37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 093
CONTENTS
Friday, October 5, 2001
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Prime Minister of
Canada |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Thanksgiving |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ignace-Nicolas Vincent
Tsawenhohi |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway,
Lib.) |
|
|
Breast Cancer Awareness
Month |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Community Care Worker
Week |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Mental Illness Awareness
Week |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Guy Beaulne |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier,
Lib.) |
|
|
Grey Nuns |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Petro-Canada |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Théâtre du Nouveau
Monde |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Communities in Bloom |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll
(Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Child Abuse Prevention
Month |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Security Intelligence
Service |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Security Intelligence
Service |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Labour |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
International Security |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Fourth Jeux de la
Francophonie |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian
Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Justice and Human
Rights |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua
(Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
National
Defence |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Algoma Steel |
|
|
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie,
Lib.) |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Graham |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto
Centre--Rosedale, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, October 5, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(0955)
[Translation]
Business of the House
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions
have taken place between all parties, as well as with the member for Jonquière,
concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-209 scheduled at the conclusion
of private members' business later this day.
You would find consent for the following
motion:
[English]
That at the conclusion of today's
debate on Bill C-209, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for
second reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred
to Tuesday, October 16 at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders. |
(1000)
The Speaker:
Does the chief government whip have unanimous consent
of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for
the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the bill
entitled an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations
Act.
The bill includes a variety of changes to the existing
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act most of which are
technical in nature.
The main amendments are designed to facilitate
international events including summits in Canada and to enable us to comply
with our existing commitments under international treaties.
The bill would also correct several housekeeping
inadequacies identified since the act was enacted by parliament in
1991.
As the House may know, the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act provides the statutory basis for the privileges
and immunities of diplomats in Canada. It also provides the government with the
ability to deal by order in council with the privileges, immunities and legal
status of international organizations and their events or summits in
Canada.
For example, existing orders in council under this act
govern the legal status in Canada of organizations such as the International
Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations and the Agence de la
Francophonie.
The bill's core amendment is key to providing
privileges and immunities to foreign officials who attend intergovernmental
conferences or summits in Canada. The amendment broadens the definition of
"international organization" to include international organizations and
meetings that are presently excluded such as the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe and the G-8.
Several years ago the Standing Joint Committee on the
Scrutiny of Regulations adopted the formal view that the present definition
permits orders to be made under this act only for international organizations
that are created by a treaty. Therefore we have the odd situation where, for
example, the Sommet de la Francophonie is covered by the act, as there is a
treaty relating to L'Agence and la Francophonie in that case, but the summit of
the Americas and the G-8 are not.This is an anomaly that we would like to fix
before Canada is scheduled to host the G-8 summit in June 2002.
This amendment would ensure that these meetings and
foreign officials involved obtain protection and treatment under Canadian
law.
The second amendment in the bill that I wish to draw to
the attention of the House concerns the police authority to provide security
and protection for intergovernmental conferences held in Canada.
Following the violent protests at international events,
for example, Genoa and more recently the terrorist attacks in the United
States, it would be timely for the government to clarify in statute the present
common law authority for police to provide security and protection for high
profile international events.
The legislation would provide that the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police would have the primary responsibility to ensure the security for
the proper function or a meeting of an international organization attended by
persons granted privileges and immunities under the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act and for which an order has been passed under
that act.
The provisions would make clear for greater certainty
the present authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take appropriate
measures to ensure that such international conferences or meetings are able to
be carried out safely and effectively.
The bill would allow the government to extend
privileges and immunities to international inspectors who come to Canada on
temporary duty in order to carry out inspections under the chemical weapons
convention and the agreement with the preparatory commission for the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization.
Under the chemical weapons convention, a treaty
ratified by Canada in 1999, a verification regime was established providing for
both reporting via declarations and on site inspection by inspectors from the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The chemical weapons convention requires that
inspectors be granted diplomatic privileges and immunities similar to those
accorded to diplomatic agents under the Vienna convention on diplomatic
relations.
(1005)
The problem is that neither the implementing
legislation nor any other Canadian legal instrument can at present provide the
privileges and immunities up to this level for these inspectors.
As a temporary arrangement, privileges and immunities
have been provided by an order in council, which invokes less extensive
privileges and immunities. This means that Canada could be criticized as not
being in full compliance with the treaty. Therefore it is the government's
obligation to resolve this situation as soon as possible, and the bill does
just that.
The bill also broadens privileges and immunities to
permanent missions accredited to international organizations, such as the
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, located in Montreal. ICAO is
presently the largest international organization operating its headquarters in
Canada.
By enhancing our relationship with ICAO, the amendment
would improve the ability of Montreal and other Canadian cities to service the
headquarters of international organizations operating their headquarters in
Canada.
The amended legislation would also help Canada compete
with other countries to attract these headquarters of other international
organizations.
The benefit to the local economy of such organizations
is quite significant. A 1990 study showed that the economic benefit to Montreal
and the international intergovernmental organizations located there was $80
million.
Montreal is not the only Canadian host city that
benefits from the presence of international organizations. Vancouver hosts a
Commonwealth of Learning Secretariat and Halifax of course hosts the North
Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
The final important amendment that I wish to mention is
the clarification of the relationship between the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act and the Immigration Act.
The amendment which is supported by the minister of
immigration would make clear that when an order is passed under the Foreign
Missions and International Organizations Act, the requirement to grant
ministers' permits under the Immigration Act is removed.
In summary, the bill to amend the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act would allow Canada to live up to its
international obligations to grant privileges and immunities to international
organizations.
The amendments would enable Canada to continue to
safely host important international events and summits in Canada and thereby
fulfill our treaty responsibilities.
(1010)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
I am pleased to lead the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign
Missions and International Organizations Act.
My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance and I resent the
sneaky way in which the bill was introduced. The first debate is taking place
four days after the bill was tabled in the House and three days after
opposition MPs had a first glance at it. We are debating the bill on a Friday
when most MPs are on their way to their constituencies for a one week
break.
The government is trying to slip some major changes
through parliament by hiding them in an innocuous looking act surrounded by
mundane housekeeping provisions. There has been no advance notice from the
government side, no media coverage and no press release from the department.
There was no legislative summary or explanation of any kind provided and the
Library of Parliament was not instructed to prepare such documents.
There was no meat on the bones in the briefing of the
opposition by the department on Wednesday. There was very little in terms of
information regarding the legislation. We did not have time to consult and
debate it in our caucus. The opposition was not given enough time to adequately
prepare, research and develop an indepth analysis. Perhaps this was
intentional, and I am tempted to oppose it on that basis alone.
The bill amends the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act to modernize the privileges and immunities regime. This would
allow Canada to comply with its existing commitment under international
treaties and to respond to recent developments in international law. It
corrects the deficiencies in the existing definition of an international
organization. It attempts, perhaps as a marketing tool, to encourage
international organizations to come to Canada. It empowers the RCMP with the
primary responsibility of ensuring the security and proper functioning of
intergovernmental conferences.
This authority supports the security measures taken by
the Canadian police in fulfilling Canada's obligations to protect persons who
have privileges and immunities under the act. It attempts to give security and
protection a statutory basis. Security at international conferences will be
quite significant, especially in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the
upcoming G-8 summit in Canada. Despite all of these significant issues the bill
is labelled as housekeeping in nature.
The bill proposes roughly 10 amendments in five broad
categories. The first category of amendments modernize the legislation to
comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties and to
respond to important new developments in international law.
For example, international chemical weapons inspectors
that conduct inspections under the chemical weapons convention would enjoy
immunity at par with that of foreign diplomats. It would enable the inspectors
to import specialized technical equipment without paying customs
duty.
(1015)
The second category of amendments correct deficiencies
in the existing definition of an international organization. Traditional
definitions cover only international organizations of a formal
institutionalized nature based on treaty such as the United Nations.
Unstructured intergovernmental organizations such as
the G-8, OSCE and APEC are not covered by that definition. This is a concern
because non-treaty based organizations are less accountable to Canadians since
they are established by an order from cabinet rather than by a treaty which is
then subject to review in parliament.
The Foreign Missions and International Organizations
Act went into effect in 1991. If this is a housekeeping change, albeit an
important one, why did it take the weak Liberal government over eight years to
correct these deficiencies? It has been sitting on these improper definitions
for eight years.
This shows the government's general attitude of
neglect. The government has neglected so many important issues facing Canada
such as the budget, national security and safety, health care issues, defence
and agriculture, it is always taken by surprise by situations such as this
one.
The third category of amendments gives statutory
authority to support security measures for Canadian police to provide security
and protection to persons who attend high level meetings held in Canada such as
APEC, the summit of the Americas or the G-8.
The government says that the legislation clarifies the
role of the police, but in the same breath the amendments authorize the RCMP to
take appropriate measures that are justified, reasonable and proportionate
under the circumstances. The government uses words like reasonable,
appropriate, proportionate and so on.
Lawyers make millions of dollars from vague words like
reasonable, appropriate and proportionate. The Hughes report on APEC cost over
$5 million. Bill C-35 would multiply that by many times. It might also curtail
freedom of expression, the right to peaceful protest and assembly.
Does it mean that pepper spray, stun guns or even
bullets would be appropriate and reasonable? I wonder if this is an escape
valve for the Prime Minister to avoid political controversy such as the one
over pepper spraying at the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1998.
The reason the Prime Minister and his government do not
want to clarify the powers of the RCMP and write them in common law is that it
potentially leaves room for political interference. They prefer to keep the
directions vague so that they can exert political influence whenever they need
to do so.
How could the police possibly satisfy the charter
requirements? If the bill were passed it would be an invitation for endless
charter challenges because the terms are vague. The words appropriate and
reasonable cannot be defined clearly. It would provide wide umbrella coverage
for the RCMP to take any action against people who are protesting peacefully.
This cannot be justified.
This is a matter for debate and will probably lead to
many court cases. I do not understand what the difference would be then between
the approaches taken in a repressive regime that we condemn and in a free and
democratic Canadian society.
Bill C-35 leaves no question of who is in charge of the
situation since it is the primary responsibility of the RCMP to ensure security
for the proper functioning of an international event.
(1020)
The department's shallow briefing notes state that
these amendments have no impact on the powers of provincial and municipal
police forces. Some members on the other side say that these amendments may not
give the police any new powers. Why are these amendments there in the first
place? Is it a sugar coated but bitter medicine?
The common law authorities of police forces have been
clarified in legislation in countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Why do
we not do that in Canada? Our criminal code says that police officers are
responsible only to the law itself.
These amendments may affect any number of outstanding
court cases to date of protesters arrested at the summit of the Americas in
Quebec City or during APEC in Vancouver, British Columbia. That has to be
seen.
In principle there are few problems with clarifying the
role of who is in charge of security at these important meetings. My concern is
that Canada's police, especially the RCMP, is already stretched to the
limit.
The Canadian Police Association recently accused the
government of playing shell games with the security of Canadians. It said in a
press release that when it comes to security at our borders and airports
Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security. It explained
that the RCMP had to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. It means that the RCMP has
been moving officers to priority areas in the wake of the terrorist
attacks.
If the RCMP has to reallocate officers from one
assignment to the other then we have to study the impact of adding to those
demands and responsibilities without adding further resources. Could this mean
that when the G-8 comes to Kananaskis next year RCMP officers will be pulled
away from their duties providing security to our citizens and communities and
leave them without protection?
The fourth category of amendments seek to clarify
provisions granting immunities from immigration restrictions to alien
registration and overriding the Immigration Act provisions that prohibit the
entry to Canada of inadmissible persons but not overriding the Crimes Against
Humanity and War Crimes Act.
According to the amendment, when an order is passed
under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act the requirement
to grant a minister's permit under the Immigration Act would be removed. The
minister's permit would be granted by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration because it is related to immigration matters, but under this
amendment that would be overruled.
What would happen if a leader or a representative of a
country happened to be a criminal or terrorist? The amendment overriding the
Immigration Act would allow for that criminal to have easier access to Canada
because he or she would be given access by the foreign minister or immigration
minister who may not have all the checks and balances in place.
Where would one draw the line on the nature and
magnitude of criminality? What kind of minor criminal act would be exempt? What
is the definition of a minor criminal act? We do not know. September 11 brought
security concerns to the forefront of everyone's consciousness.
Bill C-35 would allow the foreign affairs minister to
supercede the authority of the immigration minister by allowing him to sign an
order for a foreign visitor to be admitted into the country who would otherwise
not be allowed to come to Canada.
(1025)
I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not want
the House to rubber stamp this power grab.
If we take a less neutral example, not a Nelson
Mandela, but a leader known to have committed human rights abuses or supported
terrorism, the government would have the authority to admit him or her on
political grounds, if they thought it furthered Canadian interests. What a
ridiculous idea.
This gives more power to the government than with which
most Canadians would be comfortable. Also, this power grab by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs creates a situation where a serious criminal would be treated
better and differently than an ordinary person with a minor criminal
record.
The bill would create a double standard. For instance,
a person with a criminal record, even a minor criminal record, would not be
allowed to enter Canada under special privileges. Whereas a spouse of a
Canadian with a minor criminal charge would not be. That person would be
allowed to enter Canada, despite the person's criminal record, but an ordinary
person with a minor criminal record would not.
I do not say that criminals should be admitted to
Canada, but for the sake of this example it might be a case which would cause a
Canadian family to split. It could also cause a marriage to break down because
that individual, who may have committed a minor criminal offence, would not be
able to rejoin his or her family in Canada. Allowing the government to use
vague words like national interest is not good enough.
It is already clear that the act centralizes a lot of
power in DFAIT. Is it the bureaucrats, or the Prime Minister or the cabinet who
will decide? We do not know that because the bill does not tell us. The
amendment is vague and leaves wide latitude that can be abused or even
accidentally or unintentionally erred.
We know that at the francophonie games a record number
of sports persons applied for refugee status. Imagine if the participants had
come under permits from the foreign affairs minister, superseding the
immigration minister. Where are the checks and balances? Who will find out what
their backgrounds are? It brings the immunity of delegates to international
conferences and international organizations into question.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
Canadian authorities do not have the right to arrest, detain or question
diplomatic personnel. Canadian authorities cannot search or enter their
premises. Also, the convention obliges Canadian authorities to protect
diplomatic premises. This also includes the premises of not only the diplomatic
missions, but also the premises of international organizations. This means that
a terrorist or a potential criminal entering Canada under the guise of
diplomacy would not only be immune from prosecution in Canada, but our
authorities would also be responsible for his or her safety. This is giving the
red carpet treatment for potential terrorists, spies from other countries,
criminals or even brutal dictators.
The bill would do two things to supposedly improve the
immunity of foreign officials in Canada. First, it would expand the number and
type of people who would enjoy immunity. Second, it would deepen the level of
immunity they would enjoy.
How about extradition if someone under diplomatic
privilege is charged in another country? Could that person be immune and not
extradited to that country? We do not know that. The bill does not touch on
that part at all.
(1030)
The fifth category of amendments are called
housekeeping amendments. There are many amendments, but one that got my
attention. It is disgusting that it has been included in a supposed
housekeeping section. It clarifies the governing statute for diplomatic
missions to import liquor into Canada.
Canadians still remember the immunity given to the
Russian diplomat who killed a Canadian citizen last year while driving drunk.
This was in spite of a number of previous drunk driving allegations in Canada
for that individual. I wonder if that Russian diplomat was ever charged for his
crime anywhere, in Canada or in Russia. We do not know that.
The question about this amendment is not duty free
status. I do not have a problem with that. The question is about the drunk
driving aspect. The bill does not mention any measures about diplomats under
immunity driving drunk or being involved in a fatal accident while driving
drunk. Not only that, according to the bill this murderer could be allowed back
into Canada as part of a Russian delegation to a conference. While he is on
Canadian soil, he could kill someone else and his immunity would protect him
again. That is pathetic.
The government now wants to expand the number of people
enjoying these privileges. This is a serious concern. Our briefing by the
department said that this section was to clarify the confusion over federal and
provincial jurisdiction in the area of liquor imports and diplomatic rights
because the liquor imports were a provincial jurisdiction. This means the
potential for harm is greater than before the bill was introduced. It
highlights the insensitivity of the government.
The lack of proper checks and balances is already a
problem with the general concept of immunity and the bill would only make the
matter worse. Maybe that is why the government is keeping the bill so quiet on
a Friday, when no one is participating in the debate.
Some other serious concerns I have with the bill are
covered under three categories. The bill does not deal with so many other
important issues, for example, the corruption at foreign missions. The bill is
in respect to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. When we
talk about foreign missions, we must talk about how our foreign missions
operate. The corruption at foreign missions is a serious issue in the wake of
security concerns. Our security begins at our foreign missions abroad. They
screen people before they even enter Canada. They are our first line of
defence.
Some strange things have been going on in Canada's
diplomatic missions overseas. Let me first point out that most of our diplomats
and foreign services civil servant employees are very honest, hard-working and
dignified individuals. I commend them for the jobs they do in representing
Canada abroad. However, I will mention that there are a few bad apples as
well.
I will give some examples. In Damascus a Syrian
national skimmed close to half a million dollars in visa processing fees and
tampered with the immigration computer for years. The RCMP managed to recover
about a quarter of a million dollars from that individual in 1999.
In the New Delhi and Islamabad High Commission offices,
corruption has been reported frequently. Based on the information given to me
by my constituents, I reported this to the immigration minister and the
RCMP.
(1035)
After the investigation they fired some locally hired
employees based on the information I provided them. The question is who was
minding the queue.
It has been reported that an office boy at the Canadian
high commission in New Delhi, who was supposed to mail out Canadian visas after
they were issued, did not mail them. He sat on those passports, hiding them in
his drawer, yet wrote down that he mailed them. Every passport had an address
so he sent his agents to the holders of these passports and extorted bribes
from them before releasing their passport. That individual is gone.
In Beijing an internal report for CIC warned of
organized crime groups providing fake documents to people interested in
obtaining student visas as a back door entrance to this country. According to
the facts, at least two-thirds of the more than 5,000 visa applications
processed in Beijing in 1999 were linked to organized crime.
In Los Angeles three Americans from the Canadian
consulate were fired in 1997 after they were connected to theft and the illegal
issuing of visas.
According to reports, an RCMP spokesman said the
mounties had investigated 38 cases of fraud and theft in about 20 Canadian
diplomatic missions in 1998 alone. The extent of corruption and abuse is giving
Canada a black eye.
In Hong Kong the RCMP quietly investigated the alleged
infiltration of the computer assisted immigration processing system, we call
CAIPS, by local staff at the mission who were said to be linked to triads.
Remember these foreign missions are our frontline of defence. An estimated 788
computer files containing sensitive background information on criminals and
businessmen wanting to emigrate to Canada were allegedly deleted from the
computers. In addition, the RCMP probed the alleged disappearance of more than
2,000 blank visa forms from the embassy. We do not know who got the visas
issued on those 2,000 blank forms or whose files were among the 788 computer
files deleted.
The RCMP confirmed investigations of a large
immigration consultancy firm believed to have used a secret diplomatic contact
and possibly a political contact as well. There is evidence the RCMP knew that
the suspect in the case of the missing Hong Kong files on gangsters was living
British Columbia. Some RCMP officers were puzzled as to why there had been no
follow-up on that information. According to a newspaper report that suspected
individual is living in British Columbia in a beautiful mansion.
