them to do
so. All of us regret the killing and no one believes that
killing is good. Yet as a civilized society we understand that
at times it will occur and we give police officers that
legislated common law immunity.
In the very same way we are giving our police officers that
immunity, but that immunity is very clearly defined and closely
supervised. It complies in every respect with the concerns of
the Supreme Court of Canada in its judgment in Campbell and
Shirose. Given the nature of undercover operations and general
policing activities, this immunity is essential in continued
efforts in our war against crime and organized crime in
particular.
Despite initial misgivings many concerned people, including a
number of committee members and witnesses, ultimately expressed
support for these provisions in Bill C-24. Provincial and
municipal leaders and law enforcement officials alike have
recognized that there may be concerns regarding the potential for
abuse of these powers that could harm innocent third parties.
However, in light of the fact that criminal organizations have
increased in sophistication to such a degree that police cannot
keep up with them, there is a general consensus that police must
have the ability to conduct undercover operations and reverse
sting operations to make a significant impact in this area. Later
I will talk about innocent third parties because it is an
important issue that the bill overlooks.
After careful consideration of the provisions in Bill C-24
members of the committee as well as a number of witnesses decided
that these concessions were necessary to allow police to carry
out its duties effectively.
Legislation is not always a precise art. I recognize the
difficulties the minister had in weighing some of the concerns on
both sides of the issue. I am satisfied the minister has been
reasonably prudent and careful in ensuring appropriate checks and
balances are provided in the legislation to protect the public.
At the same time these protections are not so overly restrictive
that they would impede police investigations. They would also
provide police protection from prosecution in very specific and
carefully delineated circumstances. I put on record that there
are only clearly delineated circumstances where this authority
can be exercised.
Ultimately by supporting these provisions we have respected the
decisions made by justice department officials who have reviewed
the law, who have considered the Supreme Court of Canada decision
in Campbell and Shirose, who have dealt with police officers on a
day to day basis over the years, and who have listened to the
provincial attorneys general across Canada that are on the
frontline of fighting crime.
1700
However, should these provisions require improvement, an
amendment was passed in committee that would provide yet another
check. With this amendment parliament would now conduct a
mandatory review of the sections in the criminal code dealing
with these provisions every three years.
The three year time frame is appropriate and prudent. If any
concerns arise in the operation of this bill, and I certainly
hope that is not the case at least in respect of substantive
concerns, in three years we will be here to review the matter and
make appropriate corrections. We should not leave it for the
next group of members to fix any problems that might arise.
While many of us recognize that the legislation may not be
perfect, our support for these provisions stems from the fact
that the safety and security of Canadians continues to be a
considerable risk as a result of criminal activity, and citizens
want protection by our police who they understand must be
governed by reasonable laws and reasonable conditions. Generally
speaking, the bill reflects that reasonableness.
I was also pleased to see that the minister took the suggestion
from the Canadian Alliance to include provincial leaders in the
list of justice system participants, thereby extending to them
additional protection against intimidation from criminal
organizations. That protection must be recognized given that
they, even much more than many of us, are involved in the front
lines of fighting organized crime.
The minister took this one step further and added municipal
leaders to the list, and I commend her for that initiative.
I would also like to thank my colleague from the Bloc from
Berthier—Montcalm who brought forth an amendment to extend this
protection to journalists as well. We are all aware of the
important role that journalists play in our society. They are
fundamental to free speech in a democratic society and as a part
of the exercise of free speech, they are engaged in the fight
against organized crime.
As a number of recent cases demonstrate, journalists who serve
the public interest by reporting on organized crime are very much
in need of and deserve enhanced protection under our criminal
law.
I want to briefly deal with the concern that I raised in
committee and which, unfortunately, the committee voted against.
I introduced an amendment that would have ensured the right for
innocent third parties to sue for damages that were caused by a
peace officer carrying out his or her duties.
I was disappointed that the amendment was defeated, since it was
a very worthwhile amendment that deserved our consideration. The
main thrust of the amendment was that a private, law-abiding
citizen should not be penalized if his or her property was
destroyed in the course of a police investigation or action, even
when the police were acting in the context of the authority of
this proposed legislation.
Some of the members in committee said that it was a matter for
provincial rights because they dealt with civil property and
civil rights under section 92 of the Canada Act, 1867. That is
not entirely correct. What in fact we may be doing is granting
an immunity from civil process by this section. I simply wanted
that amendment, given the priority of criminal law when it comes
into conflict with the property and civil rights, as a matter of
clarification so every that judge was assured that this
legislation would not interfere with property and civil rights
and that the innocent third parties would still have the right to
sue where their property was damaged.
1705
If we expect our citizens to co-operate in this fight, the least
we can do is compensate them for any damage that they might
suffer as a result of police actions. Although the amendment was
not supported in committee, it is an important issue to consider
for the future.
The bill is a very important step forward, but I express the
concern that there is a lack of funding. I hope the justice
minister will ask her colleagues to consider allocating to our
police forces and to frontline police officers, the funding they
so desperately need.
I certainly hope she will be open to consider future amendments
to the criminal code that will further streamline our justice
system. We have made great gains with Bill C-24 but we must not
become complacent. We need to continually revisit this issue in
order to combat organized crime effectively at a national level
and to offer all Canadians the greatest possible protection from
this kind of criminal activity.
I also want to stress that this bill is an example where all
parties in the House can move together. Yes, we might disagree
on certain aspects, but I think that the disagreements were
relatively minor. What I appreciated about dealing with this
bill was that I did not feel that there was an underlying
political agenda to embarrass one political party or another.
I wish the minister would take the goodwill she has earned and
the good work she has done on the bill and turn that goodwill and
that good work to Bill C-15, where I think the most crass Liberal
politics is at work. That is very unfortunate.
Government members have placed together child protection laws,
firearms long gun registry laws and treatment of animal laws into
one bill. Of course we know what the politics behind it are.
They want us as opposition members to vote against the bill, then
they will come into my riding and say that I did not like
children, or that I did not want the protection for children, or
that I did not want police officers to have additional protection
and therefore I voted against the disarming of police officer
section, or that I did not want to see an increase for penalties
for home invasion so I voted against the bill.
In fact government members know what the truth is. They knew
that we could not support amendments to the gun registry, which
is sending $100 million a year literally down the toilet. That
and that is why they put it all into one bill. They knew that
people in my riding, hard-working farmers and those involved in
the animal husbandry industry, in food production, in livestock
and otherwise, had legitimate concerns about the treatment of
animals laws. What did they do to avoid discussion? They put
it all into one bill.
If I ask my colleagues to vote for the bill, because we want to
protect children, or we want to create an offence of home
invasion or at least increase the penalties in that respect, then
they will go to my constituents and say that I flip-flopped on
Bill C-68 and now voted for provisions of long gun registry. They
may say that I do not care about the livestock industry because I
voted for the treatment of animal sections that may imperil their
livelihood.
1710
The people of my riding work hard. They are an industrious
people. Yet government legislation has destroyed their
livelihood in respect of the hunting industry. It has destroyed
their livelihood in respect of tourism. Political pride, nothing
less, prevents the government from standing up and saying it made
a mistake and can we work together to fix that problem.
I want the members opposite to know that on Bill C-15, I am
prepared to work in the same open way that members of the
opposition, regardless of party, worked to get Bill C-24 through
to protect our people. I would be willing to do that with Bill
C-15. Why will Liberals not do it? Political pride.
I would ask the minister to reconsider her position, look at the
good she has done here, take that good and put it to use in terms
of the political mileage she has gained now on this bill and do
the right thing, which is split Bill C-15.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
VOTE 1—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the main
estimates which were tabled in the House on Tuesday, February 27,
2001, and which have recently been returned from committee
studies and are to be concurred in tomorrow.
My point of order concerns an irregularity with the estimates.
I have an interest in ensuring that parliament retains its power
over the public purse. This power has been eroded over time.
I refer you to the remarks of Madam Speaker Sauvé on June 12,
1981, at page 10546 of Hansard, when she said “it matters
not whether the amount spent is a large sum or simply one
dollar”. The issue is whether parliamentary process is properly
being followed.
Speaker Lamoureux properly stated on March 26, 1974, at page 896
of Hansard that “Parliament cannot legislate by
estimates”.
Speaker Jerome has also stated, at page 607 of Hansard on
March 22, 1977:
—the government receives from Parliament the authority to act
through the passage of legislation and receives the money to
finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament
of an appropriations act. A supply item in my opinion ought not,
therefore, to be used to obtain authority, which is a proper
subject of legislation.
Marleau and Montpetit made note of this on page 735 at note 223.
I believe there is a prima facie case where an estimate this
year should be ruled out of order. I am bringing this matter to
your attention at this time because your predecessors, Speakers
Jerome and Sauvé, have indicated that such points of order be
brought up on the next to last allotted day of a supply period.
This is noted in Marleau and Montpetit, at page 735, note 221.
I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, specifically to National
Defence, Vote 1, and the creation of Parc Downsview Park Inc. and
to the report of the auditor general of October 2000, chapter 17,
pages 18 to 21.
In its 1994 budget, the government announced the closure of
Canadian Forces Base Toronto at Downsview. In its place,
Downsview was to be held in perpetuity as a unique urban
recreational green space for the enjoyment of future generations.
In order for the project to go ahead, the government has first,
issued an order in council authorizing Canada Lands Company
Limited to incorporate a new crown corporation, Parc Downsview
Park Inc. as a subsidiary of Canada Lands Company Limited,
pursuant to paragraph 91(1)(a) of the Financial Administration
Act.
Second, it has transferred control and responsibility, as well
as the benefits from management of the Downsview lands, from
national defence to Canada Lands Company Limited and subsequently
to Parc Downsview Park Inc. under a management agreement with
national defence, while national defence continues to hold title
to the lands.
1715
Third, it provided initial funding to Parc Downsview Park Inc.
from an existing national defence vote.
Fourth, it issued an order in council authorizing the transfer
of the first parcel of land, about 32 acres, to Parc Downsview
Park Inc. pursuant to paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Federal Real
Property Act.
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to page 17-19, paragraph
17.58, of the October 2000 report of the auditor general, which
was tabled in the House on October 17, 2000, wherein the auditor
general specifically states:
The litany of the government's failure to recognize parliament
continues. The auditor general said in the same report that “no
parliamentary approval to spend funds on the Park” was sought.
In August 1999, the treasury board approved the first transfer
of land for commercial development and acknowledged that
Downsview Park would not be in a position to pay anything for the
land for “decades”. Normally the government acquires lands to
meet its needs and to deliver a program, such as national
defence. When the land is no longer needed for program purposes
it is declared surplus and is sold. The proceeds from the sale
are returned to the consolidated revenue fund. Parliament then
votes on its program priorities and appropriates money from the
consolidated revenue fund through the estimates process. This
process is intended to ensure that spending of public money is
authorized by parliament.
In the case of Downsview Park the government has in substance
transferred assets to another entity and, by developing these
assets, would have proceeds available to fund new program
activities without parliamentary approval. Parliament has not
been asked to appropriate funds for development of the park and
for park activities.
During 1999-2000, national defence spent approximately $4.8
million for Downsview Park operations and development, which of
course, we will remember, is under a subsidiary of Canada Lands.
It expects to spend $4.5 million annually on Downsview Park for
the next three years. To date, these expenditures have been
charged to national defence's Vote 1, which parliament has
authorized to be used for the department's operating
expenditures, not for Canada Lands.
In the view of the auditor general, the expenditures related to
the development of the Downsview Park site, approximately $2
million of the $4.8 million, are not a valid charge against
national defence Vote 1. The Department of National Defence
should clearly not be funding Downsview Park from its operating
expenditures. If the government wants to develop and operate
Parc Downsview Park, it should introduce legislation accordingly,
then seek the appropriate funding through the estimates rather
than through national defence.
I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to spending for
our hard working men and women in the Canadian forces in the
Department of National Defence. In fact, I support increasing
their funding. However, we have a case where parliamentary
approval has not been sought for expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could ask you to only rule the money in
Vote 1 for Downsview Park out of order, but I cannot. I can only
ask that you rule the vote out of order in its entirety even if
one dollar has been spent without proper parliamentary approval.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to send a message to the government
that such methods of deception are not acceptable.
Parliament is supreme and its authority has to be respected.
1720
This is the first time since the auditor general brought the
matter to parliament's attention that we will be voting on the
main estimates. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, using the criteria
established by previous Speakers on several occasions, which I
quoted from earlier, and with the information provided by the
auditor general, I am asking you to strike the national defence
Vote 1 from the estimates and the subsequent supply bill, since
it is clear that millions of dollars are not a valid charge
against the public purse, the national defence, and are not in
order.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly I had no notice of this coming forward, but I
am speaking in the context of being a former minister of national
defence who oversaw the dissolution of the Canadian forces base
at Downsview and also the minister with geographic responsibility
for the greater Toronto area, where I and the current minister of
defence sort of share shepherding responsibilities for Downsview
Park-Parc Downsview.
I think that the point made by the hon. member is very specious
in the main. First, when we closed those bases, in particular
Downsview, we said that the land would be retained in perpetuity
for future generations, primarily as a unique, open, recreational
green space. The reason we put primarily in there is that other
ongoing uses would still be permitted, for example, national
defence still has housing on that site and there is now an
armoury that has been announced by my colleague the Minister of
National Defence, as well as other activities. It was always
intended for that portion of land to remain in the title of
national defence so that if, God forbid, we were in an emergency
situation whereby that land would be required for emergency
defence operations, it would be there.
Mr. John Williams: You didn't say that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is
listening to a very substantive intervention. The House heard
uninterruptedly from the hon. member for St. Albert and I am sure
the same courtesy will be extended to the Minister of Transport
and other members who might choose to make an intervention.
Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not purport to
have all the references that the hon. member for St. Albert has,
but as a parliamentarian of longstanding I can state that if a
financial matter comes before the House in the budget and if it
is passed, as the 1994 budget was, whether it is a taxation
measure or whether it is the measure under discussion, that
legitimizes the particular expenditure. It legitimizes the
particular use that was called for in the budget.
I would submit that, first, it is entirely appropriate that
national defence retain ownership of those lands, and second,
that it is entirely appropriate for the government, in the view
that those lands are no longer needed in the short term and
hopefully in the long term, to make an arrangement with another
government agency, in effect a contract, to manage those
properties and that revenues be allocated for that purpose.
The hon. member talks about inappropriate transferring of assets
to another entity. National defence has not transferred any
assets. National defence remains in title in the government and
has entered into contractual arrangements with Canada Lands, and
a subsidiary of Canada Lands, Parc Downsview Park, is managing
this on an ongoing basis.
It was always our intention to try to have other sources of
revenue. There was a parcel of land that was subdivided, which
has been now taken up by one of the box stores. It was an orphan
piece of land, as we say, in the southern portion of the runway.
That was severed and the moneys accrued as per the normal
procedure of divestiture of the federal government, whereby the
land went to Canada Lands and was put on the open market. The
proceeds went back into Canada Lands for use for the ongoing
maintenance of the park. All of this is appropriate.
1725
I think that this is another case, with great respect, where the
former auditor general erred. I have another case in my current
department, on Moncton Airport, where the logic he used is not
supported by the facts and is creating political expectations
about the arrangement that was made for the transferring of the
Moncton airport.
I am not attacking the former auditor general, but I am saying
that no one is perfect, including auditors general. In the case
of Moncton airport, my officials have been looking at that and
will continue to look at it as part of the ongoing lease review
of the 26 NAS airports on which the government has entered into
contractual arrangements with local communities for
administration. In that case and on the issue of Downsview Park
and the changes of the Canadian forces base there, he was wrong.
His logic was wrong.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that I would hope
you do not find yourself entitled to strike any vote out of these
estimates for reasons that are highly subjective, will not stand
up procedurally and will not stand up in terms of parliamentary
precedents.
The fact is that nothing could be more germane to the mandate of
the House than the voting of money and the spending of money.
That is what the 1994 budget has done. That is what all
subsequent budgets have done. Therefore I would hope that the
hon. member sees the error of his ways and withdraws his point of
order.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the minister as well as
the previous speaker, the mover of this point of order. I must
say that of the two arguments I certainly think the hon. member
for St. Albert has put forward a very credible and very serious
matter which he has brought to the Chair.
I would like to speak in support of this matter. The member for
St. Albert has a very strong reputation as the fiscal thistle. He
has made a number of very timely and well placed barbs and he
comes by this name by virtue of his at times very prickly
approach to some of the frivolous government spending he
encounters.
This matter the minister calls subjective somehow, saying that
because it has already received scrutiny and has gone through the
House in a previous budget we should just accept it part and
parcel because the government at some point passed it with its
majority will in the House.
That is not how it works nor, I suggest, are his comments about
the position taken by the auditor general particularly germane to
this argument. The auditor general obviously saw a flaw in the
process which is very similar to that pointed out by the member
for St. Albert. He put forward in his report of 2000 a very
detailed and, I would suggest, very relevant commentary on the
Downsview Park Incorporated scenario.
In fact a number of issues arise, but this point of order
focuses on whether this spending should be legitimized through
this process, that is to say, the process that has been set up,
and I think it is the contention of the hon. member from St.
Albert, is outside the bounds of parliamentary spending. The way
in which this money has been manoeuvred within the government
department is wrong. The government has not taken these
particular assets through the normal channels, and in this
instance we are talking about the value attached to a certain
piece of property that will be used to incorporate and operate in
perpetuity a park.
There is precedent, as was pointed out previously, and I would
refer the Chair to Beauchesne's 6th edition of Parliamentary
Rules & Forms. As the very learned trio of Fraser, Dawson and
Holtby point out at page 258, notation 937:
The test which items must meet to be included in the Estimates is
whether or not the government is putting forward a spending
estimate under authority it already possesses, or whether it is
really seeking new legislative authority to do something. It
makes no difference whether an item attempts to spend a large sum
or simply one dollar. The government may not, by the use of an
Appropriation Act obtain authority it does not have under
existing legislation.
This came from Debates of June 12, 1981.
1730
Beauchesne's goes on at 938 to cite:
The previous amendment of legislation by Appropriation Acts
cannot justify a repeated use of items in the Estimates to amend
legislation.
Finally, the notation at 942 states:
Asking for money in the Estimates before legislation is passed to
establish programmes “puts the cart before the horse.”
That is exactly what has happened here. The government does not
have the authority to act in this manner. In fact, I am
referring to the auditor general's report where he cites at page
17 under citation 17.67:
In the case of Downsview Park, the government has, in substance,
transferred assets to another entity and, by developing those
assets, intends to fund new program activities. Parliament was
not asked to appropriate funds for development of the park and
for park activities.
That clearly falls within the description and the bounds of what
was cited in Beauchesne's.
I also want to bring to the Chair's attention under the House
of Commons Procedure and Practice rules, edited by Robert
Marleau, a very distinguished clerk of the House, and Camille
Montpetit, at page 733. I will quote the last paragraph on that
page. It states:
The inclusion of one dollar items in the Estimates also gave rise
to the issue of using Estimates to “legislate” (i.e., Estimates
going beyond simply appropriating funds and attempting to obtain
new legislative authority which would otherwise require separate
enabling legislation through the regular legislative process,
outside the Supply procedure).
That is what is happening here. There is an attempt through
this process to circumvent or do an end run around the normal
spending practices of this place. That is the rub and that is
what is contained in the conclusion of the auditor general's
report where he states at 17.73:
In our view, the Government of Canada wishes to set up an urban
park and invest more than $100 million of public funds therein,
it should have clear and explicit approval from Parliament to do
so.
To ignore the arguments by the member for St. Albert would allow
the government to do just that. If one wants to talk about
specious and evasive language, one only has to read the
government's response to the auditor general's commentary in this
regard. It is very evasive and dismissive in what the auditor
general had put forward.
I would humbly submit that this is an abuse of process that has
been brought to the Chair's attention at the appropriate time. I
would suggest that it is typical of the government's attitude
toward parliament to subvert the normal practices and procedures
when it comes to spending and to other issues. We see time and
time again the avoidance of the ever shrinking examination of the
estimates.
Even though the government may want to go home early, I would
suggest this is an important issue for the Chair to examine. We
cannot avoid our responsibility in that regard. There has to be
respect for the opinions of the auditor general here. There is
precedent that has been pointed out by previous Speakers Jerome
and Sauvé.
Therefore, I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the prima
facie case that has been presented to you by the learned and hon.
member for St. Albert.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we could get into an extensive
debate on whether items can be introduced by way of the estimates
process. There has been debate after debate on that issue going
back to the creation of VIA Rail and so on, but I do not even
think it is at issue today.