Our foreign missions are our firstline of defence for
Canada, but I do not see anything in the bill that would protect and restore
the integrity of our foreign missions. Despite an abundance of leads, the
discovery of fake Citizenship and Immigration Canada stamps in the office of a
locally engaged staff member, there have been allegations of political pressure
to cover up the investigations.
A number of RCMP officers were assigned to the case and
then abruptly transferred just as they made significant finds, according to a
former senior employee of the department.
(1040)
Canadian diplomatic staff in Hong Kong were reported to
have been treated to nights at the horses races, parties and an abundance of
gifts. The RCMP investigated a night at the races involving red envelopes
stuffed with dollars. The investigation showed that what they were doing was
carrying on with corrupt officials at the horse races and giving them huge sums
of money. They showed that they won the money at the horse races and black
money was turned into white money which they could then bring into Canada and
do whatever they wanted with it.
In some cases the whistleblowers were harassed,
punished and even dismissed from their jobs. Despite all that, no independent
public inquiry into these cases was held. It is pathetic. We need a public
inquiry into what went on or may still be going on in some of our diplomatic
missions abroad. We need to fix the system. We need to restore the integrity.
We ought to make it fair but there is no political will by the government to do
that. There is no political will on the government benches to restore integrity
in Canada's foreign missions. They are the defence line for us when people want
to enter Canada.
The waste and mismanagement in our foreign missions are
big embarrassments which have not been addressed in the bill. A civil servant
blew the whistle on the spending of millions of taxpayers' dollars to keep
Canada's diplomats in the lap of luxury. After senior foreign affairs officials
violated treasury board guidelines, that official blew the whistle and we know
what happens to the whistleblowers in this country. We do not have any
whistleblower legislation. I have a private member's bill on whistleblowing but
I do not know when I will have a chance to debate it in the House.
According to that employee, expensive sites have been
purchased for offices or residences but they are left unoccupied for many
years. If the official does not like the property, he or she is allowed to rent
another expensive apartment to live in and the initial investment is wasted.
One site was purchased in Turkey in 1958 and it is
still unoccupied. Why did we invest in buying that property in 1958 when we are
not using it? It is the taxpayers' money. The litany of waste and negligence
has been reported. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been blown on staff
housing from Tokyo to Turkey to Mexico. I am not talking about the utilization
of the money; I am talking about the waste, the real waste, the real
mismanagement.
The civil servants who blew the whistle have been
suspended. They have been harassed and their careers have been paralyzed. Has
there been a public inquiry? No, there has been none whatsoever. Is there a
political will to fix these problems? No, we do not see that. Is there anything
in the bill to address these issues dealing with foreign missions? No, there is
nothing about these issues mentioned in the bill. This is an area of
concern.
Another important issue that the bill ignores is
Canada's membership in international organizations. I remind members that the
title of the bill is “Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act” but
there is no mention of Canada's membership in international organizations in
the bill.
Canada belongs to many international organizations.
Perhaps we are the world's greatest joiners. Some organizations shut down in
the 1970s and those organizations are still on Canada's membership list. We
should join international organizations if we intend to do a good job,
otherwise we should not join them. We should not join them just for the sake of
joining.
(1045)
What are the criteria for joining the international
organizations? We cannot find them anywhere in the bill. It does not address
that issue at all.
We know for sure that the costs Canadian taxpayers a
lot. Canada's total expenditure on international organizations is difficult to
assess. A few years ago we wanted to do some research but we could not get that
information. Even the Library of Parliament could not get enough information.
It is difficult to assess.
One CBC study estimates that Canada spent as much as $1
billion annually on the United Nations and its related agencies. In 1999-2000
assessed grants and contributions to international organizations were said by
DFAIT to total about $275 million.
Canada has a tendency to view multilateralism as an all
embracing panacea. Its reflex reaction to international problems has often been
to support and even aggressively promote the proliferation of international
organizations.
One example is the Arctic Council, founded in 1996.
Touted as a forum for Arctic issues and sustainable development among
circumpolar states, its precise purpose and utility still remain unclear.
Moreover, United States enthusiasm for the council is limited. As a result, the
council cannot deal with military security matters. It is open to question
whether Canada's membership in such organizations bears tangible relation to
our national interests. This concern is not new.
In 1928 the then opposition leader, R. B. Bennett,
noted that the Mackenzie King government's enthusiasm for signing international
agreements did not clearly advance Canada's interests. He questioned the
increasing evidence as the days went by of a desire on our part to find a place
in the sun by signing conventions and treaties, thus suggesting that we had
become a very important people. Importance in the world is not measured in any
such manner. In other words, joining a proliferation of organizations does not
by itself promote Canada's influence and credibility. Bennett added that that
is not a test of our greatness.
Under the current Liberal administration, Canada signed
the Kyoto, Beijing and Rio conventions without any intentions whatsoever of
implementing them.
Ottawa seems to be proud of its record of paying our
dues and frequently criticizing our major ally, the United States of America,
for deliberately falling into arrears. Whatever Canada's record is on paying
fees, no international organization that receives tax dollars should be immune
from audits by the Canadian government. If we pay the dues, we should have the
right to audit.
For example in 1995 UNICEF disclosed that $10 million
went missing from its Kenyan operation due to fraud and mismanagement by its
employees. Some $10 million from UNICEF was missing. In 1998 an independent
audit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees highlighted serious
failings in the agency's financial management procedures, dubious accounting
practices and possibly fraud at a cost of millions. That is what the situation
is with some of the organizations.
These reviews show that we must examine the
effectiveness and utility of an international organization to Canada before we
join it. After such a review has taken place, parliament should decide what
course of action is necessary, whether we should continue our membership,
withhold the fee to induce reform in that organization, or withdraw fully from
the organization.
(1050)
I recommend that: Canada engage in international
organizations which clearly promote conditions for expanding Canadian political
and economic interests; the role of parliament be strengthened to provide
genuine oversight over the activities of international organizations and the
extent to which they serve Canada's national interests; Canada participate in
audits and reviews in the international organizations with a view to remaining
in those that advance national interests and consider withholding resources to
induce reform.
In conclusion, this is a sneaky bill which does not
deal with those important issues. It hides the important issues and disguises
them as housekeeping changes. I mentioned that waste, mismanagement, corruption
and membership of international organizations are serious concerns with respect
to the bill.
Since it has been indicated that my time has expired, I
will end my speech here but I have more to say.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill.
First of all, despite the numerous questions being raised and the fate of the
amendments--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Surrey Central.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I forgot to move an amendment. Can I
move it now if I have consent?
The Speaker:
The hon. member was well past his time when he ended
his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today.
In spite of numerous questions and taking into account the answers and
decisions we get regarding the amendments we will be proposing at second
reading, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
The bill essentially seeks to extend diplomatic
immunity to people who are involved in various international organizations, but
who are not covered by treaties or members of intergovernmental organizations.
Our support is based on that objective.
Diplomatic immunity has recently generated a lot of
questions and even resentment among the public, particularly in the Ottawa-Hull
area. This feeling spread to all of Quebec and Canada when a Russian diplomat
driving under the influence killed Catherine MacLean and injured her friend. We
later learned that this was not the first time this diplomat had been caught
while driving under the influence. However, his immunity had prevented him from
having to face justice the way ordinary citizens would have had to.
It can even be said that if, at the time, a poll had
been conducted on support for diplomatic immunity, the results might not have
reflected the interests of the international community. At the time of this
incident, the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave assurances that such a thing
would not happen again. The bill makes no reference to this, but the fact is
that diplomatic immunity is necessary.
Diplomatic immunity is necessary and it would be
interesting to see what it entails. However, since I have little time until
oral question period, I want to affirm that even, and particularly in these
difficult times, diplomatic immunity is necessary to allow diplomats to do
their job.
As we know, there are several countries where the rule
of law is not the same as it is here. In many countries, criticizing the
government is an offence. In other countries, freedom of religion is not
recognized. In others still, a person can be imprisoned without being accused
of anything and it may not be easy for that person to regain his or her
freedom.
Without diplomatic immunity, it would be impossible for
the government and its spokespersons to criticize the actions of foreign
countries without putting at risk the diplomats who work in these
countries.
If there were no diplomatic immunity, Canadian
nationals abroad also could not benefit from the protection of Canada during a
situation of upheaval or conflict.
Lastly, if there were no diplomatic immunity, it would
be difficult to establish sustained relations between countries, to play an
active role in conflict resolution, to maintain dialogue in the event of
disagreements, and to defend the interests of Canada and Canadians
abroad.
It is, therefore, necessary to the proper maintenance
of international order.
Nevertheless, although the intention of this bill is to
extend diplomatic immunity to diplomats working for international organizations
not currently covered by treaties or on intergovernmental delegations, it
raises very many questions. I will list them now, and will go into further
detail after oral question period.
(1055)
The new powers given to the RCMP need to be questioned.
Even if the background documents from the government stipulate that this
changes nothing, the standard response is “If it adds nothing, why state it,
and particularly why write it down for inclusion in a law?”
Especially since the experiences of the APEC summit,
and other heated discussions, there are some important questions to be raised.
Questions also need to be asked about the changes to certain definitions which
appear to limit these organizations, while at the same time recognizing new
ones. The number of these organizations seems to have been reduced.
There is another matter that is not addressed at all,
or at least we did not see it: the increasing number of parliamentary
organizations, which also have a role to play.
The Speaker:
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she will
have 33 minutes after oral question period in which to finish her speech. I
hope that she will be available at that time to do so.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Prime Minister of
Canada
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada and
member for Saint-Maurice, in Quebec, is more popular than ever.
According to the results of a Gallup poll released
today, the Prime Minister has beaten his own popularity record, and is now the
first choice of 62% of Canadians.
Since being re-elected for a third consecutive term of
office as leader of the Liberal Party in November 2000, the Prime Minister had
never made it above 56%, already amazing, given the number of parties on the
Canadian political scene.
The Liberal Prime Minister's biggest jump in popularity
was in Quebec, where it climbed to 65% in September.
If an election had been held last week, the Liberals
would have won, with 60% of the vote in Canada.
In Quebec, 68% of the population would have voted for
the Liberal Party of Canada, led by the Liberal member for
Saint-Maurice.
* * *
(1100)
[English]
Thanksgiving
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Monday is our national day to give thanks
and will be a day more meaningful than most. What happened this year will be
remembered forever as so many lives have been shattered and put on
hold.
This Thanksgiving many will set a place at their table
for their missed loved ones so that the missing will be with them in the spirit
of the day. The grieving will be in need of the solace and comfort the symbolic
presence of the missing can give as their family and friends gather this
year.
This year and in all years to follow let us ask new
friends to join in our Thanksgiving to give blessing for our bounty on earth.
This tragic year let us set a place at our tables for our neighbours who are
missing to share with them the thanks and feast of the living. The missing
would want it so.
* * *
[Translation]
Ignace-Nicolas Vincent
Tsawenhohi
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I call the attention
of the House to the designation of Ignace-Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi as a
historic figure by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
This man played an important role in the history of
Wendake and of Canada, first as a war chief of the Huron-Wendat nation, later
as a diplomat ensuring liaison between the British forces and the various
aboriginal groups.
He helped to maintain Canada's sovereignty during the
conflict with our neighbours in the last century.
Upon his return to civilian life, he continued to serve
his compatriots as Grand Chief of the Huron-Wendat nation, bringing
considerable respectability to the position through his political, diplomatic
and military achievements.
Ignace-Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi also helped give the
Wendats a strong pride in being Hurons, and helped maintain good relations with
the colonial authorities.
For all these reasons, I wish to draw the House's
attention to this initiative by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
* * *
[English]
Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the pleasure of
representing the Minister of National Revenue at the British Columbia Community
Futures Conference in Whistler, B.C.
Small and medium size business plays an essential role
in the Canadian economy. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the CCRA, is
proud to work with this vital sector of our economy.
Over the past several years the CCRA has worked with
business and the provinces to develop joint registration for new business, to
improve the scientific research and experimental development program and to
provide enhanced customs programs that make doing business easier
internationally.
These are just a few examples of how the CCRA and
business are working together to provide the best possible services to
Canadians.
* * *
Breast Cancer Awareness
Month
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
It is a time to celebrate survivors and people challenged by the disease. Each
member of the House has been affected by breast cancer in some way or knows
someone who has been.
In Burlington we are fortunate to have Breast Cancer
Support Services, an invaluable resource for women, men and their families to
get information on treatment options and the critical support they need.
I congratulate the BCSS and similar organizations
across the country for the important role they play in helping those affected
by this terrible illness.
Last Sunday Canadians participated in the 10th annual
Run for the Cure. In Burlington more than 5,000 people ran or walked to raise
over $300,000. In five years our community has raised more than $1 million for
breast cancer research.
All of us can help raise awareness and educate
Canadians. Mammograms and monthly breast self-examinations contribute to the
early detection of the disease. Together we can fight breast cancer. Let us all
work to find a cure.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week at a press conference
after a fundraiser the Prime Minister suggested terrorism is not such a big
problem in Canada. What does the Prime Minister consider to be big? Would he
care to explain what he meant by that comment to the families of the 329
victims of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985? That flight came out of
Vancouver.
In 1988 Tara Singh Hayer, a prominent newspaper
publisher, was shot, paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair as a result. He had
been vocal in his criticism of terrorism. In 1998 he was shot and killed in his
driveway. Many suspect Sikh extremists in his unsolved murder.
The question now being asked is whether journalists
like Tara Singh Hayer will be protected under new anti-terrorist legislation as
they are under the criminal gang laws. Perhaps the Prime Minister would explain
to Mr. Hayer's son David, now a member of the B.C. legislature, why he thinks
terrorism is not such a big deal in Canada.
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Community Care Worker
Week
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the House
that the week of October 15 to 21 is Community Care Worker Week.
Health care professionals and parka-professionals and
volunteers providing care in the community are an integral part of our health
care system.
Community workers include nurses, social workers,
physiotherapists, occupational therapists, visiting homemakers, and
volunteers.
These people are the frontline workers. They provide
home care and long term care in facilities. They offer meal and community
support programs.
As many health care services are being moved from the
hospitals to the community, community care workers are increasingly in demand
to help in the transition and to ensure the continuity of patient
care.
I invite you to join me in paying tribute to community
care workers in Canada and in acknowledging Community Care Worker
week.
* * *
Mental Illness Awareness
Week
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, October 7 to 13 is Mental Illness
Awareness Month. This annual campaign serves to demystify illnesses that can
affect anyone of us, unfortunately.
Ever worsening statistics show that suicide is the
primary cause of death among young people aged 15 to 24 and that depression
will be the main cause of potential illness by 2020.
Worse yet, there is little if any funding. Children are
the primary victims of government inaction and pay the cost. Only one child in
five receives the mental health care necessary.
It is high time the federal government listened to
Quebec's requests to transfer to it the money necessary to establish a real
plan of action for mental illness.
* * *
Guy Beaulne
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I attended the opening of an
exhibition marking the 150th anniversary of the Institut canadien français. The
honorary chairman of the event was Jean-Pierre Beaulne, who took the
opportunity to speak to us of his brother Guy. Guy Beaulne had suffered a heart
attack the week before, and died last Monday.
His brother spoke of his beginnings with Le
Droit, and of the theatre scholarships he then received, which led to a
magnificent career in the theater. He was the first director of La famille
Plouffe. He headed the Grand Théâtre de Québec and the Conservatoire d'art
dramatique de Montréal, and was awarded both the Ordre national du Québec and
the Order of Canada. He founded the Association canadienne du théâtre
amateur.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to
thank him for his lifetime of accomplishments and to extend my most sincere
condolences to his family and friends. As the curtain drops for the last time,
I would like to wish him the very best, as in the famous French theatrical
expression.
* * *
[English]
Grey Nuns
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today
to recognize the contributions of the 1966 graduating class of Regina Grey Nuns
nurses. This week representatives from the class are marking their 35th
anniversary in our nation's capital.
For almost nine decades the Grey Nuns have provided the
utmost in compassion and care to families in the Regina area. These dedicated
women have been not only active in the nursing field but have been leaders in
the communities in which they live.
With heartfelt dedication these women have shared their
vocation and talents with those in need. Their exemplary commitment to the
health and well-being of the Canadian people is a reflection of their love.
On behalf of all my constituents I extend my gratitude
to the Grey Nuns nurses for their dedication to serving the citizens of Regina
and Saskatchewan. May their 35th anniversary reunion be filled with joy and
fond memories.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak today on behalf of all
my colleagues in the House when I express my outrage and disdain for comments
made recently by the member for Yorkton--Melville.
The member, who has since admitted he had no evidence
to back his claims, suggested in a video to the U.S. based National Rifle
Association that Canadian negligence contributed--
(1110)
The Speaker:
The hon. member knows that under Standing Order 31,
statements may not be used to make comments on other members and their
statements. I think we will move on.
* * *
Petro-Canada
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the Government of Canada did a
good thing. It followed NDP advice, took over Petro-Canada and made it into the
profitable company it is today. Media reports now state that Canada is thinking
of getting rid of its last 20% share.
After September 11, with concerns about energy and the
security of energy sources on the minds of every Canadian, we ask the
Government of Canada to withdraw its decision to sell off the remaining stake.
This year alone the government would have gained $19 million in dividends from
its 20% investment in Petro-Canada.
In light of the circumstances of September 11 we
encourage the government to withdraw selling off any further stake in
Petro-Canada and to secure for all Canadians a say in the future energies of
the country.
* * *
[Translation]
Théâtre du Nouveau
Monde
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this coming Tuesday, October
9, the curtain rose on opening night of Molière's L'Avare, the first
play presented by the Théatre du Nouveau Monde.
The theatre was founded by a small group of theatre
people, including Jean Gascon and Jean-Louis Roux, after their stay in Europe
studying theatre. Since its inception, the TNM has produced and toured great
works from the classic and contemporary repertoire, while promoting national
creative talent.
Hundreds of actors and directors have produced works
for Quebec audiences that have been milestones in our artistic history,
attracting audiences of up to 123,000. These include Jeannine Sutto, Robert
Gravel, Denise Boucher, Guy Hoffman, Monique Miller, Michel Tremblay, Michèle
Rossignol, Gérard Poirier and Huguette Oligny, to name but a few of the people
connected with TNM who have brightened up our spirits and our lives.
In the fall of 1972, the company moved to the
magnificent quarters we are familiar with today. Under the masterful artistic
direction of Lorraine Pintal for nearly 10 years now, the Théâtre du Nouveau
Monde has a fine future stretching before it. To everyone connected with the
TNM, we extend the traditional theatrical wish “Break a leg”.
* * *
[English]
Communities in Bloom
Ms. Aileen Carroll
(Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that the city of
Barrie in my riding of Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford has blossomed into a winner.
Barrie has won the top award in the national Communities in Bloom program. The
announcement was made in a ceremony in Saint John, New Brunswick, last week.
Barrie has also picked up another award. The National Capital Commission Award
was given as a separate prestigious distinction for beautification
effort.
I am pleased to congratulate all those involved in
making my city beautiful and achieving this recognition. Special kudos go to
Alderman Patricia Copeland, head of Barrie's Communities in Bloom committee. I
thank those who worked so hard to achieve this honour. This five bloom ranking
will help promote the city of Barrie to tourists and attract business and
industry.
* * *
Taxation
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, lower income Canadian students and labour
intensive industries are pleading with the Liberal government to stop targeting
them with crippling payroll taxes.
The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association
has made a recommendation to the human resources committee to establish a
$3,000 yearly basic exemption in the employment insurance program as a cost
effective way to reduce the payroll tax burden on labour intensive industries
such as food service, retail and tourism.
Financially it would help lower income workers and
expand job opportunities for entry level workers. In these times of economic
uncertainty the need for targeted payroll tax relief has never been
greater.
The finance minister has forgotten his new framework
for economic policy statement of October 1994 in which he stated:
We believe there is nothing more
ludicrous than a tax on hiring, but that is what payroll taxes are. They have
grown dramatically over time. They affect lower wage earners much more than
those at the high end. |
I concur with the finance minister. It is time for him
to heed his own words and introduce payroll tax relief immediately. A fall
budget would be a perfect opportunity for him to do so.
* * *
Child Abuse Prevention
Month
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that October is Child
Abuse Prevention Month. Sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect toward
children are among the most disturbing problems facing Canadians today.
We must prevent child abuse. We must promote social and
economic conditions that support parents and reflect the great value we place
on our children. We must challenge attitudes that propagate child abuse. We
must intervene when we suspect a child is being mistreated, hurt, neglected or
exploited.
The Government of Canada through partnerships with
community, national, corporate and voluntary organizations supports a number of
initiatives to help prevent child abuse and support families and young
children.
These include family violence initiative and community
based programs such as the community action program for children and aboriginal
head start. Together we must continue to reaffirm our commitment to protect
Canada's children.
* * *
(1115)
Agriculture
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, agriculture in our country continues to
suffer due to lack of action on the part of the Liberal government. According
to Stats Canada the agricultural industry saw the largest job loss in the goods
producing sector. An astonishing 39,000 jobs have been lost.
This is simply not a number. These are 39,000 people
who are now struggling to pay their bills and feed their families. These are
39,000 people whose way of life have changed forever.
The minister of agriculture tells us that current
safety net programs are enough. Obviously these programs are ineffective and
insufficient. Would 39,000 jobs have been lost if these programs actually
worked?
The agricultural community is not looking for handouts.
It is in dire need of programs that work, programs that would enable them to
compete in the global market, programs that support families when disasters
happen and programs that will get them back to work. Something must be
done.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when we have raised concerns in the House
about Canada's security weaknesses, we have been accused of partisanship and
fearmongering. Yesterday, in acknowledging the need to play catch up, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs was refreshingly frank in the media when he
said:
You can't just sit at the G-8 table
and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom. |
We now hope he will be as open to MPs in the House of
Commons as he was to the media outside the House and tell us just how much
money the government is prepared to commit to the very needy beefing up of our
defence and our security.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the point we can all agree on is
that the world did change on September 11. What I have been saying consistently
is that imposes upon all of us a burden to review what we are doing, what we
need to do in the future and how we will conduct ourselves to meet the
challenges September 11 have presented to us.
Canada has punched above its weight in the G-8 and
elsewhere. The Prime Minister's influence, because of his experience and the
positions he has taken, has given us greater influence than our size or our
population would otherwise indicate.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about his comments
pre-September 11. We agree with post-September 11 that a lot more has to be
done.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and this is not
just a headline, that Canada still trades on a reputation that was built two
generations ago and more than that, which we have not continued to live up
to.
For the last three weeks the government has maintained
consistently that its past funding has been adequate. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs now says that the past funding was not adequate. Is this a change of
government position, or is the minister being punished for his refreshing
honesty?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would read
what I said I think he would discover that some of the things I think we need
to be putting more money into are not ones that his party has supported in the
past. That includes our contribution to overseas development
assistance.
We have long had a target that has been difficult for
us to achieve. In years of cutbacks it has been even more difficult to achieve.
We have seen the situation that followed September 11. Did the United States
expect to put that much overseas development into Afghanistan on September 10?
I do not think so. The world changed.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we thought we were seeing some refreshing
frankness. It sounds like he is headed back to the washroom.
[Translation]
One way to improve security in Canada and in the United
States is to create a North American security perimeter. U.S. Ambassador Paul
Cellucci, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, a
number of premiers and some important business leaders are asking for such a
security perimeter.
Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs feel that
their idea is simplistic? Why is it simplistic?
(1120)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as Minister of the Industry, I spent years
urging provincial governments to reduce interprovincial trade
barriers.
We do not need provincial governments to help us find
ways to open our borders with the United States. If we had free trade between
the provinces the way that we do between the two countries, things might be a
lot better than they are. This is not a provincial issue.
* * *
[English]
Airline Industry
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the transport minister has ruled out the
use of air marshals on planes foolishly, calling it “a radical idea”, but his
rush to judgment will hurt Canadian carriers badly.
Yesterday Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
reopened, but only to planes carrying air marshals. Not only has the transport
minister denied Canadians another layer of security they want, deserve and
need, but he is now putting a roadblock in front of Canadian carriers that
compete with American carriers.
Will the transport minister admit that he was wrong to
rule out air marshals and reconsider the idea today?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the last couple of
weeks, the hon. member is very selective when he brings forward the facts. The
fact is that Ronald Reagan national airport has been partially reopened to a
limited number of U.S. air carriers serving only eight cities.
Up to this point Canada had a privileged position in
that Air Canada was the only foreign airline allowed to fly into Reagan
national. As the U.S. authorities deem Reagan national to be safe for full
operation I hope we can resume the Air Canada service into that
airport.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has formally requested to put
air marshals on planes because it wants to be able to fly Canadians in to the
capital city of Canada's largest trading partner.
If Canadian carriers are to compete internationally,
they will need to have air marshals on planes. Will the minister withdraw his
statement that air marshals are radical and commit to putting them on planes so
that Canadians will feel safe and so that Canadian carriers can compete around
the world?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently that the use of
air marshals was not the preferred direction of the government.
We want to ensure that security measures are in place
at airports to prevent the need for putting armed personnel on planes, which in
itself creates some degree of danger and is not endorsed, certainly not at this
point, by the pilot unions in this country. In fact, Mr. Bush has not even
agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes.
This is a matter that is evolving. This is a matter
that we will be discussing in future weeks with the FAA.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have shown that
countries are vulnerable and forced us to rethink our notion of
security.
As President Bush appears to be opening up slowly to
the problem of disparity in the world, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs
agree recent events have shown that from now on—
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
The Speaker:
Order, please. Something happened, and I did not hear
the end of the hon. member's question. Perhaps she could repeat the last part
of it.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as President Bush appears to be opening up
slowly to the problem of disparity in the world, will the Minister of Foreign
Affairs agree recent events have shown that from now on, no country will be
able to think about its internal security without giving thought to the
political and social situation in the world?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. Something very
important that occurred after the September 11 situation was the effort by the
Americans to create an international coalition against terrorism. They realized
that a coalition must be carefully built not only in North America and western
Europe, but throughout the world.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in an interview with the National
Post, the Minister of Foreign Affairs noted that Canada no longer has the
means to keep up its reputation in a number of areas in which it excels,
including peacekeeping and international aid.
How are we to interpret the latest statements by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs?
(1125)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is simply that the events of September
11 have altered the situation. Canada's reputation is very positive in the
world, as is that of the Prime Minister. However, the burden is considerably
greater because of the events of September 11.
If we want to continue to play such an important role,
we must recognize that the burden will be greater.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs'
courageous observation that we can no longer afford to live up to our
commitments raises many questions, and even concerns.
What means does the minister propose in order to deal
with the new realities that he has identified?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, the member should recognize that we
had already made a start, even prior to September 11.
We are one of the few governments that have increased
their military and international development assistance budgets.
This is the approach we need to take. However, we are
already on this path, we have already expressed our intention to increase our
support, and we will continue.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that a number of
the changes he is proposing will take time, and that the struggle to correct
the imbalance between countries will also take time.
However, in the meantime, Canada can quickly step up
its international assistance, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in many
other countries.
Does the minister have any specific measures in mind to
meet the needs in the near future?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister responsible for
international assistance, has already announced our support to the tune of
$6 million for Afghanistan.
Also, in the region, there was a major announcement of
almost half a billion dollars in assistance for Pakistan, to convert Pakistan's
debt to CIDA.
So, we are already in the process of announcing our
support in a very troubled region.
[English]
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Richard Goldstone, who was the chief
prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda,
said this week that it would be tragic indeed if the major democracies were now
to become outlaws in the face of the tragic events in New York City and
Washington on September 11.
He called for full adherence by the nations of the
world to the provisions of international humanitarian law. He stated that the
sanctioning of the assassination of suspected war criminals and unlawful
attacks on innocent civilians would clearly be in violation of international
law. Is that the position of the Government of Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the invocation of
article 5 by NATO, as well as the adoption of resolutions by the security
council of the United Nations, together with article 51 of the charter of the
United Nations, give the ability to respond on a military basis in self-defence
to the United States and its allies in this situation.
That is the legal basis in international law for any
such intervention. The European Union, Canada and most other countries around
the world support that position.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently stated on
Larry King Live, or perhaps it was at a Liberal fundraiser, that Canada
would participate in a U.S. led military strike on Afghanistan if
asked.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure the House
that parliament will be recalled next week, if necessary, to debate and vote
before any Canadian troops are asked to participate in a U.S. led military
strike?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking about a
hypothetical situation. I have been working in co-operation with all House
leaders on the functioning of parliament. We have had good relations in that
regard.
Although it is an unlikely proposition, should there be
anything involving military deployment I would endeavour to have a
parliamentary debate as soon as parliament is reconvened, possibly as early as
the first evening, but again it is hypothetical.
* * *
(1130)
Terrorism
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the FBI, the CIA and the Defense
Intelligence Agency briefed the U.S. congress that militants linked to bin
Laden will probably attack American targets in the near future. The expected
targets include natural gas lines and power plants. Natural gas, electrical
power, sir, that is Canada's business. Those energy targets may well be in
Canada.
Has the Government of Canada been briefed by those
American security agencies about energy related threats that might impact
Canada? If that information about Canada is being given to the U.S. congress,
why is it being kept from the Canadian parliament?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, consistently the Prime Minister, the
solicitor general and other ministers have emphasized the point that in the
parliamentary system of government discussions of this nature are on the floor
of the House in general terms, but when it comes to security information it is
kept privileged for the very reasons that it is sensitive and it deals with
national security.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, that is not the case with Larry King and
that is not the case with the mother of parliaments in the United
Kingdom.
My question is about the Export Development Corporation
and potential terrorist connections. When the EDC decides to become involved in
an international transaction, does it specifically inquire into all of the
sources of funding and into the background of all participants in those
transactions that it insures? Could the minister say categorically now that
there has been no involvement by the EDC in any transaction involving a
potential terrorist group? Is that matter being investigated now and will, in
the British parliament--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I could not say if the EDC has had any
transactions when the leader over there was in the government. Maybe over the
years there have been under the previous government. However, I can say that we
have made sure that EDC works very closely with the foreign affairs department
and that it very closely follows our risk assessments and analyses all over the
world, all the time, so I--
Right Hon. Joe Clark:
So the answer is no.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
I think the leader should give me the opportunity to
give him an answer, if he is interested in it, instead of just scoring
political--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Athabasca.
* * *
National Security
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs
stated:
Something troubles me about this
perimeter talk, because I believe it's a short form for something, but I don't
quite know what it's short form for. |
A survey shows that 81% of Canadians believe that a
secure perimeter is necessary. What part of secure perimeter does this minister
not understand?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk surveys we will talk
7%.
I understand why people will respond to a question that
has to do with their sense of security, because people do feel insecure as a
result of the events of September 11.
The problem we need to deal with, though, is much more
contained than the opposition would suggest that it is. We need to deal on a
practical, step by step basis with the government of the United States, as it
is our border with that other country, in order to solve any real or perceived
problems that exist. That does not--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister calls a security perimeter
simplistic. He says he does not want to turn over the keys to sovereignty.
There is no sovereignty without security. Why is this minister wimping out on
the idea of a secure perimeter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to wimp out on the idea of
a country. What Canada wants and what Canada deserves is for our people to live
in safety and security. Our government is intent on ensuring that we take every
measure that is necessary to ensure that our people feel secure behind our
borders.
I can assure the hon. member that if we satisfy
Canadians that they are living in safety and security, we will probably be able
to satisfy the government of the United States as well that people in Canada
are no great risk to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
said that a security perimeter was a simplistic idea.
In an interview given to the National Post,
however, he said that Canada could not afford to be outside any future American
security perimeter. For his part, Canada's ambassador to Washington says he is
discussing the perimeter issue with the U.S. government. It is confusing to say
the least.
While we may agree with the minister that the short
term solution does not lie in this security perimeter, will he admit that the
objective should be to make the continent safe without hampering
trade?
(1135)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, that is our
objective.
In fact, there are two objectives: first, to reassure
Canadians that they are safe in their country, Canada; second, to ensure the
free flow of trade between Canada and the United States.
These are the two objectives.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, what seems to bother the minister about
the idea of a security perimeter is that the discussions would involve
Mexico.
But Canada has everything to gain in seeing the
discussions go from bilateral to multilateral.
How can Canada claim to be a partner of Mexico and the
United States in NAFTA and, in the same breath, exclude one of its partners,
Mexico, from crucial discussions concerning security and trade in North
America?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have no border between Canada and
Mexico.
I think that the member is well aware that the
situation between the United States and Mexico differs completely from the
situation between Canada and the United States.
It would of course be more complicated if we were to
try to discuss borders from a trilateral point of view.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are a bit disillusioned. We thought the
new era of perestroika that the minister was bringing in yesterday was a
refreshing sign, but he is beating a hasty retreat now.
The area in discussion, a secure perimeter, has been
talked about by the U.S. ambassador, the former ambassador to the United
Nations, provincial premiers and key community leaders. They are all talking
about having a secure perimeter. It is not the only thing that should be done,
but it is one of them.
What does the minister have against their idea of a
secure perimeter and why does he say it is simplistic?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to explain is that we
are not looking for a simple way of trying to characterize the steps that need
to be done. Everyone acknowledges that there are steps that need to be done to
assure everyone of our safety and security after September 11.
As for the notion that there is a quick and easy fix to
that, in reality there are many departments and agencies of both governments
that need to work closely together in order to deal with the myriad of issues
that relate to safety and security. It is not just simply a matter of putting
up some kind of barrier around fortress North America.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Americans and some Canadian leaders
are taking extraordinary steps to conquer an extraordinary attack on our
security and economy. Instead of just echoing the litany of half measures the
finance minister has taken in the past, will he please tell Canadians what
extraordinary measures he is taking or planning to take to counter the
anticipated downturn in the economy and employment?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we have suffered as
a result of the events of September 11. Let me assure the House that we are
very closely monitoring the fiscal situation in Canada. We are taking steps to
work with the international community because the global economy has been
impacted by those events. We will continue, as we have in the past, to exercise
very prudent economic stewardship in Canada. This means, as the Prime Minister
said and as the finance minister said, that we will have an economic
update--
[Translation]
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for the past week, various ministers of
the government have been appearing before standing committees of the House,
claiming to have plans for dealing in the short term with the exceptional
situation that has resulted from the tragic events of September 11.
Has the government assessed the costs relating to these
short term plans, since we still do not know all that is involved?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware that the Bloc is
calling for $5 billion from us. They are demanding a reduction in
contributions. But we have already done that. They are calling for EI reform.
We have already done that.
They have asked us to do something for the airlines. We
have already done that. They have asked us to do something for small and medium
size businesses. We have already done that within our taxation system.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
An hon. member: He is not even answering the
question.
Hon. Jim Peterson: But we--
(1140)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, could we please have someone serious to
answer our questions?
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told us that he too
had an overall plan to deal with the situation.
I am asking the government, someone serious in the
government, what the Minister of Finance is going to propose as an economic
recovery strategy in Washington at the G-7 meeting this weekend, when there
seems to be a complete inability here to support the economy and
employment.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I must tell the hon.
member. Our government is going to do its best to avoid a deficit. That is
vital. We must continue to be responsible in our administration.
* * *
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Vancouver
Island North informed the House that Indonesia successfully negotiated the
removal of U.S. tariffs on Indonesian plywood. That move was made to bring
Indonesia into the coalition against terrorism.
Since Canada is also a member of this coalition, why
has the government not asked the United States to remove the countervailing
duty against Canadian softwood lumber?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, frankly I am amazed by the question from
the opposition. We have been asking for removal of the countervailing duties of
19% from day one. We have been saying for months that we are trading fairly in
the United States and now we are being asked if we asked the American
administration to eliminate the 19% countervailing duty.
I have asked. The Prime Minister asked as well when we
met with President Bush. We are doing a lot of very serious work, really
constructive and long lasting work on the softwood lumber issue.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, then maybe the hon. minister should find a
better way to ask. As the Indonesian plywood deal made very clear, the United
States is now making trade and other economic concessions to its coalition
partners.
MPs from all parties agree that the duty against
softwood lumber is damaging our forestry industry. Will the government listen
to Canadians and their representatives and take action to save the nearly
50,000 jobs that are in jeopardy?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House one thing. The
Government of Canada will not negotiate our friendship and support for the
United States at this time. Our friendship is not conditional. We will fight
the terrorists around the world with the Americans and we will not negotiate
our support of the Americans at this time.
We will continue to do everything we can to do good
work, as we have been doing during the past few days on the softwood lumber
issue.
They should do their homework better and not negotiate
our future.
* * *
Employment
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today Statistics Canada released its
unemployment figures for September. Therefore would the Minister of Industry
provide the House with more details of this report?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister repeatedly have said, the economy of Canada is fundamentally solid at
its base.
As we have seen today, Statistics Canada has released a
report which demonstrates that the unemployment rate for the month of September
has remained the same as the previous month at 7.2%, notwithstanding these
difficult times.
Further, the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business has released its own survey today which shows that business confidence
among small and medium sized enterprises remains strong as well.
We have some serious challenges, but we have an economy
that is fundamentally strong and Canada will recover quickly if it comes down
to it.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, whom I applaud when I hear him say he does not want to give up on the
idea of a country. I would ask him not to give up on the idea of parliament
either and consider whether or not parliament should be consulted before any
decisions are made rather than after the fact.
My question for the minister actually has to do with
the lifting of sanctions on Pakistan. I wonder if the minister could give us
any indication whether or not any guarantees were given or sought on the part
of Pakistan with respect to nuclear testing and the--
(1145)
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in removing the sanctions previously on
India, and this week on Pakistan, in both cases we have made it clear that the
decision to do so does not reflect any change in our disapproval of their
nuclear policies.
In addition it does not extend to trade in military
goods or nuclear co-operation. Furthermore, we made it very clear, and I did so
personally to the foreign ministers of both countries, that we expect both
sides to use a great deal of restraint in their dealings between each other at
this very sensitive moment.
* * *
Energy
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear all of that but I wonder
whether there were any commitments. My question is for the minister responsible
for energy.
Given the report in the paper today that the government
might be considering selling off what interest it has in Petro-Canada, I wonder
if at this time when there is uncertainty in the energy sector what the wisdom
is of selling off what little possible leverage the government may have in the
energy sector. We might come to a point where we want to be able to use
Petro-Canada or expand our ownership in it.