What we have today is an issue involving the asset. The asset
is land. It is real property. It is real estate. There is no
doubt in anyone's mind that in real estate, if someone is the
owner of the title, that person owns the property. As the
Minister of Transport has said very clearly, the asset still
remains the property of the Minister of National Defence.
There may be arrangements toward the administering of that real
property by another agency, in this case another agency of the
crown, not one that was created for this purpose but one that
already exists, namely Canada Lands Company Limited and, of
course, one of its subsidiaries, Downsview Park Inc., to look
after this land.
1735
However, the fact still remains that if we are dealing with a
physical asset, that is, real estate, it is the ownership that is
at issue and the ownership remains and is retained by the
Department of National Defence, and for good reason. Those good
reasons have all been explained by the Minister of Transport.
I am sure that when Mr. Speaker prepares his ruling to that
effect he will want to inquire as to the ownership of the
property in question, the asset in question, to use the language
of the auditor general, and Mr. Speaker will conclude, as we did,
that the asset is still in the hands of the Department of
National Defence. As it was not changed it makes the point that
was raised today moot. It no longer has any value because the
asset was not changed.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert has raised
a very serious point. He is claiming that the government has
attempted to usurp the authority and responsibility of the House
and its members.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this responsibility of the House
represents a basic principle of our constitution. The
fundamental principle, that the crown has no power to tax except
by grant of parliament, is to be found even in the Magna Carta.
The bill of rights of 1689 declares:
Levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of
prerogative without grant of Parliament for longer time or in
another manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.
The principle that parliament approves expenditures for the
specific purposes for which they were intended began as far back
as Charles II and was developed under William and Mary. As a
result, we are governed today by rules that make it illegal for
the executive to make expenditures, except those expenditures
that are approved by parliament in ways approved by parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we have just had a report from the modernization
committee suggesting that there are deficiencies in the handling
of estimates by parliament. It recognized that:
The estimates are an important tool in terms of accountability,
and the financial control of the House of Commons. Despite
numerous procedural changes over the years, we have been unable
to discover a workable solution. There are many reasons for the
lack of progress in this area, many of which are attributed to
our political culture.
This disturbing attempt by the government to erode the influence
of the Commons in this way represents some of that political
culture. While we as members could alter the rules to improve
the way we consider the estimates, only you, Mr. Speaker, can
protect our financial privileges from the government's attempt to
slide through illegal spending.
Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take this point of order
very seriously. We ask that you protect the ancient
constitutional right of the Commons to insist on legislative
authority as a precondition to sanction grants of supply.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thought some information out of the auditor general's
report for October 2000 might be helpful to you in making your
decision on this. I would like to quote a couple of sections
that are relevant to what the member for St. Albert was objecting
to from section 17, page 19.
Section 17.63 states:
Downsview Park was capitalized by $2.9 million of surplus funds
generated by property management activities at Downsview Park
base up to 31 March 1999. Leasing revenues for the next four
years are expected to exceed $20 million.
Section 17.64 states:
Half the land (300 acres) will be used for commercial or
residential development. The other 300 acres will be developed
as a park. Downsview Park expects that commercial and
residential development will generate more than $145 million over
the next 15 years for developing and operating the park.
It is pretty clear from the report that the government is in the
business of land development. I suggest that is not a role the
government should have. This is clearly outside the authority of
government and it is not acting in the best interests as it
should be.
1740
The Deputy Speaker: Certainly the member for St. Albert
has raised a point of order that is serious and at the same time
substantive. I thank all members who participated in the debate
at this time.
The Chair will take the matter under advisement and I assure the
House that the matter will receive the close scrutiny that it
deserves, and if necessary I will report back to the House.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There have been consultations among House leaders to
extend the hours this evening to complete consideration of two
bills.
I would like to seek consent to propose a motion to the House
which was negotiated with House leaders, that any divisions
deferred to the conclusion of government orders today be taken at
6.30 p.m., that after the said divisions the House continue to
sit to consider if necessary third reading stage of Bill C-24, as
well as Bill C-6, that divisions be deemed requested thereon and
deferred to the conclusion of government orders on June 12, and
that when Bill C-6 is disposed of the House shall adjourn until
the next sitting day.
I am asking to extend the hours to complete Bill C-24 and Bill
C-6. There is a third bill but negotiations are not complete on
it yet. I believe we now have consent regarding Bill C-24 and
Bill C-6.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the government House leader have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law
enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-24 is an extremely important bill.
Earlier, the Canadian Alliance member for Provencher began his
speech in a manner he says is unusual for him, and expressed
surprise that the Liberals were doing the right thing on this
issue.
I think we must forgive the Canadian Alliance member, because he
has been in the House only since November 2000 and perhaps does
not have all the background.
The reason the Liberal members decided to take action was
because there was an opposition party here in the House known as
the Bloc Quebecois, which decided to press the issue.
Since 1994-95, we have been talking about organized crime, in a
much more structured way since 1997, and we have never given up,
because we believed, and we still believe, that the whole issue
of organized crime is a very important one. We must do what it
takes to give our law enforcement officers and the legal system
all the tools necessary to combat organized crime.
The Bloc Quebecois has raised this frequently and regularly in
the House, because there was a special problem in Quebec.
But the real question the member for Provencher should perhaps
have asked is how it is that it is an opposition party which has
kept this issue alive all these years, while the federal Liberal
members from Quebec have never said a thing on the topic, even
though they are supposed to defend the interests of Quebec. At
least, that is what they said during the last election campaign.
1745
Throughout the years that we have been questioning the
government, why is it that we never saw members from Quebec,
Liberal members opposite, rise in this House and tell the
Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice the exact
same thing that the Bloc Quebecois has been saying, which is that
we need additional tools within the Criminal Code?
The Liberals opposite, the federal Liberals from Quebec, do not
utter a word in this House. They take their cue from English
Canada, and in particular the Minister of Justice and the
Solicitor General of Canada, and if these people say yes, then
they say yes. But if the people from English Canada do not ask
questions, you can be sure that the Liberals from Quebec will not
ask any either.
And that is not just on the issue of organized crime. The same
thing goes for several other bills. However, to stay on the
subject of justice, let me digress here from a moment to talk
about the Young Offenders Act. Where were the federal Liberal
members from Quebec? They were crawling on their knees.
This is how they defend Quebec's interests. They get down on
their knees and they watch what English Canada does, what the
justice minister who is from Alberta does, to find out if they
should get up on their feet or not. They watch the Solicitor
General of Canada, who is from the Maritimes, to see if they
should say yes or no. That is how they defend Quebec.
However, that is not how the Bloc Quebecois in the opposition
sees things.
It is not true, and it is not the way we saw things with regard
to the Young Offenders Act. We fought hard and we will keep on
fighting because it is too important.
It is not the way we saw things with regard to organized crime
either. We did not crawl, we did not grovel on our knees before
English Canada. We took on that issue and we defended it. We even
sacrificed opposition days to get members opposite, particularly
federal Liberals from Quebec who never say a word in this House
to defend Quebec's interests, to understand that they should
introduce a bill that would include certain tools in the criminal
code. We made numerous proposals over a period of several years.