Could the government say, please, that it is not
considering such an option?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation to the
government of the people of Canada by the hon. member but surely he does not
think that I would be so naive, standing here in the House of Commons, to speak
on behalf of the government on such a sensitive matter which could impact on
the stock markets of Canada.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General of Canada
said that CSIS has the ability to collect intelligence outside of Canada but
the truth comes from the foreign affairs minister who said that there is a
glaring deficiency in that department.
The defence minister said that the armed forces is up
to the job of protecting Canada but the truth comes from the foreign affairs
minister who said that Canada has inadequate defence capabilities.
The Prime Minister said that Tony Blair is
fearmongering but the foreign affairs minister thinks the British prime
minister's performance was great.
I agree with the foreign affairs minister on each of
these points. Why is he the only minister over there who seems to face reality
when it comes to fighting terrorism?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to take support where
I can find it but I wish he had understood what I had said. I know he does
change sides frequently though.
I think Canada's record speaks for itself. We have
punched above our weight in the world for many years but the challenges we face
now are challenges that are different from those we faced on September
10.
It is important for all of us in the House to consider
carefully what the implications will be in that area and then we will see how
we can build on the wonderful reputation we have achieved in the world.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to terrorism the best
defence is a good offence.
Richard Fadden, the deputy clerk and co-ordinator for
security intelligence at the Privy Council office in Ottawa said that we need
to develop the necessary tools to protect Canadians, whether here at home or
abroad and suggested that it is time to consider creating a foreign spy agency.
In other words, a good offence against terrorism requires an effective
intelligence gathering agency.
If the most senior civil servants understand the need
to combat terrorism abroad, and if the foreign affairs minister understands the
need to start pulling our weight in this area, why has the solicitor general
not moved quickly to establish the foreign spy agency?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that the world has
changed since September 11. That means that security demands and security and
intelligence has changed.
We have not ruled anything out but it is important for
all members to understand that CSIS does operate abroad. CSIS investigates
threats to Canada's security inside and outside of the country.
* * *
Health
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials are frustrated and
in the dark because they do not have the information on how to tell Canadians
how they can protect themselves in the event of a bioterrorism
attack.
Would the Minister of Health table in the House today
his plan on how Canadians can protect themselves in the event of a bioterrorism
attack?
(1150)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be assured, as I told the
House the other day, that Health Canada is working closely with other members
of the government and with provincial partners to anticipate and prepare for
whatever might occur.
The events of September 11 have made it clear that
governments have to start thinking what was unimaginable in the past. That
means anticipating everything from chemical, biological and other kinds of
catastrophes.
Over two years ago we opened the centre for
preparedness at Health Canada. We are building expertise and broadening
networks to make Canada ready. We are engaged in that work now.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Canadians and members
of the minister's own department are not reassured. They are scared and
frustrated because they have not seen a plan from the minister.
Silence breeds fear. I have another question for the
minister. Back in March 2000 Health Canada was warned of a possible
bioterrorism attack. The U.S. department of health has allotted a quarter of a
billion dollars for that eventuality.
Will the minister tell the House how much money he is
prepared to spend to let Canadians know what they can do in the event of a
bioterrorism attack?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that Health Canada
along with every line department of the government is reassessing their
capacity to respond in the public interest as a result of the events of
September 11.
I can also tell the member that when we have looked
critically and realistically at what we need and what we have to do, the
government will do it.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Security Intelligence
Service
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a report by journalist Normand Lester, on
Radio-Canada, revealed that an informant working for CSIS, who had a mandate to
infiltrate the fundamentalist networks in Montreal, was in fact the
spokesperson for an organization advocating the use of violence and
terrorism.
How does the solicitor general explain that the
informer, Youssef Mouammar, remains in the employ of CSIS, despite the concern
expressed by the review committee in its 1997-98 annual report?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what CSIS does is investigate information
of threats against the country. When they obtain the information they inform
the RCMP or appropriate police forces so appropriate action can be taken. That
is what they have done and that is what they will continue to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, could the solicitor general tell us
whether the Government of Canada is still protecting Gilles Breault, alias
Youssef Mouammar, instead of laying charges?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, I do
not disclose matters of security intelligence from CSIS or the RCMP. My hon.
colleague should know that is important for the security of the
nation.
I am surprised a former prime minister does not know we
have to do that for the security of Canada.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the first duty of government is the
protection of the citizens. It is common knowledge that terrorists are seeking
to acquire the capability to release biological or chemical weapons.
My question is for the defence minister. Is there an
operational unit trained specifically in chemical and biological warfare ready
and equipped to be deployed to protect Canadians, yes or no?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a unit called the nuclear,
biological, chemical response team which is located in Borden, one of our
bases. It works with the RCMP as well in providing those kind of
capabilities.
Also the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection
and Emergency Preparedness and the resources that entity brings to bear on any
disaster or emergency that may occur in this country are an important part of
helping to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the training unit in Borden.
I have been there, seen it and know what it is. I am aware of what is ready in
emergency preparedness Canada. The fact is these are not operational units.
They are not units ready to be deployed to protect Canadians.
I ask the minister again to explain where the
operational unit is so that Canadians can be reassured that there is some
protection in the case of a biological or chemical attack.
(1155)
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to understand
that the Canadian Forces, whether they are in that unit or any other unit, are
there for the people of Canada. They are there to protect Canadians. If they
are called upon they will respond to it.
* * *
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
continues to pursue a long term strategy for the Petitcodiac River causeway in
New Brunswick.
Could the minister report to the House on the progress
of discussions with the province of New Brunswick regarding a proposed
environmental assessment of options to resolve the fish passage problem at the
Petitcodiac River causeway?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been working
very closely with the New Brunswick government. Just this week I met with
Minister Jardine, the minister of the environment, and I was happy to announce
that the Government of Canada will be spending up to $2 million to have an
environmental assessment jointly with the government of New
Brunswick.
This is good news for the Petitcodiac causeway and for
the river. It shows the two governments how they can work together.
Now we need the provincial government to be a proponent
of the project, register it so we can move forward quickly on a problem that
has been there for 30 years, do a full environmental assessment and move
forward to protect that river.
* * *
Immigration
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Act gives the government
the power to declare any country as a safe third country when it comes to
assessing refugees.
The European Union considers all of its member states
to be safe third countries so refugee claimants cannot hop from one
jurisdiction to another.
Why does the government not use its power under the act
and declare that it will not accept any refugees from the United States or the
European Union?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will try once again to explain so that
the member and all members will understand that while the authority is in both
the existing Immigration Act and the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, a safe third agreement,
it requires the agreement of the other country. It is not the sort of thing
that any country can or should do unilaterally.
The member refers to the European experience. It was an
agreement among all European states and there are some that do not think it is
working very well at all.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have had eight years to negotiate
bilateral agreements. We signed a memorandum with the U.S. six years ago but we
have not concluded a single bilateral agreement.
The climate has changed since September 11. Will the
minister get on with negotiating a bilateral agreement with the U.S. on an
urgent basis or use her power to declare the U.S. and the EU as safe third
countries?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again. No country can
unilaterally make the declaration that the member opposite is asking
for.
We have over the past attempted to negotiate an
agreement with the United States. Over 40% of all the refugee claimants in
Canada come to Canada from the United States and, for obvious reasons, the
United States has been reluctant to agree to such an agreement.
I also believe that since September 11 this has not
been the highest priority for the United States or, frankly, for Canada. We are
looking at taking efforts that will protect all of our citizens following those
terrible events.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Security Intelligence
Service
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that CSIS
informed the RCMP. If this is true, how does the solicitor general explain that
the RCMP arrested Mr. Mouammar and then released him without charging him when
they learned he was a CSIS informer?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of allegations being
made here and I would evaluate the situation. If my hon. colleague is asking me
why a certain action was taken by a certain police force on information, I
think he is fully aware that it would be inappropriate for me to indicate that
publicly.
However I will look into the situation for my hon.
colleague.
* * *
(1200)
Labour
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Could he tells us what his department is
doing to commemorate the national fire prevention week?
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour launched
national fire prevention week. All Canadians need to stay relevant to the
dangers of fires at home and at work to minimize loss of life and
property.
I ask all members to be active supporters of fire
prevention week in their constituencies and work toward reducing the terrible
losses we suffer every day, every month and every year.
* * *
International Security
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, no one is calling a North American
perimeter security a quick and easy fix as the minister just referred to.
In a fragile economy we must ensure that goods and
people can move freely across the border with our largest trading partner. Some
86% of our trade is with the U.S.
Why does this minister insist on putting our trade and
economy at risk by categorically ruling out a North American perimeter
security?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Because I agree with the
preamble to his question, what I suggest to him is that we more quickly and
sensibly deal with any issues that may arise on the border by tackling them one
by one with our good partner and ally the United States, rather than chasing
after a concept which is not well understood and has not had time to be
developed.
It took 40 years to get the Schengen district in
Europe. We will not create a perimeter around North America next week. Let us
deal with real problems, in real time and get real solutions for real
people.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, there are real problems for the unemployed
people of the country. My questions are for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
for Human Resources Development.
Will the government not reduce the number of eligible
hours for thousands of employees and their families from 900 hours to 700
hours?
With the downturn in the economy, thousands of human
resources employees in hundreds of offices across the country are under a
terrific strain. What is the government doing to alleviate the strain on these
very hard-working and valuable employees?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government has set up an employment
insurance policy which is working well. We know that HRDC officials spent time
with the airlines and the unions yesterday, in what I understand was a very
helpful meeting.
This concerns the airlines and other industries that
have laid off people in large numbers.
* * *
[Translation]
Fourth Jeux de la
Francophonie
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that the director
general of the fourth Jeux de la Francophonie, held in Ottawa and Hull, Rhéal
Leroux, also backed sponsors of the event, and his businesses collected,
according to some sources, as much as 15% commission on revenues, in addition
to his salary.
Will the Minister for Canadian Heritage admit that this
is a blatant case of conflict of interest and that the governing body of the
games should not have authorized such an arrangement.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian
Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question, with
my colleague who chaired the organizing committee of the Jeux de la
Francophonie, and say that the approach was the same as in all
games.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1205)
[Translation]
Government Response to
Petitions
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Committees of the
House
Justice and Human
Rights
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday,
September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15A, an act to amend
the criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report it with
amendments.
* * *
Finance
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua
(Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth
report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Wednesday, September 26, in relation to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs
Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
As Canadians understand the importance of an efficient
and safe border in national security and economic terms, the bill modernizes
customs administration by providing the expedited movement of persons or goods
into Canada. It achieves this by providing streamlined clearance procedures for
low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger
information.
The bill is a step in the right direction in making our
border's business friendly and people friendly. The committee has considered
Bill S-23 and reports the bill without amendment.
* * *
Petitions
National
Defence
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition
on behalf of my constituents of Brandon--Souris. The petitioners are opposed to
any United States national missile defence system that may well be put forward.
They are calling upon the government to speak in opposition to the proposed
missile defence system.
* * *
Algoma Steel
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition
signed by approximately 5,000 of my constituents of the riding of Sault Ste.
Marie.
Many of my colleagues know that Algoma Steel, the main
economic engine in my riding, is currently operating under an order of
protection from creditors under the Company Creditors Arrangement Act. The
petitioners request that parliament participate in the process to create a plan
of arrangement between Algoma Steel and its creditors.
* * *
Criminal Code
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I
would like to present today.
The first petition supports section 43 of the Criminal
Code of Canada. This section of the criminal code states that every school
teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in
using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under his or
her care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the
circumstances.
Section 43 recognizes the primary role of parents in
the raising and disciplining of their children. The petitioners recognize that
the federal government is under pressure from various sources, including the
United Nations, to remove section 43 because we have ratified the UN convention
on the rights of the child. Removal of this section would strengthen the role
of bureaucrats while weakening the role of parents in determining what is in
the best interest of the child and, therefore, would be a major and unjustified
inclusion by the state into parental rights and responsibilities.
The petitioners recognize that despite the government's
stated attempt to preserve section 43, it continues to fund research by people
who advocate its removal. Therefore, they request parliament to affirm the duty
of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's criminal code as it
is currently worded.
(1210)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I would like to remind the hon. member that members
have to be brief when presenting petitions. I hope his other two petitions will
be brief.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a second
petition signed by a number of people from Nova Scotia expressing their concern
about the vulnerable in our society. In this particular instance, the petition
is about the concerns our citizens have about the disabled and it relates to
the Supreme Court of Canada Latimer decision.
The petitioners would like the Parliament of Canada,
under section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to uphold and
continue to uphold the Latimer decision of the Supreme Court of Canada by
ensuring a 10 year minimum sentence be served. This would send a strong message
to deter other similar criminal acts and would recognize that vulnerable
Canadian citizens are equally protected as in an able-bodied
society.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the third petition I am pleased to table
is signed by 30 citizens in various locations in Alberta. The petitioners are
concerned about how Canada Post Corporation affects the rural route mail
couriers. In particular, these couriers often earn less than the minimum wage
and have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and
working conditions like other workers in similar occupations, such as private
sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas or public sector workers who
deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas.
The petitioners' concerns are directed at section 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act which prohibits these couriers from having
collective bargaining rights and that this denial of basic rights helps Canada
Post keep their wages and working conditions at an unfair level and
discriminates against rural workers.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order
Paper
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, the bill before the House is one which
deals with the proposed amendments to the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act.
I should indicate at the outset, Madam Speaker, that I
will be splitting my time with my coalition colleague and friend from
Saanich--Gulf Islands and critic in this area.
The bill is aimed at modernizing the privileges and
immunities regime that is contained in other legislation. The amendments would
enable Canada to comply with international commitments that exist currently
under international treaties and respond to recent changes in international
law. This is a fairly technical bill yet it has very many practical
applications.
In addition the bill itself would amend the FMIOA to
correct several technical inadequacies that have been identified since it was
first introduced in parliament in 1991 under a Conservative
administration.
The amendments themselves can be broadly divided into
five categories. I intend to focus on those as they affect security and the
RCMP. My colleague in his remarks will touch on the other elements which deal
more with international trade and international obligations.
The amendments deal with modernization of legislation
as it exists with commitments to international treaties. They also correct
deficiencies in the definition of international organizations and further to
state clearly statutory authority in support of security measures necessary for
Canadian police officers to fulfill Canada's international obligations, in
particular, when hosting events such as in recent years where the G-8 countries
gathered in Canada, the APEC conference and future conferences like the one to
be held in Kananaskis.
There is a need to clarify some of the technical
amendments, so there are housekeeping amendments that are attached. Finally,
there is the need to clarify the provisions granting immunity from immigration
restriction and alien registration that override the Immigration Act of
Canada.
The technical inadequacies have been identified in a
number of ways. The legislation aims to: broaden privileges and immunities to
permanent missions accredited to international organizations; authorize
ministers to make orders with retroactive effect under the act for the purposes
of granting tax relief; clarify the act to grant privileges and immunities to
political subdivisions of foreign states; authorize ministers to take limited
orders under the act and provide legal framework needed to authorize
retaliatory countermeasures in the areas of customs, the areas of infringements
of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations or the Vienna on consular
relations with foreign states; and finally clarify the government's statute
with respect to the importation of alcohol by foreign missions.
We can see quite clearly the bill has a broad range and
touches on a number of subject matters. It deals in particular with the
international organizations in the area of security.
There is a role for the RCMP that is clearly defined.
This role is set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. What the
legislation attempts to do is give greater clarity to the role of the RCMP in
its participation in security measures at gatherings, such as the APEC
conference in Vancouver. It also allows the RCMP to define its role vis-à-vis
security with foreign dignitaries.
In particular, there is a need for clarification when a
dignitary who comes to Canada may have what is deemed by that country's
judicial system a criminal record. The most obvious and compelling example of
that is Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela, as the House knows, was granted
honorary Canadian citizenship, which was an extraordinary step on the part of
Canada and one of great pride on behalf of the government and all Canadians.
However, Nelson Mandela at one point in time was deemed a terrorist by his
country of South Africa and spent almost 20 years in prison.
(1215)
When an individual like Nelson Mandela visits Canada
there is a need to grant a certain level of immunity where in other
circumstances he would not be permitted to enter Canada's borders.
The police authority for security of international
events is currently provided under common law. Its specific powers are set out
in the RCMP Act. The primary responsibility of the RCMP is to provide security
at events where international world leaders may gather. Its authority to take
appropriate necessary measures to ensure safe events and safe conduct is set
out and empowered in that legislation.
The bill does not grant any new powers to the RCMP. It
does not confer any new ability to suspend civil liberties, to act in a way
that is inconsistent with the current RCMP Act or any other federal statute.
However the federal government may have missed an opportunity to improve
Canada's ability to host important international meetings in this changing
global environment.
The events of September 11 will impact on the way in
which all countries view security in the future. The bill does very little to
address this changing environment, with the possible exception of clarifying or
restating the role of the RCMP.
It is unclear how the passage of the legislation would
improve or allow a host country such as Canada to manage international affairs
and conferences. It does not in any way set out in detail what Canada might do
differently.
For example, Canadians struggled with the degree of
force that was used to deal with protesters at the Quebec City summit. That
situation raises questions with regard to the G-8 summit to be held in
Kananaskis, Alberta.
The bill may have been the opportunity to explore and
examine in greater detail what security measures should exist and what limits
should be placed on the RCMP and security personnel in the enforcement of
security around the perimeter.
The Hughes report was a voluminous document tabled in
response to what happened at the APEC summit in Vancouver. It pointed out the
need for clear perimeters and parameters to be placed around RCMP security. It
suggested the need for the RCMP to operate within a statutory description and
for there to be clear divisions between political commentary and instruction
while at the same time fulfilling the role of normal law enforcement and normal
security practices.
There was ample evidence that direction was coming from
sources outside the traditional RCMP lines of authority. The evidence traced
itself right back to the RCMP. Jean Carle was very active and present during
the APEC summit. Mr. Justice Hughes concluded that there was a greater need to
clarify and in some instances improve the arm's length relationship between the
RCMP and political offices including the PMO.
Any external interference, and I am talking about
political sources, must be limited in carrying out the essential work at any
international conference where there are high stakes and/or VIPs in attendance.
Unfortunately what we saw at APEC highlighted some of the deficiencies that
exist. It led to a lot of questions about who should be making decisions on the
treatment of protestors at such events.
The legislation is intended to move in the right
direction although there is a paucity of real direction and no clear indication
other than a restatement of what the RCMP is currently doing.
The legislation covers international organizations. It
sets out, for example, that stand-alone organizations can move from country to
country, that new international organizations can be given status and
headquarters in Canada, and that all international organizations that originate
by treaty such as NATO and international civic aviation organizations would be
given status.
(1220)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35 on
behalf of all residents of Saanich--Gulf Islands and as the international trade
critic for the coalition in the House of Commons.
My hon. colleague is accurate that this is a lot of
housekeeping, but a few important issues should be brought to the floor of the
House of Commons. One of the primary points the bill deals with is extending
the definition of who should be granted diplomatic immunity.
Under existing legislation the definition covers
international organizations of formalized institutions which are based in
treaty. It does not cover organizations such as the G-8, the OSCE and APEC.
When we host these very important international meetings there is discussion on
whether the legislation is there to grant immunity.
It is important to emphasize that in no way would the
legislation override the crimes against humanity and war crimes act which would
supercede this legislation. Anyone who has committed a crime under the crimes
against humanity and war crimes act would in no way shape or form be given any
kind of immunity under any circumstances.
We were given short notice of the bill. From what we
have been informed it is basically a housekeeping bill. I do have concerns
whether we would be going too far in granting additional immunities. Are they
absolutely necessary?
Members will recall when an Ottawa woman was killed by
an impaired driver who was a Russian diplomat? There was huge public outcry
that the driver should be brought to Canadian justice. Having said that, the
democratic representative caucus will be supporting the bill.
Another issue the bill deals with is the primary role
of the RCMP. It is to be responsible for security of international meetings
such as APEC and the G-8 summit. That is a positive step.
Following the APEC meetings in Vancouver the Hughes
report recommended that the role of the RCMP be formalized. It would be
appropriate for the government to put more substance in the bill rather than
just broadly describe that the RCMP is the primary organization responsible for
international meetings.
Some parameters need to be set around security so that
we can remove the political interference which was very apparent in Vancouver.
Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on subsequent inquiries that the
government was compelled to call. That type of detail is not present here.
What are the parameters of the RCMP when it is entirely
responsible for the security of international meetings? That should be laid out
so there is no necessity to have any discussions of a political nature between
the commissioner of the RCMP and anyone else at a senior level such as the
Prime Minister's Office or senior levels of government.
(1225)
We feel those concerns should have been included in the
bill. We want to ensure that the police do not overstep their bounds or violate
the Canadian charter of rights. I am not suggesting the police would do that,
but we do not see that information in the bill.
Bill C-35 is primarily a housekeeping bill. It would
extend diplomatic immunity to people attending a conference in Canada such as
the G-8 summit or APEC. I will be recommending that the members of the
conservative coalition support this housekeeping bill.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from our coalition
for his speech. This is a technical housekeeping bill. Yet, as I have indicated
in the House since we have returned, it surprises me that the government would
proceed with its legislative agenda as though nothing had changed on September
11. It is surprising, given the fact that we need to pay attention to some very
serious legislation dealing with terrorism and additional funding for the RCMP.
Also, in the area of foreign affairs there is a
conflict between what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying in comparison
to other ministers of the crown. My colleague asked the Minister of Foreign
Affairs in question period today why he was putting our trade at risk by ruling
out of hand the notion of border security. The minister stated on September 11
that indeed the world had changed.
The House closed for 35 minutes yesterday because the
government could not bring forward a bill. It did not have anything to say for
35 minutes. That is shocking. I could not believe that we adjourned the House
for 35 minutes, given the serious events that have taken place. The government
by its actions is showing that it is sleeping.
Does my colleague share the same surprise that I have
with the government's inaction in these major areas and that it is proceeding
with its legislative agenda as if nothing has changed?
(1230)
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Madam Speaker, the member for Dewdney--Alouette raises
an incredibly valid point. He says we are standing in the House today debating
a housekeeping bill which deals with in the government's own language technical
amendments.
It is now October. On September 11 we saw horrific
events which forever changed how our country will operate. Yet we have not seen
one word in legislation to deal with terrorism. That is a tragedy.
The hon. member was correct to point out that the
government has run out of things to do. It had to adjourn the House yesterday
for 35 minutes. When the government wants a critical piece of legislation
drafted it can get it done in a matter of hours. If legislation affects the
government it can have it brought in and rammed through the House in a day or
two. Yet we have seen nothing on terrorism.
The government has told us it is still waiting. It says
it will bring legislation before the House after the break week. That is
completely unacceptable. The bill deals specifically with the security of the
diplomatic community when we host incredibly important international meetings
such as the upcoming G-8 one and APEC.
The question on the minds of all Canadians is whether
we will be able to provide security and whether we need to make changes in
light of what has happened. I am not being critical of the government but we
live in a different world now and things must change.
Our economy is on eggshells and everyone is concerned.
Members on all sides are concerned about where the issue will go. Canadians are
concerned. The point my hon. colleague from Dewdney--Alouette is making is that
we are in the House dealing with a bill that contains technical amendments and
makes no mention of terrorism. It addresses the Hughes report which says the
RCMP should be the primary police agency responsible for such meetings. However
it has no parameters and does not go into any detail.
We will support the bill although it contains only
technical amendments. The real shame is that we are not standing to debate the
events. We are not debating how to protect Canadians, ensure the free flow of
goods between Canada and the United States or secure our borders.
I wish members a happy Thanksgiving. My party looks
forward to seeing the government's bill on terrorism when we return because it
is the number one issue Canadians are concerned about.
(1235)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to debate the important legislation
before the House. The legislation was tabled only a couple of days ago so there
has been limited opportunity to study it. My comments are made in that light.
We have been told by the government that the bill
contains technical changes to the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act and is in effect a housekeeping bill. I urge parliamentarians
to give careful scrutiny to the changes proposed in the legislation because the
implications of a number of them are serious indeed.
I will not speak to all aspects of the legislation
because we are debating the principle of the bill at second reading. However
the member for Surrey Central raised a number of concerns that we share.
The proposed amendment to the definition of
international organization would be an important change. It would give
privileges and immunities to international government organizations such as
APEC, the G-8 and others, even if they are not treaty bodies. We would want to
study the amendment carefully in committee in terms of its
implications.
I will talk about the bill's proposed amendments to the
Immigration Act. At present government representatives who wish to enter Canada
and who have criminal records are required to obtain a minister's permit. This
provision of the Immigration Act applies whether they are world leaders or
members of delegations to international conferences.
Frankly in the absence of compelling evidence to the
contrary it is the way the law should remain. It is unacceptable to suggest
that an individual who is a government representative, part of a delegation to
an international conference, or for that matter a world leader, should not be
required to obey the law and submit to the same requirements with respect to
ministers' permits as anyone else.
During this debate a number of my colleagues have
referred to the former Russian diplomat charged with the serious offence of
drunk driving, an offence that gave rise to the tragic death of a Canadian.
If that individual were part of a delegation to an
international conference it would surely not be unreasonable for Canadians to
have the opportunity to say no. If he were convicted of the offence he should
not be entitled to enter Canada as a member of a delegation. At the very least
he should be required to obtain a minister's permit to do so. In other words,
it is not acceptable that ministerial permit provisions be invoked only in
cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
There are other provisions in the legislation on which
I will not comment but which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in
committee. I am concerned about the apparent absence of consultation with
provincial, territorial and municipal governments about this important
legislation.
The federal government has indicated in background
documents that it understands and accepts the urgency of working in partnership
with provinces and municipalities to provide the most appropriate and effective
security arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings.
If that is the case why did it not bring forward the
bill following consultations with provincial, territorial or local
jurisdictions? In the committee that studies the bill we will want to ensure
these levels of government have been fully consulted and that we have heard
from them before the bill passes.
In my remaining few minutes I will focus on the
provisions of clause 5. This is the new clause that gives what is called
statutory authority to provide protection or police powers.
(1240)
The government's briefing notes say the amendment was
developed in response to security issues raised by the summit of the Americas.
The Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada
arrived at the view that the existing common law authority of the government to
provide security and protection for these events should be given a statutory
basis.
However clause 5 of the bill raises grave questions
about the extent to which we are prepared to not only codify existing police
powers in law but significantly enhance them. Many Canadians, including myself
and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, are concerned about the
growing criminalization of dissent in Canada. We have seen an alarming trend
toward giving more powers to the police. Bill C-35 is part of that trend.
Recently the House adopted legislation to give police
and law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to break the law in the pursuit of
their goals. We in the NDP opposed that legislation. We oppose the bill now
before the House because it provides no clear statement as to why it is
necessary to amend the law.
The government has put Bill C-35 before the House
before presenting us with its package of so-called anti-terrorism legislation.
I understand that it will be tabled before the House when we return in about 10
days. We will need to scrutinize it carefully because it is precisely at times
like this that our most fundamental civil liberties and human rights are most
vulnerable.
We all recall the invocation of the War Measures Act in
1970. While it may have been popular with the public it was recognized in
retrospect to have been a significant overreaction. I am proud that it was my
colleagues in the New Democratic caucus of the day, led by David Lewis, who
stood and said no, that it violated the most basic and fundamental rights of
Canadians. We will need to be vigilant regarding the legislative package that
will be tabled in the House when we return.
Bill C-35 would give new powers to the RCMP. Clause 5
states:
(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper
functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states
participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities
under this Act-- |
(2) For the purpose of carrying out
its responsibility...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate
measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to
the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances. |
That is a sweeping and dangerous extension of the
powers of the RCMP. In light of the recent abuse of those powers in the context
of the APEC summit we should not be prepared to grant new powers lightly to the
RCMP. The report of Justice Hughes raised serious questions about the extent to
which it might be necessary to codify in statutory terms the relationship
between political authority and the RCMP. Bill C-35 would do nothing of the
kind.
Perhaps the most serious illustration of the abuse of
RCMP powers was the recent summit of the Americas. We are told the amendment
before the House is a response to security issues raised by the summit. Rather
than responding with a statutory extension of the powers of the RCMP we should
be asking tough questions about the abuse of police power and criminalization
of dissent we witnessed at the Quebec City summit of the Americas.
We in the NDP and others have joined in calling for an
independent public inquiry into those abuses. Over 6,000 tear gas canisters and
over 900 rubber bullets were fired.
(1245)
Many of the victims were people who were engaged in
peaceful, non-violent, legal protest against the assault on democracy, the
environment and human rights that was taking place inside the RCMP's wall of
shame.
Why on earth would the government now bring forward
legislation extending new powers to the RCMP when Canadians are asking very
serious questions about the abuse of the powers it currently has.
[Translation]
Take the case of Éric Laferrière, for example, who was
hit with a rubber bullet, a rubber bullet fired at his throat. He was taking
part in a peaceful protest, but was shot and hit by a bullet fired by the RCMP.
He will never be able to speak again. Obviously, he will be suing the
RCMP.
I have to wonder how is it that this government is
prepared to grant more powers to the RCMP, when there are so many questions
regarding the abuse of power during the summit of the Americas in Quebec City,
last April.
[English]
We oppose this legislation and we certainly will ask
tough questions when it comes to hearings on the bill. It is essential that the
committees study very carefully the provisions of this legislation and call
extensive witnesses from civil liberties associations.
[Translation]
Representatives of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union
published a report which seriously criticized the conduct and actions of the
RCMP, especially its use of tear gas and rubber bullets.
[English]
We will want to hear from them and others. Before we
are prepared to accept these changes in legislation, we want to be convinced
that it does not represent a very dangerous and unacceptable extension of the
powers of the police.
Criminalization of dissent in this country is a serious
concern and this legislation may very well contribute to that alarming
tendency. For that reason, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in opposition to
the bill which is now before the House.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as our
colleagues talked about the bill before the House today. The previous speaker,
two speakers ago, talked about how this is a bill with technical amendments. It
is very important that the contains many technical amendments, but it is also
important that it codifies the common law.
The last speaker said, that the bill did not codify the
common law. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, the legislation ensures
that we as the government have the tools necessary for us to live in our
society, especially since September 11.
I do not want to delay the debate. I just want to set
the record straight. At this time I move:
That the question be now
put. |
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this very
important bill which affects Canadians across the country.
I want to echo the comments made by the member from the
NDP that this bill was expected to be merely a housekeeping bill, a bill which
did not have much significance, a few amendments here and a few amendments
there.
The fact is that buried within this so-called innocuous
bill are many profound changes that can have a huge impact on the country, on
the powers of the RCMP and on the ability of Canada to not allow certain types
of individuals, terrorists and criminals, into Canada. It behooves the Canadian
public to know what is in the bill. My colleagues will try to do that over the
coming weeks, but we are certainly will not give it the free passage which the
government wants.
The government brought this bill forward four days ago.
It gave the bill to us two and a half days ago and did not even allow the
Library of Parliament to give us an analysis of it. That is not appropriate.
That does not provide for adequate scrutiny of the bill.
The bill would allow a number of things, including
allowing the foreign affairs minister to order the detention by officers under
the Customs Act of goods imported by a diplomatic mission or consulate post of
a foreign state. This is very important. We know internationally that certain
consulates and embassies use their consulate bags to import and move contraband
around. It is known internationally that the contraband can involve diamonds,
drugs and weapons. It can also involve the illegal trafficking of endangered
species, which is worth billions of dollars. This illegal trafficking is
responsible for the decimation of thousands of species around the world, many
of which have become extinct.
The bill also deals with a clause involving the RCMP's
primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any
intergovernmental conferences that may occur. Clearly we do not have a problem
with that.
I want to bring forward an issue that the NDP have been
harping on for a long time, which I find quite offensive. NDP members keep on
criticizing the RCMP about its actions at international meetings. It is true
that there has to be some analysis, as the Hughes report mentioned, about
certain activities. However, for heaven's sake, when individuals who protest
are willing to advocate violence, or assault the police, or teardown banners or
throw molotov cocktails at the police, the police have a responsibility to
protect those who are behind them as well as protect themselves. It is totally
irresponsible for certain parties and certain groups to expect members of the
RCMP to stand back while certain individuals impart violence against others. It
is the responsibility of the RCMP to protect individuals who come to Canada and
to protect those who protest peacefully.
We do need to investigate those incidents in which
peaceful protesters were somehow hurt. We should also investigate the incidents
where banners were put up, but were then torn down and where people were
apprehended and taken into custody or thrown in jail before anything actually
happened. That violates our basic tenets of freedom of speech which cannot be
allowed.
However we cannot keep on using the RCMP as a punching
bag for certain political interests that may exist, particularly those who
violently oppose anti-globalization efforts.
The bill also lists treaties, conventions and
agreements that entitle foreign representatives to immunities and privileges.
It was brought forward at some of the meetings here that some foreign leaders,
who are thugs, or criminals, or who have grossly abused citizens in their
countries, are allowed to come to Canada to attend international
meetings.
(1250)
There certainly is an argument to say that if we do not
sit down at the table and discuss matters that may be very difficult and
painful, then a resolution cannot be found. Some people we talk to are
individuals who, by most definitions, would be considered murderous or thugs at
the very least.
We can use a tool to work toward peace. Perhaps the
quid pro quo for international despots to arrive at a table and be welcomed as
a member of the international community would be that they show good will
within their own countries and stop abusing and violating the basic rights of
their people.
The international community could apply pressure on
groups and leaders in countries from Sierra Leone to Liberia, Angola, the
Congo, Sudan and others by using the lever that they genuinely put forth an
effort to deal with the significant human rights crises and wars in their
country or they would not be allowed to attend international meetings in Canada
or abroad. This lever ought to be used.
The problem we have with international treaties is that
while they have nice words, they are toothless. We have to put some teeth in
international treaties like the Geneva convention, or the rights of the child
or the convention on nuclear weapons.
From the United Nations, to the IMF, to the World Bank,
many agreements are made, they sound nice on paper and in a perfect world they
would make a lot of sense. However many of these treaties are violated, yet
there are no penalties, no implications nor ramifications for those who choose
to violate them.
I bring attention to an issue that the government has
been involved with for a long time and that is the issue of the wars in West
Africa. In Liberia, Charles Taylor the president, has for a long time played
friend and supporter of a man by the name of Foday Sankoh, the head of the RUF
a group of rebels who are committing atrocities in Sierra Leone. They go into
villages and chop off the arms or legs of children, women and men, not with the
intent to kill them but to terrorize them.
The international community has until very recently
turned a blind eye. Only recently have we applied the tools and levers against
Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to do something. The implications of failure,
in this case, is that tens of thousands of innocent people have had one or more
limbs amputated with hatchets and have been left to die. That is beyond
comprehension.
This conflict is flowing into Guinea as we speak. This
has resulted in hundreds of thousands more refugees and the destruction of
entire sectors of this area.
Why I bring this up in relation to the bill is that
Canada can indeed take a leadership role by applying pressures, using levers,
and putting teeth in the international agreements which exist today. The
argument to support it is not merely the obvious humanitarian argument that it
is wrong to mutilate innocent civilians, or commit gang rape, or murder
innocent civilians on the street or purge the economic resources of a country
without sharing it with the civilians.
Perhaps the self-centred argument that should be put
forth to the international community is that if it does not deal with these
despots now then we will pay the price later on.
The costs of post-conflict reconstruction are massive.
Whether we talk about the former Yugoslavia, West Africa, the Congo or Rwanda,
the costs are in the billions of dollars. When the precursors to conflict were
staring us in the face, as they have been for years, perhaps we should have got
involved. The argument could be that if we had spent a bit of money, if we had
put forward a bit of effort and if we had spent a bit of time and attention to
deal with these precursors to conflict, economically we would not have had to
deal with the disasters that followed.
(1255)
We cannot talk about the penalty we pay in human terms.
That far greater penalty is borne by the civilians in the some 50 countries
around the world where bloody conflicts are occurring today and to which we in
the international community have by and large turned a blind eye. We need to
get involved. We need to apply levers internationally. There is an opportunity
to do so in the international agreements referred to in the bill, in treaties
and in the meetings we sometimes host.
Next year we will be hosting the G-8 summit. It is
rumoured that the summit in part will deal with Africa. I hope it will also
deal with the issue of terrorism. There is a grand opportunity for us as a
nation to put some constructive solutions on the table. There is an alignment
of the stars. Recently, led by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, a
millennium plan for Africa has been put forth. It deals with such issues as
economic development, conflict prevention, resource management, political
changes, democracy and human rights. Rather than looking at the past, it deals
with some pragmatic solutions that can be done now and in the
future.
(1300)
There is an opportunity for Canada to link up with the
some 15 leadership countries on that secretariat dealing with the millennium
project and merge the G-8 summit leaders with the millennium project in Africa
so that there is some commonality in the actions they pursue. Next year in
Kananaskis, there is a great opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role
with the G-8 nations. Those constructive solutions could be put forward with
the blessing and the co-operation of the members supporting the millennium
project in Africa, most notably the South Africans. There would be an enormous
possibility for pursuing peace and security.
The bill also deals with protecting individuals who
have committed crimes in Canada, such as the tragic murder of a woman by a
drunk driver, a Russian employee at the embassy. Canada has faced problems in
dealing with that because of today's laws.
Motion No. 373, placed on the notice paper on June 5,
deals with just that. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House,
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade should: (a) release
the names of all foreign nationals and diplomats employed in Canada in the
service of their country who are charged with an indictable offence under the
Criminal Code; and (b) urge the sending states of said diplomats either to
recall their respective foreign officers, allow them to proceed through the
Canadian judicial system, or allow their diplomats to be subject to expulsion
from Canada as provided by the Vienna Convention of 1961. |
The motion would enable Canada to deal with individuals
who have indeed committed crimes here in Canada, rather than allowing them to
flee to their countries of origin.
There is another thing that may be of help to foreign
service officers here and indeed to our foreign services officers abroad. Once
they come to Canada, their families cannot work. It is a problem. Similarly,
the families of our foreign service officers cannot work when they go abroad.
It would be useful to have provisions in the bill that would allow the family
members of individuals who are employed by foreign embassies in Canada to work
in our country. The quid pro quo would be that the family members of our
foreign service personnel working in our embassies abroad could work in those
countries. That would be beneficial to them and would provide a great deal of
security for the individuals and their families.
The bill also deals with a number of immigration
issues. My staff in Victoria and the staff of every member in the House have
been plagued by problems with respect to the immigration department. The bill
could have dealt with that.