We asked questions and finally, the government gave us Bill
C-24.
I think I just gave a brief history of this issue, but I will
remind members that, with the war that was raging between
criminal biker gangs in Quebec, with the bombs that were going
off here and there, this was an issue of great concern to
everybody, something people read about in the newspapers
practically every day.
Innocent people died because of that, people who tried to bypass
the system somewhat to defend their territory, their vested
interests as well as democracy. It is indeed a matter of
democracy when one looks at the influence criminal groups can
have on a justice system such as ours.
These people died. A young boy named Desrochers lost his life in
a bomb blast.
There was also the young owner of a bar in Terrebonne who was
murdered by organized crime. There were bombings. There was the
case of journalist Michel Auger, who received threats. Then,
someone shot him on orders from organized crime. Luckily he
survived. But this is a very important issue.
We in the Bloc Quebecois tried in every possible way to make the
government opposite listen to reason. That was the case in 1997.
I clearly remember that the issue of organized crime was
discussed during the 1997 election campaign. We raised important
elements in our election platform to make the government
understand. We fought throughout the 36th parliament to have
amendments made.
It was also true during the last election campaign in
November 2000, when the Bloc Quebecois put the issue of
organized crime at the forefront.
1750
We were committed to making Ottawa take action. We were
committed to spending the time and the energy to make the
government opposite do something and we got Bill B-24.
Hon. members probably remember that I was pleased when Bill C-24
was introduced, because it included about 80% of what we had
been asking for. Some clauses were even taken from a memo that I
had sent to the Minister of Justice at the time. I have before
me a note on gangsterism dated June 1, 1999, asking to redefine
a gang as a group composed of three or more people.
Simplification was called for because the bill was, to our
minds, too complex despite the minister's protestations to the
contrary, that everything was fine and it was just me who
could not understand any of it. Now it can be seen that I was
right in saying it was complex.
The minister has, I see, finally understood something about this
matter, and has proposed the amendments I had submitted long
before Bill C-24 was introduced. I submitted them to her in
writing as long ago as June 1999.
Certainly we are in agreement with the main thrust of the bill.
It is what we wanted, but there are some unanswered questions.
Time will tell, really, as the legislation is applied, whether
the government has gone too far or not, whether or not it ought
to have listened to the opposition as far as granting immunity
to police officers who commit illegal acts is concerned.
Yes, I do believe we must give police officers carrying out an
investigation the permission or legal protection for them to
commit certain offences with complete impunity. If we want to
be able to infiltrate certain groups, to gather evidence, to
fight organized crime on an even footing, then I believe that in
a free and democratic society such as ours, we have no choice
but to confer these powers.
That said, however, I am not necessarily in agreement with the
way it will be done. Bill C-24 gives the final blessing to the
solicitor general. I find it dangerous to have both the
political and the legal mixed up together in this cocktail that
allows police officers to commit certain acts.
I moved amendments in committee and I defended them. I can say
that if I had had a little more time, I think I would have
convinced the government representatives of the dangers of having
the authorization in the hands of the Solicitor General of
Canada. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated by two votes,
I think.
I would have preferred, even today, to have the authorization
given by a judge, who gives the police this immunity to enable
them to commit offences, just as a judge issues a search warrant
before proceedings or permits wiretapping, for example. This
would have ensured total detachment.
I have faith in the Quebec and Canadian legal system. I have
faith in the judges, who are very well trained, perfectly
competent and very professional. To my knowledge, as far as
anyone can remember, there has been no major abuse in the legal
field as compared with what has happened with the police.
I am working in close co-operation with the police. I know them
well and I know they are very professional. I know they do an
excellent job, and I have a lot of respect for the work they do.
Yet, in a big family, such as that of the police, we cannot
know or keep tabs on all the family members.
1755
From the way immunity is given in the bill, abuse is possible.
In any case, the possibility for it is there, and I can see it. I
find that dangerous. This is why I moved the amendments that
were defeated.
It is obvious we will be closely following all the developments
and especially the implementation of this bill in daily matters
along with everything connected with police immunity. I would
also have preferred that immunity be given only in cases
involving organized crime.
The Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, other
prosecutors and specialists in the field, and the Bloc Quebecois
find it dangerous that this immunity applies to almost all
spheres of criminal activity, and not just to organized crime.
The title of the bill before me is an act to amend the Criminal
Code (organized crime). In reality, Bill C-24 applies to much
more than just organized crime. I introduced amendments which
were rejected, but I would have liked its application to be
limited to organized crime, so as to limit the potential for
abuse. Once again, we will be following the implementation of
this bill and watching how the solicitor general, with his
authorizations, and the police enforce the legislation on a daily
basis.
The police are delighted with these powers, but I remind them
that they now have an obligation, but not the means, to produce
results. There is zero margin for error. They do not have the
right to abuse their authority and commit illegal acts. I do not
know whether they realize this, but there will be enormous
pressure on them and many people will be watching.
I also won a point when the bill was being studied in committee,
of course. I would point out, in passing, that the federal
Liberal members from Quebec did not introduce any amendments.
Once again, they did not have a thing to say in committee, as
though there were no members of the government from Quebec. The
point that I won concerned protection. In Bill C-24, members of
the House of Commons were protected. That is wonderful. The
senators in the other place were protected. Fine. However, I
wonder why organized crime would want to infiltrate the Senate. I
do not know whether anyone can draw me a picture that would help
but, in any event, the bill protected them.
But members of the Quebec national assembly and of any other
legislative assembly were not protected. Nor were city
councillors. Yet, we are well aware that, because of zoning,
anti-bunker and other types of bylaws, organized crime can exert
a great deal of pressure on these people.
Journalists were not protected either, even though we had a
striking example in the case of Michel Auger, from the Journal
de Montréal, who was the victim of attempted murder by
organized crime, because he was reporting on their activities,
because he had a power, the power of the press, which is an
extremely important democratic power. The bill was totally
silent on this issue.
It is not federal Liberal members from Quebec who defended these
people. They did not say anything. It is the Bloc Quebecois
which moved amendments in committee and these amendments were
adopted.
As was pointed out by the Progressive Conservative member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who was present when the bill was
reviewed in committee, I managed to get these amendments
adopted. How? By asking for a roll call vote and telling those
federal Liberal members from Quebec who were present “If you
vote against these amendments I will give your names to the
media. If these amendments are not adopted it will be because of
you”.
1800
This is how, in the end, the two Liberal members from Quebec
found the courage to say yes to my amendments. I had to threaten
them with giving out their names to the newspapers, otherwise
they were not going to agree to provide protection to
journalists. This was not very proper on my part, I know, but it
was the only way to get this amendment adopted.
I was pleased by what I saw later on at report stage in the
House. The minister moved an amendment to strengthen the
amendment that I had proposed in committee to protect
journalists, but that the Liberals had initially rejected. Bravo.