For example, the visa officer is in Gambia for the
hearing process once every six months. The office in Gambia deals with a lot of
refugees from the bloody conflicts in Sierra Leone , Liberia, Guinea and
others. If that foreign service officer comes down with the flu, that officer
may not get there for a year. People who apply for refugee status in Gambia can
only get hearings every six months and sometimes it takes a year. Bear in mind
that this is only one step in the emigration process.
That office in particular needs to be looked at. There
are other problems. People who go to that office say that the individuals who
work there do not really care. When informed that gangs of people were shooting
refugees in Sierra Leone on sight, they said there was no danger. Imagine. The
international community knows that people have been shot, murdered and chopped
up in Sierra Leone, yet our office in Gambia said that there was no danger.
When a boatload of refugees was sent back from Sierra Leone, the office in
Gambia denied that it ever happened. Either that department is overwhelmed or
some significant structural problems exist there.
There are serious concerns in the embassies in India
and the Philippines. I do not know if those concerns have been substantiated
but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to look at this issue.
Visas are potentially being sold and there are suggestions that people are
being bribed.
(1305)
Not Canadians, but nationals working in our embassies
in the Philippines and India allegedly have been selling visas and access to
the immigration system in Canada. That is not appropriate. We have repeatedly
brought this to the attention of the minister yet we have had no significant
response from her to date. Given the number of people who are coming through
India and the Philippines it would certainly behoove her to investigate what is
going on at those two embassies.
The filing fees and landing right fees are prohibitive
for a number of individuals. There has also been little flexibility on the part
of the departments there and pettiness has been shown in terms of the
documentation required.
We are very disappointed that the government has not
taken the bull by the horns. It has not demonstrated to the House the
importance of the bill and the critical issues contained within it. We feel the
bill is quite sneaky.
The bill should have dealt with reforms to the IMF, the
World Bank and the United Nations. There were opportunities in the bill to deal
with some conditionality arrangements. They ought to be made but they do not
exist.
Conditionality is critically important within the
context of how we disburse our taxpayers' funds through these organizations.
The World Bank is primarily tasked with aid and development. The International
Monetary Fund deals with the security of international markets. The United
Nations deals with a whole collection of issues.
The bill could have made suggestions on how our members
internationally could reform these systems. It could have enabled the UN, World
Bank and the IMF to communicate with each other more effectively. Canadians and
the international community would be absolutely appalled to learn that those
organizations rarely speak to each other. That they rarely speak to each other
now is actually headway because they hardly spoke to each other before. That is
bizarre given that all three organizations are supposed to be working in
concert on a number of critical international security issues.
There are a number of opportunities in the bill. The
Canadian Alliance will try to improve the bill by offering constructive
suggestions and solutions to deal with the issues within it. I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and
substitute the following therefor: “Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign
Missions and International Organizations Act, be not now read a second time but
that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof
referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade”.
(1310)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sure the hon. member was here earlier when there
was a motion moved that the question be now put. Therefore the member's
amendment is not receivable by the Chair.
Mr. David Chatters:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On that question I would like to point out to the Chair
that the Liberal member who moved the previous motion made reference to Marleau
and Montpetit at page 556 where it states “the previous question is at best an
unpredictable method of curtailing debate”. I find that unacceptable. This is
the 72nd time that the government has moved a motion to curtail debate in the
House. That should be ruled out of order and it should not be
acceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The previous motion was in order.
Mr. David Chatters:
Madam Speaker, in light of your ruling, I guess the
only way for me to express my outrage of the actions of the Liberal government
is to ask you to call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
We will call quorum. Call in the members.
* * *
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
We have quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto
Centre--Rosedale.
Mr. Bill Graham:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we are
taking advantage of expressing our outrage at procedures in the House, perhaps
you will allow me to express my outrage that the member for
Athabasca, when he
called for quorum, then left the House himself, thereby delaying
debate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Order, please. I know it is Friday afternoon and
everyone wants to go home, but we will resume debate and we will not name
members who are not in the House, please.
(1315)
Mr. Keith Martin:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought
that there might be some opportunity for questions and comments on my
speech.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I thank the hon. member. We will go back to questions
and comments before we resume debate.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto
Centre--Rosedale, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, since the speaker from the Alliance had
taken advantage of expressing outrage, I thought perhaps at the beginning of my
questions and comments I could allow my outrage to be expressed as well. That
is, I think, in order, not that I would mention any members.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his very
thoughtful speech. It is indicative of the great knowledge of the member for
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca
and his interest in international affairs. We really appreciate his comments in
the House.
I particularly appreciated the fact that he pointed out
that the bill is largely a housekeeping measure and that when it comes to the
police powers which he referred to in the bill, he did point out that in fact
if we are to have coherent and excellent international co-operation and
international meetings in our country, the police must be able to have the
proper powers to be able to manage them, respectful as they are of the rights
of Canadian citizens to protest, to express their views.
If we think back to the most recent summit we held in
Canada, the summit in Quebec City, we would say that our police, at all levels,
behaved with extraordinary coherence. They behaved extremely well in making
sure that the rights of everyone were respected in very difficult and trying
circumstances.
The reason I mention this is that I was in the House
when the member for
Surrey Central, the lead
off speaker from the member's party, spoke about the bill. If I understood the
member for
Surrey Central, he was
very critical of those provisions. He said he did not understand why those
provisions would be there. He did not understand the reasonableness that was
contained in the bill. He sounded more like the member for
Burnaby--Douglas, who
compared the bill to something like the War Measures Act.
I am trying to understand from the hon. member where
his party is coming from. Is it supporting the police and the need of the
Canadian government to have important meetings in this country and to enable
our police authorities to manage those meetings or is it criticizing the
provisions of the bill which would enable the police to do that?
Perhaps he might also wish to comment on his last
statement, that he felt the bill should be broader in scope and deal with
things like conditionality on IMF loans and other things. I presume the hon.
member was just using this as an occasion to talk about a favourite hobbyhorse
of his. I would not have thought that he normally would think IMF
conditionality would be appropriately put in a bill that deals with diplomatic
immunities and other rather more mundane matters.
Mr. Keith Martin:
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Rosedale,
the head of the foreign affairs committee. We congratulate him on his
reappointment to that post. It is well deserved.
I have to say that our party's deep concern is that the
bill was labelled, as the minister said, as merely a housekeeping bill. While
as a party we have been strong supporters of the RCMP, and indeed have backed
them up when others have tried to criticize them in the face of doing a very
difficult job, our concern is that when we start giving extra powers to the
RCMP we do not believe this is merely a housekeeping issue.
This issue deserves a complete and public debate and
public knowledge. Only by doing that will we be able to have the buy-in on the
part of the public, the buy-in on the part of the House and the full knowledge
of the public as to what powers we are giving.
I know the member would abhor the belief that in any
way, shape or form we would want to turn Canada into a police state. No one
wants that. However in certain quarters there are those concerns, particularly
among the anti-globalization crowds he referred to.
Our responsibility is to make sure that those people,
and indeed all Canadians, are well aware, in a transparent fashion, of the
kinds of powers that this bill would represent within the statutes of our
country, and we will not simply say that this is some housekeeping bill that we
will slide in through the back door. That is the problem our party has with it.
We want to make sure that there is a transparent and public debate so that all
Canadians will know what is in the bill.
(1320)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to one of the
themes that my hon. colleague dwelt upon which falls within his own area of
considerable expertise and experience. He talked about the human rights
situation in other countries, particularly Africa. My hon. colleague has
visited Africa and worked there as a medical doctor on something like 17, 18 or
19 different occasions over the past several decades. He has developed an
extraordinary knowledge of the situation in Africa in regard to the economic
situation and the human rights situation and has a very subtle understanding in
some cases.
I have a question for him that breaks down into several
parts. First, in dealing with how we could respond to the situation in Africa
and other parts of the world where we see terrorism of domestic populations
taking place, I wonder what kinds of sanctions or penalties could actually
effectively be imposed and would actually work.
In asking that I would like to extend it out a bit. As
an historian I tend to look at what has been done in the past and what has
worked and what has not. What has my hon. colleague seen that has worked
effectively in other parts of the world? Drawing upon that, which of these
possible sanctions could actually be advocated effectively by Canada for these
kinds of situations? Of course there are some actions that perhaps we cannot
advocate for one reason or another. Looking at countries in situations similar
to our own, such as the situations of the Americans, the Australians, the
Swedes, the British and so on, what has been advocated by those countries for
encouraging a reduction in this kind of abuse of human rights in countries such
as Africa and elsewhere?
Mr. Keith Martin:
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, who has a Ph.D.
in history, so I would never want to joust with him on this because I would
lose every time. He has extensive knowledge in this area.
Basically what his question refers to is what we are to
do in the face of domestic terrorism. What do we do in regard to a despot who
is willing to abuse his or her citizens in the most egregious way?
I think we could divide it into two responses, military
and non-military. Both would require a multilateral, multifactoral approach. In
the non-military response, I think we could use our international organizations
through the IMF and World Bank. We can use economic levers as a carrot or as a
stick for those leaders who want to abuse their people. That can easily be done
through IMF tranches and World Bank help.
As a country we can also apply our help in
international aid in a diplomatic carrot or stick approach. Also, with respect
to diplomatic recognition and bilateral involvement, we could make them
conditional on a country's willingness to support the basic tenets of human
rights.
We also need to deal with communication. As we have
seen in Pakistan and Afghanistan and indeed in certain areas of the Middle
East, how we actually stimulate people to take up arms against another group is
to feed them a steady diet of violent propaganda against that group. We in the
international community ignore this when communication is used not as a lever
of peace but as a tool to stimulate one group to fight against another group,
but we can apply other tools. The UN has ways to do that through shortwave
radio and other tools whereby we could institute positive propaganda, positive
information, to build bridges among disparate groups and to support
moderates.
Last, on the military option I firmly believe a rapid
reaction force should be developed with the command and control structure that
is already in place. In my view we also need an international arms registry
that deals just with the bulk sales of automatic weapons. If we had an
international agreement that would enable us to track the bulk sales of
automatic weapons it would go a long way to making this world a safer
place.
(1325)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Carleton
Lanark.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, if I might just bring to your attention
the fact that a frequently made error in the House is assuming that the name of
my riding is in alphabetical order. In fact it is in reverse alphabetical
order. It happens all the time. People frequently misspell Carleton as well. It
is an ongoing struggle but we make do as best we can.
I want to dwell on the civil rights aspect of the
legislation before the House. It has been referred to by members on the
government side as a piece of housekeeping legislation, which is one of those
phrases that makes my ears perk up. My hackles rise a bit when I hear that
phrase being used, in much the same way that one's nerves get unsettled when
there is a knock on the door and someone announces “I am from the government
and I am here to help”.
It is too easy to deal with civil rights issues and the
reduction in civil rights by means of slicing off a little at a time and saying
that it is just housekeeping, that it is just a little right here, a little
right there. When we look at the whole question of civil rights and legal
rights, the whole system of protection we have built up is a series of very
small, very careful protections against those little salami slices that can be
cut away. That is why when we read a bill of rights or our own charter of
rights, we find that the protections for civil liberties tend to be very much
in the nature of protections against a whole range and series of individual
potential abuses as opposed to a broad umbrella statement of the rights that
ought to exist.
For example, it is not enough to talk about freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly or the right to a fair trial. One has to go on and
say, for example with regard to the right to a fair trial, that one has a right
to habeas corpus, that one has a right not to be tried twice for the same
offence, and a whole series of other similar protections, the right to counsel,
and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Also, within that right against unreasonable search and
seizure are certain sub-rights to prevent against warrantless searches. When
warrants are issued, any evidence collected can only be evidence that relates
to the terms of the warrant. For example, if the police come into a person's
house because they think that person is guilty of crime A and they find
evidence that suggests that in fact the person is guilty of offence B,
that evidence cannot be used in that prosecution.
This kind of ad hoc protection against ad hoc abuses is
absolutely vital when we see ad hoc reductions in these rights, particularly
those which are not clearly and specifically spelled out in our charter. We
have reason to want to take very special care to make sure that we are not
seeing the beginning of this process of slicing off those little salami slices
of freedom. Just taking away those little bits of freedom might result in that
great mass of freedoms, which makes us such a beacon to the world, being lost.
That is the kind of thing we worry about.
Today we are dealing with a very specific right. This
is the right to freedom of assembly to register one's protest. This is a right
that has existed in our society and in our ancestors' societies for centuries.
I am thinking particularly of England.
There was a time when Britain's parliament was far from
being the model that it is today. For example, at one time women could not
vote, working men could not vote, men who did not hold property could not vote,
and the franchise was exercised only by a tiny fraction, less than 10% of the
population. Also, the system of representation in the boroughs was
extraordinarily corrupt. There were some boroughs known as the rotten boroughs
in which there could be as few as a dozen people casting ballots to elect a
member of parliament. Other boroughs were of enormous size and as a result
experienced a great deal of underrepresentation
All kinds of theories were developed on how to deal
with this. In the end, the right of protest on the street, of going out and
demonstrating was practised. Sometimes there was a little bit of alcohol
consumed and these things could evolve into riots, but that was understood and
accepted.
(1330)
That actually was the framework within which we in this
country were able to develop a greater degree of freedom. This applies to the
British and the Americans as well. That was absolutely critical. It would be a
great shame to see that lost or reduced at all.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The hon. member for Lanark--Carleton will have another
five minutes when we resume debate on the bill.
[Translation]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
Income Tax Act
The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act (Public Transportation Costs), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today
to deal with the consideration of the merits of private member's bill, Bill
C-209.
There is no question that encouraging the use of public
transit is a laudable goal. As a matter of public policy this is a goal that is
obviously consistent with the government's plan. Every time we remove a private
automobile from our roadways, there is a direct effect in the reduction of
greenhouse gases and that is a relationship that all of us can understand and
appreciate. The government recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse
gases, but in doing so we must remember that the tax system is only one of the
possible methods and mechanisms we can use in order to help us reach that
goal.
First and foremost, governments at all levels must work
together to be effective in this challenge. Second, I submit that we should
examine the legislation we have before us today in light of the other options
that are available to us and also look at where we could most effectively
utilize the money that this proposal might cost the public purse.
It has been estimated that this proposal, if enacted,
would in fact cost the public purse approximately $100 million annually. For
$100 million annually, the question is, do we believe that this would
accomplish the goal and would there be other expenses that might be incurred in
its implementation?
Clearly those who already take public transit do not
need a tax deduction to encourage them to use this service, so why, as the bill
advocates, should we spend money from the treasury to provide a subsidy to
those existing users? It might be beneficial to those current riders, I
suppose, if they had sufficient income to be taxable, but the deduction from
taxable income is not helpful at all to those who do not have a net taxable
income.
Clearly this part of the bill is a discriminatory
measure and would take away from the benefit a person of lower income might
have received. Surely this was not the intent of the drafter of the bill, but
it certainly would be the ultimate effect as it is drafted. Whether they were
patrons of the transit system or whether they would decide to begin using
public transit, surely a section of this nature is truly inappropriate. The
bill would not legislate any sort of direct payment to the person who uses the
public transit system but in fact would legislate a deduction from net taxable
income. That is a very important distinction to make in relation to the bill as
it appears before the House.
As I look at the bill my initial thoughts are that,
first, the tax system credits proposed would not be equally applicable to all
riders because of our graduated tax system. Second, if one is not taxable at
all, obviously there would be no financial benefit or incentive under the bill.
Third, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing ridership, why
should we provide any financial support to those who already take the transit
system? Fourth, this proposal would not appropriately target the group that we
wish to encourage to take the public transit system, that is, those who
currently simply do not use that system.
When we reflect on what we should consider, other
alternatives ought to be taken into consideration. Some of the alternatives we
should be looking at, I would suggest, are the infrastructure programs that are
used for transit capital improvements, for direct capital investment and for
adding to operating grants. These are effective ways of keeping down the cost
of public transportation and also of broadening the base of support through the
extra moneys that would be provided by capital infusion. We want to induce more
people to use the public transit system and ultimately reduce greenhouse
gases.
(1335)
I would submit that public expenditures that are
directed at creating the least expensive, cleanest, most well maintained,
modern and efficient means of public transit would be a better and more direct
method of achieving the goal of getting more riders to leave their cars at
home.
Another problem with the bill is the practical
application of the accountability section as drafted, subclause 118.96(3),
which states:
The individual shall provide
supporting vouchers indicating the amounts paid by the individual for the use
of a public transportation system. |
With respect to the bill itself, the word shall used in
subclause 118.96(3) is a mandatory word which requires one to provide the
supporting vouchers or receipts in order to deduct from the net taxable income
this public transportation expenditure.
Let us think about what this really does. What does it
really create? Not only does it create a new administrative problem for the
traveller in having to obtain and maintain the receipts, but there is also an
expense created for the travel provider on every trip taken by the
taxpayer.
This is not to mention the fact that ultimately CCRA
has to receive and store all of these vouchers, which conceivably could be in
the hundreds per taxpayer, which again could be something significant.
The cost of producing the vouchers by the travel
provider and the cost to receive and store these vouchers by CCRA would not be,
I suggest, a positive use of government resources, again taking into
consideration that the primary purpose of the bill is ultimately to reduce
greenhouse gases.
In the bill I think what we are looking is possibly the
creation of a very expensive administrative system, not only for the federal
government but for all levels of government, which in effect really are part
and parcel of the whole idea of public transit. That would include the
provinces as well as the municipalities.
The government is committed to reducing greenhouse
gases and clearly excellent public transit is one important part of that
policy. The government is committed to the important principles of sustainable
development across a wide spectrum of government activities. That means clear
goals in relation to the environment. The federal government has required all
of its departments to prepare sustainable development strategies for tabling in
the House. As well, every federal budget since 1994 has included measures that
will help achieve a better integration of the economy and the
environment.
In budget 2000 and in budget update 2000, $1.4 billion
was allocated toward key environmental challenges. One of those challenges of
course is climate change. A green municipal investment fund is a part of those
initiatives and is there to provide loans in support of municipal projects in
such areas as urban transit.
As part of reducing greenhouse gases within the scope
of mass transit, our government is also leading by example. The Alternative
Fuels Act of 1995 requires that three-quarters of the federal government fleet,
which includes those green buses we see travelling up and down the Hill, if
vehicles meet the minimum feasibility requirements, will use alternative fuels.
Clearly this is a positive step in reducing greenhouse gases.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the hon. member for
bringing this important issue to our attention, but as I have articulated there
are better ways to use public moneys in order to achieve the goal of minimizing
greenhouse gases and better serve the environment. The tax deductibility
provided in Bill C-209 does not meet the tests required for an efficient,
effective and wise use of public funds. Therefore I am not in support of Bill
C-209.
(1340)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill
C-209, introduced by the hon. member for Jonquière. I cannot overemphasize how
well advised she was in introducing this bill in the House.
A few moments ago, I was listening to the comments of
the Liberal member. I should point out that this bill is in response to a
motion agreed to by this House in 1999, concerning a tax exemption for using
public transportation. That motion was presented by the hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Nelson Riis. The motion was agreed to,
but nothing was ever done about it.
We have to remember the decisions made by this House
before dismissing out of hand a legislative proposal by a parliamentarian based
on an earlier decisions of the House of Commons.
The summary of the bill states its objective very
well:
This enactment amends the Income Tax
Act to allow an individual to deduct certain public transportation costs from
the amount of tax payable. |
This is of course a bill that includes many benefits
and positive elements. In the next few minutes, I will explain the various
positive elements that I see in this legislation.
First, let us look at the economic activity. It is all
the more important to talk about it, since all the indicators seem to point to
a rather significant downturn in our economy. Consequently, we have to see what
we can do to stimulate the economy.
This bill would provide a tax incentive to individuals
who use public transportation and thus reduce the number of vehicles on our
roads. This would, in turn, greatly improve the movement of goods and people in
and around major urban centres. Since our economy is increasingly based on the
just in time delivery principle, it is becoming more and more important that
vehicles move as freely as possible, particularly those that transport goods,
so as to allow businesses to meet their obligations in this respect.
I think it is important to point out that one 40-foot
bus on the road eliminates 40 to 50 cars from that same road. Multiplying the
number of 40-foot buses. one can see the effect that can have on car traffic.
In Montreal, for instance, if people all took their own cars, the average
length of a trip would be tripled, to one and one-half hours. That is pretty
significant. The more emphasis is placed on public transit, the more likely
there is to be a drop in the number of vehicles on our roads.
Why would this incentive have that effect? As I have
said, it would be, for people who need to travel, an incentive to use public
transportation. This would raise the revenues of public transportation
companies and could have the spinoff effect of improving service, frequency and
routes, thus improving ridership still further.
There are also numerous advantages relating to the
environment and health. Our Liberal colleague has just referred to the Kyoto
protocol, which the Canadian government has signed, committing it to a 6% cut
in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010-2012.
(1345)
This is wonderful in principle. It is entirely
laudable. However, we are waiting for the government to actually follow up on
this commitment.
Contrary to what might have been expected, the
government has for some time now taken a number of decisions which struck us as
illogical, counterproductive and even harmful, given the stated purpose. One
obvious example is the fact that the government, while now racking up
significant budget surpluses, has deliberately decided to reduce its annual
funding of $7.2 million to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion. The
centre's activities were part of a vast program of international research into
nuclear fusion, which will eventually enable us to develop a clean, abundant
and safe form of energy that is respectful of the environment.
In its great wisdom, when it decided to sign and
initial the Kyoto protocol, the Canadian government simultaneously decided to
end nuclear fusion research in Canada.
As it perhaps now realizes, if it had not already been
secretly planning this, it is now using taxpayer money to promote the Iter
project, which would be located in Ontario. The purpose of the Iter project is
to construct a nuclear fusion megareactor. Expected to cost in the billions of
dollars, this project comes after the nuclear fusion reactor in Varennes in my
riding was shut down.
We have also looked at other decisions and other
avenues the federal government has in mind in order to meet the objectives of
the Kyoto protocol. It is apparent that the government is trying, or thinking
of trying, to shift most of the work onto the shoulders of the private sector,
of industry. A look needs to be taken at the legislation in effect in the
various provinces. I am thinking of Quebec, where environmental legislation is
very tough and where industry has already made considerable efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. They are being asked for 6% more, while the federal
government is making little or no effort.
We should be able to expect the federal government to
subsidize public transportation, but the federal government is not contributing
a penny. This is all the more astonishing when we hear that the U.S. government
is investing $41 billion over six years in public transportation. The U.S.
government, which is the outcast of the international community because it
refuses to implement the Kyoto protocol, because it is going back to thermal
power plants and the list goes on, is investing $41 billion over six years in
public transportation.
Yet it is very clear that public transit reduces the
number of vehicles on the road, vehicles that are to a large extent the source
of greenhouse gas emissions.
I have a few statistics supplied by the Canadian Urban
Transit Association, which reveal the scope of the problem. A vehicle emits
some four tonnes of pollutants annually, nearly four times the per passenger
amount emitted by a bus. One bus permits a saving of 70,000 litres of gasoline
and nine tonnes of atmospheric pollutants every year. These figures send a
clear message.
In health terms and my colleague from Jonquière pointed
this out in her speech, some 16,000 Canadians die each year as the result of
high levels of urban pollution. This is not to be taken lightly. The number of
children hospitalized for problems related to asthma increased by 23% between
1980 and 1990. In terms of health care costs alone, the government would likely
save as much if not more than the fiscal spending this measure proposed by my
colleague from Jonquière would entail. I would like to add that this measure
would also be fairer.
We have seen recently that the number of Canadians
earning over $250,000 and not paying a cent of income tax had
increased--
(1350)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time
is up. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, death, taxes and traffic congestion are
three things that we can be certain of in life and in the brilliance of Bill
C-209 it deals with all three of them.
[Translation]
I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière on this
good idea.
[English]
The bill is very good and provides guidance and
direction to the government where it has failed in dealing with more innovative
ways in which we can reduce our greenhouse gases and dependence on fossil
fuels. The bill would allow tax reductions for users of public transportation
services in Canada.
There is a cost for our failure to deal with
alternative fuels as we have not looked at ways to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Some 16,000 Canadians die prematurely
every year from poor air quality. The increase in asthma and other pulmonary
related disorders among children has increased by a whopping 23% between 1980
and 1990. This has a huge cost upon our health care system.
Health care costs resulting from automobile use alone
were reportedly over $1 billion a year. Motor vehicles are the principal source
of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 32% of the total amount.
The bill is important because it would lessen our
dependence on cars. It is an innovative way to ensure that people would use
alternative methods, particularly public transportation. We are one of the very
few western democracies that do not have a national public transportation plan.
There is no co-ordination within our country on how to lessen the dependence of
the movement of people on our roads. The bill provides that option.
There are many economic benefits apart from the health
ones. It lessens our dependence on using roads. Therefore it lessens the
considerable costs that we have in terms of rebuilding our transportation
arteries. It is a very significant deficit as members from across the country
will attest. Almost all of us have some very serious significant problems in
all of our ridings with respect to the transportation arteries in our country.
There has not been enough money applied to
transportation arteries by the government. One source of revenue is gas taxes.
The Canadian public would be surprised, in fact shocked, to know that only 4.5%
of the revenues derived from gas taxes goes toward the improvement of
transportation arteries. By comparison, some 90% of the money that is taken
from gas taxes in the U.S. goes toward the improvement of transportation
arteries.
We are no paragon of virtue in terms of public
transportation. Perhaps, then, we ought to look not only within the bill but at
the experiences within Europe. There were similar activities in Europe and the
costs of private transportation use decreased. Private transportation use
declined and public transportation increased dramatically.
My friend in the government made some assertions on the
costs to the public purse of employing the bill. I take issue with that. I
agree with him that there are certain costs. However those costs would be
offset by the benefits not only in terms of health care but in terms of new
construction on our arteries and greenhouse gas emissions which have a profound
impact on agriculture. Greenhouse gas emissions and weather changes have had a
profound impact on agriculture and on our gross domestic product. Therein lies
some very strong economic evidence to support Bill C-209.
(1355)
Canadians have done some very good work in looking at
innovative ways to use our tax structure as a tool for environmental
improvements. The tax structure could encourage the use of alternative fuels
and alternative methods of utilizing energy. Those who use electrical power,
solar power, or who have cars that do not use fossil fuels but rather
combinations of methanol, ethanol and other substances that lessen emissions,
should receive a tax credit.
Researchers who investigate other forms of energy use
should also receive a tax credit. Perhaps gas taxes could be targeted toward
the exploration, research and development of alternative fuels. There are quite
a few researchers doing innovative work in a number of universities across
Canada. Some excellent work on new types of electric fuel cells that hopefully
will lessen our demand on fossil fuels is being carried out at the University
of Victoria.
Bill C-209 could be a jumping off point into some very
innovative and positive ways which the government could encourage the use of
alternative fuels and alternative uses of energy.
Water is another area where there is abuse. The cost of
water to us does not represent its true value. There are opportunities within
our tax structure to encourage alternative uses of water and alternative
methods to save water through the type of toilets we use. There are certain
types of low flow toilets that decrease the amount of water use considerably.
There are alternative methods to water use within
agriculture. Farmers have implemented very innovative ways, copied from Israel
and Texas. They use low flow forms of agricultural irrigation that minimizes
water use with maximal benefit. Those farmers, industries and consumers that
are using alternative fuels of non-renewable resources should receive tax
credits.
On the surface one might argue that there is a cost. My
friend from the government is correct. That is, however, offset by savings in
terms of encouraging this alternative method. The tax structure is a method of
encouraging more responsible use of non-renewable resources that would provide
not only an environment which is more conducive to our health but significant
savings in terms of agriculture, health care and our economy as a
whole.
I bring to the government's attention its failure to
address this issue in a very substantive form and I congratulate the member for
Jonquière for bringing
this bill forward.
I encourage the government to work with the member for
Jonquière and others in
the House who are leaders in the environment such as the chair of the
environment committee. He has been in the House for a long time and has some
very profound and important ideas. He is also a member of the government. These
members would advise us on what we could do to improve our
environment.
I encourage the government to take a leadership role,
step up to bat and look at the ideas within the House and our country.
Considerable expertise, knowledge and research has been done. The government
should work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive plan to have a more
sustainable and healthier environment.
(1400)
[Translation]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jonquière
for bringing forward this motion, which is not a new request.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities have been exerting pressure for years in
support of this change.
Moreover, Mr. Riis, a former colleague and member of
parliament for Kamloops from 1980 to 2000, also supported this
initiative.
It is expected that between 1991 and 2020 emissions
caused by vehicles will increase by 52%. If we really want to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, we must find a way to promote public transportation.
A tax exemption for public transportation passes
provided by employers would be a very good first step.
[English]
We support this motion. As I indicated it has a history
within the NDP. The former member from Kamloops, Mr. Riis, was a great advocate
of this measure, as have been other New Democrats over the years. We would go
further to allow businesses to write off the expense of providing public
transit passes to employees.
These are some small steps that the government could
take toward trying to encourage Canadians to use public transportation. They
could be small parts of an overall strategy to meet our commitments as far as
Kyoto is concerned and as far as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is
concerned.
That is why I was very disappointed a member on the
government side rose and did the usual thing. He trashed the idea by saying
that it was not good enough. It is a whole lot better than nothing. It is a
whole lot better than what we get from the government when it comes to real
policy changes to encourage people to use public transportation.
If the hon. member has a better idea maybe he should
say so, instead of just pouring cold water on every suggestion members come up
with for trying to help our society to save the planet so that someday our
grandchildren will not inherit from us an environment in which they cannot
breathe the air or drink the water as a result of the disposition on the part
of the government to find fault with every proposal that is made but then not
come up with any of its own.
So far all I can see on the part of the government is
that it wants to get credit for trees when it comes to greenhouse gas
emissions. This is the Liberal strategy: count the trees, count them as carbon
sinks. In that way they do not have to do anything. They can just be involved
in a sort of global bean counting, global manipulation of the figures so that
Canada does not have to actually reduce any greenhouse gas emissions at all. Is
that not wonderful? Will that not make the air a lot better?
I do not get it. Yet the Minister of the Environment
and the government seem fascinated by this approach.
We think there are a number of measures, and this
private member's business is only one aspect of what could be done. Certainly I
would have thought that anybody in their right environmental mind would support
a motion like this designed to encourage people to use public transportation.
I do not know where the hon. member is from, but I sure
hope he is not from Toronto. If one has ever been to Toronto, Montreal, or for
that matter Winnipeg or any of our bigger cities, one of the things we have to
do is to get more people out of their cars and into public transportation,
walking, cycling or whatever. Those things are not always possible,
particularly in Winnipeg in the winter. We have to find ways to encourage
people to use public transportation and here is a way we could do it.
The member from the Alliance was very eloquent as to
the growing incidence of pulmonary and respiratory diseases, the growing
incidence of asthma among young people. This is not a coincidence. It is not
like this generation is somehow genetically inferior over the last generation
when it comes to their lungs. It has to do with their exposure to air
pollution.
If we cannot read the writing on the wall, how long do
we have to ask our children who are coming down with asthma and these other
respiratory diseases to be the canaries in the mines for us? The canaries have
asthma. The canaries have other conditions. They are telling us something. They
are telling the Liberal government to act, to not count the trees and see what
kind of credit it can get for that in some kind of global statistical game, but
to do something about air quality in this country.
One of the things the government could do and one of
the things backbenchers could do, even if their government were not willing to
do it, would be not to get up and recite the latest departmental argument
against this but to actually show some courage and be for something that
parliament could do. We should be giving instructions to the departments on how
we will solve our problems and not the other way around.
(1405)
In the long term the savings to our health care system
would be incredible if we could deal with some of these problems, but no, we
want to keep all the accounting separate and have walls between all the
separate books we keep on health, the environment, transport, et
cetera.
These things are all related to each other. The time
has come for us to do a different kind of accounting here and take into account
all the costs of the way we do things. If we did that and took into account all
the savings that would come from encouraging people to use public transport, we
would have an entirely different set of books and a set of books that would
justify us taking these kinds of environmental measures.
In case I have not made myself clear, I am in favour of
the motion. I hope other members can see their way to being en faveur de cette
motion également.
While I have a few minutes left I would just like to
say that there is a comparable public policy issue, a favourite of mine. I
cannot resist the temptation to insert it here because it runs parallel with
this. The concern to get people out of their cars and into public
transportation, particularly in an urban context, is, in my mind, very much
like the concern I and other members have to get freight out of the trucks, off
the highways and back onto the rails where it belongs.
Here again we have exactly the same situation. We have
more greenhouse gases being emitted than need be. There are trains that are
about 10,000 feet long, which is too long in my view but nevertheless they are
there. Can anyone imagine how many trucks that would equal? Yet they are all
being pulled by one diesel unit. The same comparison would be to take all the
people off a bus and put them in individual cars.
If the government is serious about its greenhouse gas
emission strategy, that is to say the reduction of the gases, it should stop
counting trees, making up stuff about carbon sinks and get with it. It should
devise a transportation policy that will encourage people to use public
transportation, that will create incentives for people to ship by rail and, for
that matter, disincentives for people to ship by truck where there is no real
justification for doing so.
(1410)
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the
member for Winnipeg--Transcona. He does have a tendency to build enthusiasm
into a debate. I appreciate a number of his comments as well as the comments of
other members of the House during the debate.
I appreciate him chastising the government member for
Northumberland who spoke in opposition to the legislation. I am afraid I will
to have to continue on with that tact.
The member for Northumberland did not put a very
convincing debate forward as to why he and the government should not support
the legislation which is a small start and a small piece of a very large
problem. The legislation put forward today would be one way to start the
process and ultimately reduce emissions in the atmosphere.
I continually see the Liberal government spending an
inordinate amount of energy coming up with reasons not to do something positive
as opposed to coming up with reasons things should happen in a positive
fashion. I will give some examples.
The first reason the government came up with is that
this cannot happen because it is a tax rebate of sorts. It would be a tax
write-off against the cost of public transportation. The member for
Northumberland says that not all people who take public transit actually have
taxable income and therefore it would not be an advantage for them.
Is that not wonderful? If that is the case, perhaps
there should not be any taxable write-offs at all. I am sure some people would
be affected where they do not have taxable income and therefore it would not be
an advantage for them. However it would be quite an advantage to a number of
other people who do have taxable incomes. We should look at the positive side
of this as opposed to the negative.
I could not believe it when I heard the member suggest
that because we now accountability a person has to collect receipts in order to
get a taxable benefit write-off. He said that the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, heaven forbid, would be flooded with the receipts that people would
collect and be able to use as a tax write-off.
Why have any taxable write-offs if CCRA cannot put
together a simple system to account for the tax deductibility of a bus ticket.
Is that not wonderful? We have a tax collection system that cannot possibly
handle this flood of receipts that would be put forward for a tax
write-off.
If that is the reason the government does not want to
accept the legislation, it should come back to the House with some better
alternatives. It is so easy to say no. It is always easy to throw water on
something that is very positive but it is not so easy to come forward with some
positive suggestions.
Let us look at another one. In another life I actually
had a lot of experience with respect to public transit. I sat on the board of
directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I also sat on the
transportation committee of the FCM. Every year we put forward to the federal
government a suggestion that there should be a tax advantage if in fact people
take public transit.
We have a chicken and an egg scenario here. Public
transit is funded by the municipalities and the provinces. Since the federal
government has no responsibility for public transit, why should it take any
risk and lose income?
The municipalities for the most part fund public
transportation. They put a lot of funding into it so they can take people off
their infrastructure, get them out of their cars and into buses, LRTs and GO
trains. The municipalities and the provinces fix the roads, not the federal
government, which has abdicated its responsibility for that.
It is to the advantage of the municipalities to put
money into public transit and get people out of their cars. All we are
suggesting is that the federal government take the small risk of getting people
out of their cars and into public transit.
By the way, when we take people out of their cars and
put them on public transit we also serve a useful purpose, which is to protect
the environment, a responsibility the federal government has once again
abdicated to other levels of government.
I had the opportunity to live in the wonderful city of
Toronto for a number of years. When I drove from my house to downtown Toronto
where I worked, I could see in the skyline a terrible yellow haze. The haze
came from pollution. We know now that in our major urban centres we have a
serious problem with pollution. We know that on an annual basis Toronto has
more and more days where there are smog alerts.
As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona has indicated, if
members have not got the message already, support the legislation on behalf of
the coalition. I would really like to see the government rethink its position
because it is a good first small step. It should do something positive for
once.
(1415)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all the motions
at second reading stage of Bill C-209 are deemed put and a recorded division
deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at the expiry of
time provided for government orders.