I can say that it took a long time to get the people over there
to understand this. Who would have defended Quebec if the Bloc
Quebecois were not here? Not the Liberal MPs from Quebec, who
never say a word in this House. They always just parrot what a
minister has said. That is not what we in Quebec need, and the
people of Quebec know that very well. A striking
example of this is evident in Bill C-24, and an even more
striking one with the Young Offenders Act. Quebecers need
Quebecers to defend them, to represent only the people of Quebec
in this House.
An hon. member: It takes a Bloc Quebecois member.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The hon. Liberal member across the way
says that it takes a Bloc Quebecois member; even he has
understood.
There is also another point on which I do not think we have gone
far enough.
We will vote in favour of Bill C-24, but I believe we could go a
little further. We are going to monitor how it will be applied,
we will watch how the police forces and the government are going
to apply this law. In due course we will review the situation,
since we consider it one of our priorities, both before it is
passed and after as well. The matter of reversal of burden of
proof is the aspect relating to the proceeds of crime that we
believe needs to be taken further. It is still too easy to get
around this.
There are many cases I could cite. For instance, when someone
declares an income of $13,000 for the previous year and is
driving around in a Jaguar, frequenting the most chic Montreal
restaurants almost nightly, and lives in a $350,000 house, I
think there is something fishy going on. The law needs to be
strengthened in this area.
The government should also amend certain federal laws relating
to taxation. As Canada has a police force specializing in
organized crime, there should be special investigators to enter
organized crime, investigate and build files. We do not have
this at the moment, and millions of dollars are slipping through
our fingers. We will study that closely and come back to it if
the government drags its feet once again.
We will not wait for the Liberal members from Quebec. We know
they never do anything. We will take the initiative and continue
to defend the matter as we have done from the start.
There is also the question of financing. I know the member for
Provencher, a member of the Canadian Alliance, mentioned this in
his remarks earlier. He is right, especially since I put the
question to the minister. I asked her, “Of the $200 million that
you say you will make available for the implementation of C-24,
how many millions of dollars will go to Quebec, because the
provinces will apply it on a daily basis? The provinces will be
going after organized crime. How many millions of dollars will
be coming to Quebec?”
Do members know what the answer was? It is perfectly splendid
“Zero”. The $200 million is for the federal government, for the
machinery. for adjustments, for training, for application
purposes, not for those working on location. And yet we know
that a lot of money is needed there.
We know because we carried out operation Printemps 2001 in
Quebec. We conducted the biggest operation against organized
crime that Canada has seen.
I no longer know how many gang leaders and members in good
standing were arrested, and how many warrants were issued. I
think there were about 40 in approximately 77 municipalities. So
it was quite a large-scale operation.
1805
Operation springtime 2001 alone cost the Quebec treasury around
$15 million, and that does not include all the future court
costs. If close to 50% of all those accused end up behind bars,
several prisons would have to be adapted, because they could not
all be incarcerated immediately.
In addition, we saw what it cost in terms of adapting court
houses, conducting trials, and so on. The costs were enormous.
The federal contribution needs to be rethought, because no
funding has been planned for Quebec or the other provinces with
respect to enforcement of this legislation.
This is very important. We know that enforcement is what will
make the difference. Even if we have the best laws in all the
world, if we are unable to enforce them, if we lack the staff or
law enforcement officers, where will it leave us? In the
wonderful Canadian system in which we live, it is the federal
government which makes certain laws and the provinces which
enforce them.
It seems to me that there is something wrong. The federal
government is the lawmaker and it has money coming out of its
ears, but it decides to make cuts and to look after its own
interests. Fine. But we have to see about the implementation of
the act as such, which is very important.
Right now, what the minister is telling us about funding is not
reassuring. We will have to check and to monitor this very
closely to ensure that Quebec, among others, gets the necessary
funds. This will not be the first issue over which we fight. Indeed,
the Bloc Quebecois has fought a number of battles to ensure that
the federal government gives us the money that belongs to us, the
money owed to the province under certain programs and following
Ottawa's withdrawal from certain programs, including in the area
of justice. We fought; we went and got money for Quebec, and we
will continue to do so.
We will not wait for Liberal members from Quebec, because they
never say anything in the House, they are too afraid to get any
money. But not us Bloc Quebecois members. We will continue to
protect Quebec's interests and to go and get the taxes that we
paid.
I will conclude by saying that for us the most important issue
that is still unresolved is that of making it a crime to merely
be a member of a criminal gang. This is not in the bill, but I
still believe in such a clause and the government is making a
mistake by not taking the Bloc Quebecois up on its proposal.
We said so in 1997, when the Minister of Justice brought in
amendments to the criminal code. We told her—or rather him,
since the federal Minister of Justice was a man at that
time—that it was a mistake. But he did not heed us. He had
indeed made a mistake. Today we still feel that not making mere
membership a crime is again an error on the government's part.
There is the whole matter of the Canadian constitution. Is it or
is it not constitutional to make mere membership in a gang an
offence? There is agreement on the definition of a gang as being
a group of individuals who join together to commit crime and to
live off the proceeds of crime. Such a definition naturally
excludes such groups as the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of
Isabelle, the Optimist clubs, the Club Richelieu and so on. Does
this respect the Canadian constitution or not? I believe that it
does. I believe we have everything we need in the Canadian
constitution to create legislation in this area that respects
jurisdictions, that respects the Canadian constitution.
1810
That was my opinion before, continues to be today, and likely
will be tomorrow as well. For the worst case scenario, that it
does not respect the Canadian constitution, we have the
notwithstanding clause in section 33 and it can be used in such a
case. It is not true that the constitution is there to protect
gangs. It does not do so in Bill C-24.
We will be voting in favour of
Bill C-24 because it offers additional tools. It may not be all
we wanted in such a system, but in large part it reflects what we
were calling for. We are going to vote in favour of this bill.
But it will have to be monitored very closely and we will not
hesitate in the least to revisit the matter. We will not
hesitate to invoke the notwithstanding clause if need be.
In any case, there are reference procedures. We could have
checked the legality or illegality of a bill that used the
definition of organized crime as we understand it.
The government opposite knows about that, since it has already
used the reference procedure. The Liberals were a little short
on guts politically. They did not go that far. We will follow
this. We will check it and closely follow the laws daily
application. We will no doubt be back if certain points are not
well applied, and the criminals still get away with it.
We know that criminal groups are well informed in legal terms.
They are sometimes said to be better equipped legally than the
crown prosecutors. They are obviously going to examine this
bill and find its weak spots, try to get around it.
We will follow the law's application. We will work, as we
always have, with the police and the justice system and, once
again, try to bring the issue of organized crime before this
House. We will try to convince the minister to go further in
the procedures we raised with Bill C-24.
Probably, one day or other, the government opposite will tell us
we were right, as we were right in 1997 to complain about the
bill it tabled. One day or other, I am sure, the government will say it
will have to go further, because the bill does not provide what
Canada and Quebec need to fight organized crime.
Once again, we will be there for the people of Quebec. We will
rise, unlike the Liberal members from Quebec, who say nothing in
this House.
From this side of the House, we will defend the interests of
Quebec, because we were elected to do that.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I know my learned friend has contributed
significantly to this debate. He brought forward a number of
good ideas both at the committee and here in the House, some of
which were embraced and are now encompassed in the legislation.
The Conservative Party generally supports Bill C-24. We see
this as a positive initiative. We see it as an attempt finally
by the Liberal government to recognize and put into law
shortcomings that exist for police officers and law enforcement
generally across Canada as it relates to this ongoing issue of
organized crime.
Previous speakers have alluded to the numerous attempts made to
amend the legislation, one of which dealt specifically with the
special designation or authorization that would be granted by
virtue of the bill. That designation, as the Chair knows, would
allow police officers, in some instances, such as in very
critical and dangerous circumstances, to engage in activities
that would otherwise be offences under the criminal code.
The legislation would grant a form of immunity to the police in
cases where they need to prove their affinity and prove
themselves to members of organized gangs in order to gain their
trust so that they might infiltrate that organization and embark
on an important investigation.
The Conservative Party supports that. We believe it is a
necessary evil, in some instances, to allow police to do just
that. However, it is the unfettered ability to do that with
which we are somewhat concerned, and that is the origin of that
jurisdiction, the origin of that granting of authority.
1815
We believed very strongly and moved an amendment to the effect
that it should come from a judicial authority, as opposed to an
internal police decision. That is not to cast aspersions in any
way on the police or to suggest outright that there would be
abuse. It is just to recognize that there are normal practices
currently in place which pertain to warrants and wiretaps, for
example, that allow those in a position of judicial authority to
review the circumstances and make a more impartial, a more
informed and a more impassioned decision as to who should receive
that designated authority.
The government in its wisdom does not believe this to be the
case. Yet I sense a great deal of unease and discomfort on the
part of many government members who were part of the committee
process.
Canada has increasingly become the focus of these very notorious
gangs within our own borders. We know that organized crime does
not recognize or respect borders. Yet this plague or this cancer
that exists in our country and around the world is spreading.
Many organizations have branched out and recently, for lack of a
better word, set up shop in Canada.
In my home province of Nova Scotia the Hell's Angels are
becoming very prominent. They have opened a clubhouse that in
terms of its outward appearance has store frontage that would
rival that of Wal-Mart. It is that blatant. They have their
name up in neon lights. That is very much the attitude and the
cockiness that exist within many of the criminal gangs in the
country.
Many concerns have been ongoing for many years about the
resources and the state of our laws that create the imbalance
which allows organized crime to thrive.
Bill C-24 goes some distance to bringing back some form of
equilibrium, at least in the ability of police forces to combat
organized crime, to penetrate the very being of organized crime,
to gather evidence, to go into the field and to hurt organized
crime in the same way that it is wreaking havoc in our
communities. To do so they have to use extraordinary methods at
times. That is surely what the legislation is intended to do.
It is also clearly a response to the Supreme Court of Canada
decision in Campbell and Shirose. The decision was interpreted
as having struck down many of the previous authorizations in
police for police to occasionally break the law. The decision
opened up a chasm, a gaping hole in terms of the police
understanding of what was or was not permissible in pursuit of
organized crime. Bill C-24 is an attempt to restore some of the
power and discretion that existed for many years in Canada.
It is following the trace of authorization to permit this type
of activity which causes members of the Conservative Party and I
some concern, as well as members of the bar associations in many
provinces and others concerned that this type of potential
invasion of civil liberties is a bit stretched by virtue of the
bill.
As the government would be quick to point out, the level of
accountability in legislation, at least in terms of the tracing
the line, goes right to the solicitor general. Quite
interestingly, in probably his last speech in the House before he
trundles off to the other place as a reward for his diligence and
duty on the part of the Prime Minister, he would be the
figurehead, the top cop, if the bill were to come into being.
That causes many to shake in their boots but that is currently
the case.
The solicitor general is supposed to be directly accountable.
Yet the supposedly personal responsibility which rests with the
solicitor general's office will not be personal at all when there
is a cabinet shuffle or when he leaves for an appointment.
1820
It cannot be personal. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
That is the type of fallacy the bill creates. If there is to be
real authorization and real accountability in the legislation,
there must be judicial oversight, a judicial review of who
receives this type of designation.
This concern is shared by many, as I have alluded to, but it is
one that is particularly prevalent in the province of Quebec. The
Chair would certainly be aware that on Tuesday, September 12,
2000, Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the
federal government in some instances to use the notwithstanding
clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the Hell's Angels
and Rock Machine that were a plague to the streets of Montreal
and other cities in Canada. In so doing it might anticipate the
fact that the courts may very well strike down as
unconstitutional some of the provisions of anti-gang legislation
and legislation such as Bill C-24.
At the same time we know that in the city of Toronto, under the
very able and capable leadership of Chief Julian Fantino, the
police have assigned a full time team to monitor Hell's Angels
bikers who have brashly set up clubhouses throughout the city as
they have in Halifax. Police are most concerned that Hell's
Angels might be involved in drugs or arms dealing or taking over
legitimate businesses for money laundering purposes. We spoke to
that previously in debate on legislation before the House today.
Yet organized crime does not exist just in the large cities.
Hon. members would be quick to recognize that their reach goes
far beyond our major metropolitan areas. It is found in small
towns and villages. Particularly in rural Canada now more and
more we are seeing the activities of organized crime. Ports and
coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to the
importation of contraband materials.
We in the House have an obligation to recognize that Canada is
becoming a target of organized crime. In so doing we are very
much committed to bringing forward legislation such as this one
which arms the police with the tools, the support and the
resources necessary.
Resources do not just entail the concrete types of resources one
might expect such as computers, firearms on occasion, weaponry,
cars, surveillance equipment, helicopters and planes. It also
includes legislative backup, legislative tools that allow police
forces to optimize their efforts. They allow police forces to
see the fruition of their efforts through the courts and
prosecutorial system and the eventual incarceration of those who
engage in illegal activity.
There was a reference made in previous remarks to the horrible
shooting that took place in Montreal of Journal de Montreal
reporter Michel Auger who was shot five times in the back. It
was a truly cowardice act. I think evidence emerged recently to
suggest that it was very much linked to organized crime,
particularly motorcycle gangs which Mr. Auger had made the
subject of many of his articles.
Therefore the bill now encompasses protection of journalists who
write about, disclose and pull back the veil of secrecy
surrounding organized crime. As I said, criminal gangs are
branching out. Any effort that curtails their activity is such
that we should be supportive.
Having said it is rampant and spreading within Canada, it is
certainly recognized that it is a world problem. We have seen
references to Russian mafia. Certainly Chinese triads have now
set up in Canada. We have references to all sorts of
organizations from the Middle East that have been active within
our borders.
This is a clear indication that Canada has to be competitive and
to look in some instances for information from other sources
outside our boundaries. That again has to be a direction in
which we are prepared to move, because just as in legitimate
practices within the economy Canada stands to be left behind if
we do not keep up the pace and recognize that this is something
now far beyond our control and far beyond the scope of our
boundaries.
There was a debate in the House on September 18 initiated by the
Bloc that I would suggest very much pushed the government toward
bringing forward useful and positive legislation.
1825
The Minister of Justice repeatedly gave assurances throughout
the debate and on other occasions that efforts were being made to
break the back of organized crime. Yet she refused to discuss
using the notwithstanding clause during the course of the debate
and conceded that the Liberal government could strengthen the
anti-gang laws first initiated back in 1997.
Bill C-24 would do a great deal to achieve some sense of
hobbling organized crime. It certainly would not break its back
but it would strengthen the definition that pertains to what
comprises an organized gang. It would target various degrees of
involvement within the organization, make it easier for police
and crown prosecutors to arrest and jail gangsters and keep them
in prison for longer periods of time by extending the range of
sentencing available.
It would allow law enforcement agents to forfeit the proceeds of
crime, use the property to do good work and put those resources
toward necessary areas. It would also strengthen the rules
protecting against intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their
families in an organized crime trial, a big problem when it comes
to the successful prosecution of these types of offences.
Further, it would strengthen protection for federal members of
parliament and improve protection for law enforcement officers
from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal acts
while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate criminal
organizations. This is the immunity clause of which we spoke
earlier.
In recognition of the non-partisan efforts put forth on the
committee some very useful amendments were passed. The record
will reveal that all who have spoken to the bill have done so in
a fairly positive and straightforward fashion as to what would be
accomplished when the bill comes into being.
There was also mention of the amendments moved by other parties
in attempts to improve and expand upon the status of the
legislation. Under the bill the Solicitor General of Canada and
provincial ministers responsible for policing would release an
annual report accounting for how often law enforcement agents
engage in acts which are considered illegal under the current
criminal code. That would provide some record and some ability
to trace at least what actions have occurred, when the immunity
has been used and for what purposes.
There is some degree of comfort in knowing there will be an
after the fact examination of the efforts and acts of police in
attempts to infiltrate organized crime and invoke on occasion the
immunity which allows them to commit illegal acts like stealing a
car and using stolen property. However there are still
limitations that speak in particular to offences that might
involve bodily harm, sexual assault, and certainly murder and the
use of violence. The limitations are there. They are real and
they exist for a reason.
The amendment the Conservative Party brought forward, which in
fairness emulated much of the intent and mirrored the substance
of the Bloc amendment tabled at the committee, would go back to
this designation. Suggesting that somehow it would slow the
process down by having a judge rather than a police officer or
superior law enforcement officer make the designation simply does
not wash.
There is no further delay in having judicial authority in the
first instance than there would be in having police authority to
grant the immunity. There would be a much greater sense of ease
among many if they knew the designation was coming from a
judicial authority as opposed to an internal, in shop process
which allows in the extreme one police officer to designate
another who would in turn designate him again.
We support this type of legislation and recognize it as
something that can be improved upon. Yet the authorization
itself is something we would like to revisit at some opportunity.
I expect we will because we know that the instant the bill comes
into being there will be challenges before the courts. Who knows
what the supreme court would do in its wisdom with this type of
intervention and designation of authority?
1830
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Given the fact, I believe, that all parties support the
bill, I would like to try again to move the motion I sought to
move earlier. I understand there was one member who had
asked for a slight wording change.
I would move that any divisions deferred to the conclusion of
government orders today be taken at 6.30 p.m., and that after the
said division the House would continue to sit to consider the
third reading stages of Bill C-24 and Bill C-6, that divisions be
deemed requested thereon and deferred to the conclusion of
government orders on June 12, 2001, and that when Bill C-6 is
disposed of the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day—and
I have added the next few words—that during such extension of
debate this evening the House shall not recognize any motions or
requests for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 6.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-25.
Call in the members.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bagnell
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 172
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
Ménard
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
| Williams
| Yelich – 71
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Marceau
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
After the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if I might get the attention of
the member for Calgary East to assist the Chair in his vote. Was
it yea or nay?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
Miss. Deborah Gray: Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently supported the
motion. I intended to vote nay.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, an
act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division at third reading of Bill S-3.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House
with Liberal members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
proceed in that fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Alliance members
present will vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion and you should add the names of the hon.
members for Lotbinière-L'Érable and Laurentides, who have joined
us for this vote.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members who are present vote
no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Burton
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Merrifield
| Mitchell
| Moore
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood
| Yelich – 202
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brien
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Nystrom
| Paquette
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 43
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Marceau
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1905
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
the question for debate this evening concerns Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation funding being made available for housing
projects throughout the country.
I raised the question was in relation to Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation being involved with multimillion dollar
projects such as the one at 1 Post Road. Even though we know the
extent of the involvement is only in relation to the mortgage
insurance, it still sends a message to Canada that the government
and the agencies that come under it are more concerned with
housing for the rich and the well-to-do than they are for the
people who really need housing.
When we see Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation signs being
flashed around in front of large multimillion dollar
developments, it sends a message to the people who need such
funding that government is not paying attention to them whether
it be factual or not.
A couple of days ago we talked about the housing needs in this
country. We talked about the need for housing for the homeless
and the poor people. We talked about affordable housing. There
are so many avenues to provide housing for those who need it if
government would only sit down and come up with a plan to address
the major problem.
I certainly think wrong messages are being sent. There is talk
about a plan to address the housing issue but the conception on
paper and bringing it into reality are two different things. We
do not seem to really understand what we are doing and we do not
seem to have the heart to do the job that needs to be done.
We could help the poor and those in need of affordable housing a
lot more if we would spend some time concentrating on the major
problem that we have in front of us and, instead of wasting time
on foolishness, put some of our energies and efforts into
addressing the real problems that face the country.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me
assure the member that the government does not subsidize luxury
condominium developments. Mortgage insurance is not a subsidy.
Mortgage insurance protects approved lenders against losses
resulting from borrowers defaulting on their mortgages. The
lender pays the premium that covers the cost of providing
insurance coverage.
As Canada's national housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation provides access to mortgage financing for all
Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada. It provides
mortgage loan insurance on a wide range of housing types across
Canada, including condominiums, single family housing, affordable
rental apartments and retirement homes for seniors.
CMHC's mortgage loan insurance enables Canadians to buy a home
with as little as 5% down payment. This insurance has provided
one in three Canadians with an opportunity to own their own home
and it has also contributed to the availability of rental housing
and nursing and retirement home beds in our country.
CMHC is the only mortgage insurer in Canada to offer mortgage
insurance for the construction of new rental housing and the
purchase of existing units.
Insurance is also available on loans for construction of
multi-unit residential buildings, including rental apartments and
condominiums. It also helps make affordable rental housing
available at lower cost financing.
I want everyone to understand that CMHC operates its mortgage
insurance on a commercial basis at no cost to the Canadian
taxpayer. As members can see, CMHC's mortgage loan insurance
helps to ensure that low cost financing is available for housing
purchases all across Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.10 p.m.)