[English]
It being 2.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until
Monday, October 15 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Alphabetical List of Members with their
Constituencies, Province of Constituency
and Political Affiliations;
Committees of the House,
the Ministry and Parliamentary Secretary
Chair Occupants
Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the
Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
Board Of Internal Economy
Hon. Peter Milliken
Hon. Don Boudria
Hon. Andy Mitchell
Mr. Bill Blaikie
Ms. Marlene Catterall
Mr. Bob Kilger
Mr. Peter MacKay
Mr. Jacques Saada
Mr. John Reynolds
Mr. Pierre Brien
Mr. Richard Harris
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Province of Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
British Columbia |
CA |
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
Alberta |
CA |
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
Alberta |
CA |
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Anderson, Hon. David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
Quebec |
BQ |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
Quebec |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Yukon |
Lib. |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Baker, Hon. George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
Alberta |
CA |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Blondin-Andrew, Hon. Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Northwest Territories |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Boudria, Hon. Don, Minister of State and Leader of the Government
in the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bradshaw, Hon. Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
Quebec |
BQ |
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
British Columbia |
CA |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Caccia, Hon. Charles |
Davenport |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Caplan, Hon. Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |
Thornhill |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
Quebec |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
Alberta |
CA |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Hon. Martin, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec) |
Outremont |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
Alberta |
CA |
Chrétien, Right Hon. Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Clark, Right Hon. Joe |
Calgary Centre |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Coderre, Hon. Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Collenette, Hon. David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
Ontario |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Copps, Hon. Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
Quebec |
BQ |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
Quebec |
BQ |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
British Columbia |
CA |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
Quebec |
BQ |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Dhaliwal, Hon. Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Dion, Hon. Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duhamel, Hon. Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Hon. Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
Alberta |
CA |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development |
Laval West |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
CA |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
Quebec |
BQ |
Fry, Hon. Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Gagliano, Hon. Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
Ontario |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
Quebec |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
New Brunswick |
NDP |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
Alberta |
CA |
Goodale, Hon. Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gray, Hon. Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
British Columbia |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
Quebec |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
Quebec |
BQ |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
British Columbia |
CA |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
Alberta |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
Manitoba |
CA |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
British Columbia |
CA |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
Alberta |
CA |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
Alberta |
CA |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilgour, Hon. David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Alberta |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
Quebec |
BQ |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
Quebec |
BQ |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
British Columbia |
CA |
MacAulay, Hon. Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Manley, Hon. John, Minister of Foreign Affairs |
Ottawa South |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Marleau, Hon. Diane |
Sudbury |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
British Columbia |
CA |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Martin, Hon. Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
British Columbia |
CA |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McLellan, Hon. Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada |
Edmonton West |
Alberta |
Lib. |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
Quebec |
BQ |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
Alberta |
CA |
Milliken, Hon. Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
Alberta |
CA |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Minna, Hon. Maria, Minister for International Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Hon. Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
British Columbia |
CA |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Nault, Hon. Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Normand, Hon. Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Hon. Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Ontario |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
Alberta |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Hon. Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
Manitoba |
CA |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
Saskatchewan |
PC/DR |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
Quebec |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
Alberta |
CA |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
Quebec |
BQ |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Peterson, Hon. Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pettigrew, Hon. Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
Ontario |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
British Columbia |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Robillard, Hon. Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
Quebec |
BQ |
Rock, Hon. Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
Quebec |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
Quebec |
BQ |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
British Columbia |
CA |
Scott, Hon. Andy |
Fredericton |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
Alberta |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
Alberta |
CA |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
Quebec |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stewart, Hon. Jane, Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
British Columbia |
CA |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Thibault, Hon. Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
Alberta |
CA |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tobin, Hon. Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
Manitoba |
CA |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
Quebec |
BQ |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Hon. Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
Quebec |
BQ |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
British Columbia |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
British Columbia |
CA |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
Alberta |
CA |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons by
Province
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Alberta (26)
|
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
CA |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
CA |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
CA |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
CA |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
CA |
Clark, Right Hon. Joe |
Calgary Centre |
PC/DR |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
CA |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
PC/DR |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
CA |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
CA |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
CA |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
CA |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
CA |
Kilgour, Hon. David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
CA |
McLellan, Hon. Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada |
Edmonton West |
Lib. |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
CA |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
CA |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
CA |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
CA |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
CA |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
CA |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
CA |
British Columbia (34)
|
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
CA |
Anderson, Hon. David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
CA |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
CA |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
CA |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
CA |
Dhaliwal, Hon. Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
CA |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
CA |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
CA |
Fry, Hon. Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status
of Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
CA |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
CA |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
PC/DR |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
CA |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
Lib. |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
CA |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
CA |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
CA |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
PC/DR |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
PC/DR |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
Lib. |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
CA |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
NDP |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
CA |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
CA |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
PC/DR |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
CA |
Manitoba (14)
|
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
NDP |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
PC/DR |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
NDP |
Duhamel, Hon. Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Lib. |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Lib. |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
CA |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
PC/DR |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
NDP |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Hon. Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
CA |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
CA |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
NDP |
New Brunswick (10)
|
Bradshaw, Hon. Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
Lib. |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
NDP |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
PC/DR |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
Lib. |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
Lib. |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
Lib. |
Scott, Hon. Andy |
Fredericton |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
PC/DR |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
PC/DR |
Newfoundland (7)
|
Baker, Hon. George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Lib. |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
PC/DR |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
PC/DR |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Lib. |
Tobin, Hon. Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Lib. |
Northwest Territories (1)
|
Blondin-Andrew, Hon. Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Lib. |
Nova Scotia (11)
|
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
PC/DR |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
PC/DR |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Lib. |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
PC/DR |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
NDP |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
PC/DR |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
NDP |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Lib. |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
NDP |
Thibault, Hon. Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Lib. |
Nunavut (1)
|
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Ontario (103)
|
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Lib. |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Lib. |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Lib. |
Boudria, Hon. Don, Minister of State and Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Lib. |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Lib. |
Caccia, Hon. Charles |
Davenport |
Lib. |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Lib. |
Caplan, Hon. Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |
Thornhill |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Lib. |
Collenette, Hon. David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Lib. |
Copps, Hon. Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Lib. |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Lib. |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Hon. Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Lib. |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Lib. |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Lib. |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Lib. |
Gray, Hon. Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Lib. |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Lib. |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Lib. |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Lib. |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Lib. |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Lib. |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Lib. |
Manley, Hon. John, Minister of Foreign Affairs |
Ottawa South |
Lib. |
Marleau, Hon. Diane |
Sudbury |
Lib. |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and
Addington |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Lib. |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Lib. |
Milliken, Hon. Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Lib. |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Lib. |
Minna, Hon. Maria, Minister for International
Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Hon. Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development)
(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
of Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Lib. |
Nault, Hon. Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Lib. |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Lib. |
Peterson, Hon. Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Lib. |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Lib. |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Lib. |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Rock, Hon. Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Lib. |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Lib. |
Stewart, Hon. Jane, Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Brant |
Lib. |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Lib. |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Lib. |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Lib. |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Hon. Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Lib. |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Lib. |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Lib. |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Lib. |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Lib. |
Prince Edward Island (4)
|
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Lib. |
MacAulay, Hon. Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Lib. |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Lib. |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Lib. |
Quebec (75)
|
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Lib. |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
BQ |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
BQ |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
BQ |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
BQ |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
BQ |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Hon. Martin, Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec) |
Outremont |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Lib. |
Chrétien, Right Hon. Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Lib. |
Coderre, Hon. Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
BQ |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
BQ |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
BQ |
Dion, Hon. Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
BQ |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Lib. |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development |
Laval West |
Lib. |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
BQ |
Gagliano, Hon. Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
BQ |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
BQ |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
BQ |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Lib. |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
BQ |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
BQ |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
BQ |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
BQ |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Lib. |
Martin, Hon. Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
BQ |
Normand, Hon. Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Lib. |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
BQ |
Pettigrew, Hon. Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
BQ |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
BQ |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Lib. |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Lib. |
Robillard, Hon. Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Lib. |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
BQ |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
BQ |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Lib. |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
BQ |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
BQ |
Saskatchewan (14)
|
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
CA |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
CA |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
CA |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
CA |
Goodale, Hon. Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Lib. |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Hon. Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
NDP |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
PC/DR |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
NDP |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
CA |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
CA |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
CA |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
CA |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
CA |
Yukon (1)
|
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Lib. |
LIST OF STANDING AND SUB-COMMITTEES
(As of October 5, 2001 — 1st Session, 37th
Parliament)
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
Resources
|
Chair: Ray Bonin
|
Vice-Chairs: Nancy Karetak-Lindell
Maurice Vellacott
|
Larry Bagnell
Gérard Binet
Serge Cardin
Jean-Guy Carignan
David Chatters
Reed Elley
John Finlay
John Godfrey
Gerald Keddy
Richard Marceau
Pat Martin
Benoît Serré
Guy St-Julien
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Joe McGuire
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
Chair: Charles Hubbard
|
Vice-Chairs: Murray Calder
Howard Hilstrom
|
David Anderson
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Claude Duplain
Mark Eyking
Marcel Gagnon
Rick Laliberte
Larry McCormick
Dick Proctor
Bob Speller
Paul Steckle
Suzanne Tremblay
Rose-Marie Ur
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Canadian Heritage
|
Chair: Clifford Lincoln
|
Vice-Chairs: Jim Abbott
Dennis Mills
|
Paul Bonwick
Sarmite Bulte
Rodger Cuzner
Claude Duplain
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Roger Gallaway
John Harvard
Betty Hinton
Wendy Lill
Grant McNally
Caroline St-Hilaire
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Citizenship and Immigration
|
Chair: Joe Fontana
|
Vice-Chairs: Paul Forseth
Steve Mahoney
|
Mark Assad
Yvon Charbonneau
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
John Godfrey
Art Hanger
Inky Mark
Anita Neville
Jerry Pickard
David Price
Stéphan Tremblay
Tony Valeri
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Lynne Yelich
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Francine Lalonde
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
|
Environment and Sustainable Development
|
Chair: Charles Caccia
|
Vice-Chairs: Karen Kraft Sloan
Bob Mills
|
Roy Bailey
Bernard Bigras
Joe Comartin
Paul Forseth
Marcel Gagnon
John Herron
Gar Knutson
Rick Laliberte
Karen Redman
Julian Reed
Andy Savoy
Hélène Scherrer
Alan Tonks
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Finance
|
Chair: Maurizio Bevilacqua
|
Vice-Chairs: Nick Discepola
Ken Epp
|
Sue Barnes
Carolyn Bennett
Scott Brison
Roy Cullen
Albina Guarnieri
Rahim Jaffer
Jason Kenney
Sophia Leung
Yvan Loubier
John McCallum
Shawn Murphy
Lorne Nystrom
Pauline Picard
Gary Pillitteri
Monte Solberg
Total: (18)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Alexa McDonough
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Fisheries and Oceans
|
Chair: Wayne Easter
|
Vice-Chairs: John Cummins
Paul Steckle
|
Sarkis Assadourian
Andy Burton
Rodger Cuzner
Georges Farrah
Loyola Hearn
Dominic LeBlanc
James Lunney
Bill Matthews
Lawrence O'Brien
Jean-Yves Roy
Peter Stoffer
Suzanne Tremblay
Tom Wappel
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Marcel Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Yves Rocheleau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
Chair: Bill Graham
|
Vice-Chairs: Jean Augustine
Brian Pallister
|
George Baker
Aileen Carroll
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
John Duncan
John Harvard
Marlene Jennings
Stan Keyes
Francine Lalonde
Diane Marleau
Keith Martin
Pat O'Brien
Pierre Paquette
Bernard Patry
Svend Robinson
Total: (18)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Sarkis Assadourian
André Bachand
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Colleen Beaumier
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Irwin Cotler
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Stan Dromisky
Antoine Dubé
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Mark Eyking
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Mac Harb
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Beth Phinney
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Yves Rocheleau
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Bob Speller
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Tony Valeri
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment
|
Chair: Mac Harb
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Rick Casson
Mark Eyking
Gary Lunn
Pat O'Brien
Pierre Paquette
Svend Robinson
Bob Speller
Tony Valeri
Total: (9)
|
Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International
Development
|
Chair: Beth Phinney
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Sarkis Assadourian
Colleen Beaumier
Bill Casey
Irwin Cotler
Antoine Dubé
Marlene Jennings
Deepak Obhrai
Svend Robinson
Total: (9)
|
Health
|
Chair: Bonnie Brown
|
Vice-Chairs: Reg Alcock
Rob Merrifield
|
Diane Ablonczy
André Bachand
Colleen Beaumier
Diane Bourgeois
Jeannot Castonguay
Brenda Chamberlain
Stan Dromisky
James Lunney
Réal Ménard
Hélène Scherrer
Judy Sgro
Yolande Thibeault
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Pauline Picard
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
|
Chair: Judi Longfield
|
Vice-Chairs: Joe Peschisolido
Diane St-Jacques
|
Eugène Bellemare
Paul Crête
Libby Davies
Raymonde Folco
Monique Guay
Tony Ianno
Dale Johnston
Gurbax Malhi
Serge Marcil
Joe McGuire
Anita Neville
Carol Skelton
Larry Spencer
Greg Thompson
Alan Tonks
Total: (18)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Marcel Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Industry, Science and Technology
|
Chair: Susan Whelan
|
Vice-Chairs: Walt Lastewka
Charlie Penson
|
Larry Bagnell
Stéphane Bergeron
Bev Desjarlais
Claude Drouin
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Preston Manning
Dan McTeague
James Rajotte
Andy Savoy
Brent St. Denis
Chuck Strahl
Paddy Torsney
Joseph Volpe
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Mauril Bélanger
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Justice and Human Rights
|
Chair: Andy Scott
|
Vice-Chairs: Chuck Cadman
Denis Paradis
|
Carole-Marie Allard
Michel Bellehumeur
Bill Blaikie
Irwin Cotler
Paul DeVillers
Ivan Grose
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
John McKay
Lynn Myers
Stephen Owen
Kevin Sorenson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Pierrette Venne
Total: (18)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Dominic LeBlanc
Derek Lee
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
David Pratt
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Tom Wappel
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
Bryon Wilfert
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Liaison
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Peter Adams
Mauril Bélanger
Maurizio Bevilacqua
Ray Bonin
Bonnie Brown
Charles Caccia
Wayne Easter
Joe Fontana
Bill Graham
Charles Hubbard
Ovid Jackson
Clifford Lincoln
Judi Longfield
David Pratt
Andy Scott
Susan Whelan
John Williams
Total: (17)
|
National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
Chair: David Pratt
|
Vice-Chairs: Leon Benoit
David Price
|
Rob Anders
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Colleen Beaumier
Stan Dromisky
John O'Reilly
Janko Peric
Louis Plamondon
Carmen Provenzano
Peter Stoffer
Elsie Wayne
Bryon Wilfert
Bob Wood
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
David Anderson
André Bachand
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Francine Lalonde
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Procedure and House Affairs
|
Chair: Peter Adams
|
Vice-Chairs: Richard Harris
Jacques Saada
|
Pierre Brien
Marlene Catterall
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Michel Guimond
Jay Hill
Joe Jordan
Paul Harold Macklin
Carolyn Parrish
Geoff Regan
John Reynolds
John Richardson
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Sue Barnes
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
John Harvard
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
Dennis Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Marcel Proulx
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Caroline St-Hilaire
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Paul Szabo
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
Bryon Wilfert
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business
|
Chair: Carolyn Parrish
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Michel Guimond
Jay Hill
Marcel Proulx
Total: (6)
|
Sub-Committee on Parliamentary Calendar
|
Chair: Marlene Catterall
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Pierre Brien
Yvon Godin
Richard Harris
Jay Hill
Total: (5)
|
Public Accounts
|
Chair: John Williams
|
Vice-Chairs: Mac Harb
Beth Phinney
|
Robert Bertrand
John Bryden
Gerry Byrne
Odina Desrochers
John Finlay
Rahim Jaffer
Sophia Leung
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Gilles-A. Perron
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Total: (17)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Denis Paradis
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Combating Corruption
|
Chair: John Williams
|
Vice-Chair:
|
John Bryden
Roy Cullen
Odina Desrochers
Marlene Jennings
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Total: (10)
|
Transport and Government Operations
|
Chair: Ovid Jackson
|
Vice-Chairs: James Moore
Marcel Proulx
|
Reg Alcock
Gerry Byrne
John Cannis
Joe Comuzzi
Bev Desjarlais
Brian Fitzpatrick
Peter Goldring
André Harvey
Mario Laframboise
Ghislain Lebel
Val Meredith
Alex Shepherd
Paul Szabo
Total: (16)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Charles Hubbard
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Dominic LeBlanc
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Serge Marcil
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs
|
Chair: Paddy Torsney
|
Vice-Chairs: Carole-Marie Allard
Randy White
|
André Bachand
Bernard Bigras
Libby Davies
Mac Harb
Dominic LeBlanc
Derek Lee
Réal Ménard
Stephen Owen
Jacques Saada
Carol Skelton
Total: (13)
|
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES
Library of Parliament
|
Joint Chair:
|
Joint Vice-Chair:
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable SenatorsGérald Beaudoin
John Bryden
Jane Marie Cordy
Donald Oliver
Vivienne Poy
|
Representing the House of Commons:Mauril Bélanger
Carolyn Bennett
Robert Bertrand
Marlene Catterall
Marcel Gagnon
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Betty Hinton
Jim Karygiannis
Raymond Lavigne
Wendy Lill
Jerry Pickard
Louis Plamondon
Jacques Saada
Darrel Stinson
Andrew Telegdi
Total: (21)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Howard Hilstrom
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Official Languages
|
Joint Chairs: Mauril Bélanger
Shirley Maheu
|
Joint Vice-Chairs: Scott Reid
Yolande Thibeault
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable SenatorsGérald Beaudoin
Joan Fraser
Jean-Robert Gauthier
Laurier LaPierre
Jean-Claude Rivest
Raymond Setlakwe
|
Representing the House of Commons:Mauril Bélanger
Eugène Bellemare
Gérard Binet
Sarmite Bulte
Claude Drouin
Christiane Gagnon
John Godfrey
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Richard Harris
John Herron
Raymond Lavigne
Dan McTeague
Scott Reid
Benoît Sauvageau
Total: (25)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Louis Plamondon
James Rajotte
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Scrutiny of Regulations
|
Joint Chair:
|
Joint Vice-Chair:
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable SenatorsJohn Bryden
Sheila Finestone
Céline Hervieux-Payette
Noël Kinsella
Wilfred Moore
Pierre Claude Nolin
|
Representing the House of Commons:Sue Barnes
Paul Bonwick
Jean-Guy Carignan
Joe Comuzzi
John Cummins
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Michel Guimond
Gar Knutson
Robert Lanctôt
Derek Lee
Paul Harold Macklin
Lynn Myers
Lorne Nystrom
Jim Pankiw
Tom Wappel
Ted White
Total: (23)
|
Associate Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Ghislain Lebel
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Pierrette Venne
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Panels of Chairman of Legislative Committees
The Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of
the Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
The Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
The Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the
Whole House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
THE MINISTRY
According to precedence
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
|
Prime Minister of
Canada |
Hon. Herb Gray |
|
Deputy Prime Minister |
Hon. David Collenette |
|
Minister of Transport |
Hon. David Anderson |
|
Minister of the
Environment |
Hon. Ralph Goodale |
|
Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Hon. Brian Tobin |
|
Minister of Industry |
Hon. Sheila Copps |
|
Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Hon. John Manley |
|
Minister of Foreign Affairs |
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
Minister of Finance |
Hon. Art Eggleton |
|
Minister of National
Defence |
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada |
Hon. Allan Rock |
|
Minister of Health |
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
|
Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
President of the Treasury
Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec) |
Hon. Jane Stewart |
|
Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
Minister for International
Trade |
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food |
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
|
Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
|
Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
|
Minister of Labour |
Hon. Robert Nault |
|
Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development |
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
Minister for International
Cooperation |
Hon. Elinor Caplan |
|
Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Minister of State (Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency) |
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
|
Secretary of State
(Children and Youth) |
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women) |
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa) |
Hon. Jim Peterson |
|
Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions) |
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
Secretary of State (Rural
Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario) |
Hon. Gilbert Normand |
|
Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development) |
Hon. Denis Coderre |
|
Secretary of State (Amateur
Sport) |
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
|
Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific) |
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
to the Prime Minister |
Mr. André Harvey |
|
to the Minister of Transport |
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
to the Minister of the
Environment |
Mr. Benoît Serré |
|
to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Mr. Claude Drouin |
|
to the Minister of Industry |
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs |
Mr. John McCallum |
|
to the Minister of Finance |
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
to the Minister of National
Defence |
Mr. Stephen Owen |
|
to the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada |
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
to the Minister of
Health |
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
to the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
to the President of the Treasury
Board |
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
to the Minister of National
Revenue |
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
to the Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
to the Minister of International
Trade |
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
to the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food |
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
|
to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs |
Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
|
to the Minister of Labour |
Mr. John Finlay |
|
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Nothern Development |
Ms. Marlene Jennings |
|
to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |