37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 071
CONTENTS
Monday, June 4, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| THE ACT OF INCORPORATION OF THE CONFERENCE OF MENNONITES IN
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Motion
|
| Bill S-25
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1110
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Cannis |
1125
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1130
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1135
1140
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Division on motion deferred
|
1145
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1150
1155
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1200
1205
| Mr. John Herron |
1210
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1215
1220
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1225
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1230
1235
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1240
1245
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1250
1255
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1300
1305
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1310
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1315
1320
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1325
1330
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Motion No. 9
|
1335
| Mr. John Herron |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Motion no 12
|
1340
1345
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1350
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| WOMEN'S WORLD CUP CYCLING RACE
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1400
| RAIL SAFETY
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| BRIGADIER GENERAL DENIS WHITAKER
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1405
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| LE COURRIER-LAVAL
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| CANCER
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| ROGER CYR
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1410
| GENERAL MAURICE BARIL
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| LA FÉDÉRATION DES FEMMES DU QUÉBEC
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| SOFTWARE THEFT
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1415
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1430
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1435
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1440
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1455
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1500
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-28. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-368. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1505
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-369. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill C-370. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-371. Introduction and first reading.
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-372. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1510
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canadian Coast Guard
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Suicide Prevention
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
1520
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1525
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1530
1535
| Mr. John Herron |
1540
1545
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1550
1555
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1600
1605
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1610
1615
| Ms. Anita Neville |
1620
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1625
1630
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1635
1640
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
| Motion No. 12 agreed to
|
1645
| Division on motion deferred
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
1650
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1830
| Sitting Resumed
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Tax Arrangements Between the Federal and
|
1900
(Division 107)
| Amendment negatived
|
1905
(Division 108)
| Motion negatived
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 109)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Motion for concurrence
|
1910
(Division 110)
| Motion agreed to
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
(Division 111)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
1915
(Division 112)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 113)
(Division 114)
(Division 116)
(Division 117)
(Division 118)
(Division 119)
| Motions Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 negatived
|
(Division 115)
| Motion No. 6
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
(Division 120)
| Motion agreed to
|
1920
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 121)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 071
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 4, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
THE ACT OF INCORPORATION OF THE CONFERENCE OF MENNONITES IN
CANADA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move, seconded by the member for Provencher:
That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices
of the House, Bill S-25, an act to amend the Act of incorporation
of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada, be now called for
second reading; and
That the House do proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages
including committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.) moved, seconded by
the hon. member for Provencher, that Bill S-25, an act to amend
the act of incorporation of the Conference of Mennonites in
Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent,
referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is very straightforward business for
the House. The act is being brought forward at the request of
the Mennonite Conference of Canada. The church has undertaken
some work over the last few years on its articles of
incorporation which were originally passed by this House in 1947.
It wishes to change the name from the Mennonite Conference of
Canada to the Mennonite Church of Canada. As well, there are
some other organizational and operational changes contained
within the bill.
The bill was introduced in the Senate at the request of the
church, and I am now introducing it on the floor.
I appreciate the support and assistance that has been offered by
all parties. As everyone here knows, the Mennonites have
contributed enormously to the quality of life in Canada. They do
tremendous work not just in Canada but around the world. It is a
great honour for me to be part of the process of assisting them
in this renewal.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the bill coming forward and I appreciate
the opportunity to speak very briefly to it.
The Mennonite community in Manitoba, of which I am a part, has a
long history and a proud and distinguished place in the
religious, educational, cultural and business life of my
province. Their contribution to the industrial development of
Manitoba has been outstanding and continues to grow. Their
commitment to fundamental values is a positive force at home,
across Canada and around the world.
The Mennonite community is an outstanding example of how
immigrants bring their distinct qualities, character and beliefs
to the building of our nation.
Although this bill is routine in character, I think
it is always timely to note the contributions of the Mennonites
who first immigrated to Canada in a number of immigration waves.
My own people, both on my father and my mother's side, came to
Canada in the 1920s, escaping famine and Lenin's brutal communism
in the Soviet Union.
The Canadian Mennonite Church and its agencies, specifically the
Mennonite central committee, were instrumental in bringing my
family to Canada. I thank the government member for his
sponsorship of the bill and for his kind words. It is my pleasure
to support the bill.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to put a few
comments on record pursuant to Bill S-25.
I thank the member for Winnipeg South for sponsoring the
legislation which, as he indicated, is routine by nature and
reflects the will and interests of the Mennonite community to
change its incorporation from the Conference of Mennonites in
Canada to the Mennonite Church of Canada.
It is an opportunity and a time for us to reflect on the
contribution of Mennonites to this country and the work of that
community internationally.
I think we often overlook the kinds of inroads that have been
made by newcomers to this country and the very important
contribution they have made to building this country.
1110
As the member for Winnipeg South indicated, the Mennonite
community of Canada has played a very important role in
developing this country and in ensuring Canada's responsibility
is met with respect to international concerns and disastrous
situations facing people around the world.
I want to personally reflect for a moment since my roots with
the Mennonite community run deep. I was raised in a Mennonite
community in the Waterloo county area of Ontario. I went to
school with old order Mennonites where we had many opportunities
for interaction. I am also married to a Mennonite. The Leis
portion of my name is Amish Mennonite and I carry it very proudly
along with the traditions of the community.
Let me put on record the very important contribution of the
Mennonite Church and, in particular, the Mennonite central
committee in our deliberations on Bill C-11 pertaining to
immigration and refugees. The Mennonite community has been
leading the charge in terms of ensuring Canada carries on a
humanitarian, compassionate approach to refugees, displaced
persons and people in need of protection around the world. They
have made some very important recommendations throughout our
debate. I want to acknowledge the work they have done and I want
to add my support and the support of our caucus for the bill.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
too rise in support of Bill S-25. Those were the shortest
speeches I have ever heard made by the member for Winnipeg North
Centre and the member for Provencher. I am shocked. It is also
nice to see that all members can come together on legislation in
a non-partisan manner and put forward a breath of fresh air in
the House.
I speak in favour of the legislation. I too have numerous
constituents of the Mennonite faith in my riding. I would like
to add to the words of the previous speakers that it is the
Mennonite faith that brings together church, family, community
and generosity. I am shocked that the member for Provencher did
not recognize that the Mennonite community is the most generous.
Manitoba in particular has been recognized as having the largest
charitable givings anywhere in the country. This is part of the
philosophy and mindset of the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
people themselves.
Bill S-25 is housekeeping legislation that can and should go
through the House very quickly. It is a name change and it
brings the new corporation into the 21st century and allows
it to expand and prosper. The Progressive Conservative Party
supports the legislation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say something about the administrative aspect of
the legislation. It is time that we seriously considered freeing
up parliament from the necessity of passing legislation to change
a name. I know the act was originally passed by parliament so
only parliament can change it, but surely we could figure out
some way that name changes and other changes in the incorporation
of various institutions that come to the House from time to time
could be done in a more efficient manner.
I also have roots in the Mennonite community. The name Epp has
the characteristics of a typical Mennonite name, as the do
Dycks, the Friesens, the Klassens and on and on. I hesitate to
say that I am proud to come from a Mennonite background because
of the fact that pride is one of those things that we do not
pride ourselves on. Pride is one of the seven sins that we try
to avoid. The object is to walk humbly, to serve other people
and to serve God.
It is a very strong religious commitment made in the Mennonite
community.
1115
I have never said this before in the Chamber, and maybe it is
slightly inappropriate, but I grew up in that kind of environment
with my parents and grandparents all very solidly teaching us to
follow the ways of the Scriptures, the Bible as we call it in the
Christian tradition, and to live by it, not just say we believe
it but to actually act on it.
It says we are to love our enemies and pray for those who
use us spitefully. That is a very important teaching of the
Mennonites. I honestly believe that if more people of all kinds
of different cultural and religious backgrounds would practice
that, it would certainly help to reduce the total amount of
conflict, not only domestically and socially within our own
country, but around the world.
One of the reasons my family, as with the member for Provencher,
was basically forced out of then Russia was that the Mennonites
being pacifists were not ready to take up arms and shoot their
fellow man. Because they were not friends of the revolution,
they were considered enemies. Therefore, the Bolsheviks and the
other revolutionaries entered Mennonite communities and shot the
men and boys who were old enough to fight. The Mennonites
offered little or no resistance, at least for the most part. Many
escaped serious injury because of their philosophy. A lot of
people were actually let go because they were not a threat to the
other side.
Also, there were many sad stories of the atrocities committed.
Those are also in our history book. They really tear me apart
when I think of them.
I remember reading a little book, the Diary of Anna Baerg, which
I got from the Liberal House leader, who some may know has
studied the Mennonite way of life. Recognizing that I was of
that background, he lent me the book, for which I was very
grateful. It made good reading. I have to admit that at times
there were tears in my eyes because of some of the atrocities
that occurred.
In one case she talked about attack and invasion by
government officials of the day, and listed a number of people
who were killed. She then talked about one young girl who was
not killed. Her next sentence said there were some things that
were worse than death. When I think of that, I have nothing but
respect for the people who lived through that kind of
persecution, yet came to Canada and positively made a
contribution to the country.
I would also like to emphasize that in my family, in our church
and in the part of the country in which I grew up, frequent
statements of thanksgiving for being in, Canada were made. I do
not think I ever went to my grandparents place without realizing
my grandmother was particularly overwhelmed by the freedom and
opportunity. That was back in the thirties and forties. I
obviously do not remember too much from the thirties, but in the
forties I remember my grandmother said over and over how blessed
we were to be in this wonderful country.
Not only have the Mennonites as a group contributed to Canada,
as has already been stated, but they were very grateful
recipients of what Canada offered. I would simply like to say
that I share that gratitude. I am very happy that my
grandparents made the decision, even though it was under some
coercion, to bring their family to this country.
1120
This is sort of a free for all, a time to talk a little about
the Mennonites. The actual purpose of the bill is to change the
name, and some of the articles of the constitution of the
Mennonites, from the conference to the church. They are a church
and a solid faith community. They have much to offer.
Another aspect they have become involved in under the auspices
of MCC, the Mennonite Central Committee, is with respect to
justice in our country, and it has been a very important
intervention. They have emphasized being involved in restorative
justice by bringing victims together with the perpetrators of
crimes and having them work that out. They have found that, when
young perpetrators break into homes or things like that and go through
that process, the recidivism rate is way lower than when we
simply put these young offenders in prisons and teach them better
ways of doing crime.
I thank the House for this opportunity to speak about what I
think are very important social issues as they affect the very
deep meaning of the people who live in our country.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to
participate in this debate today on Bill S-25, sponsored by the
member for Winnipeg South. Let me also add my comments, after
hearing the member for Elk Island give us an historical
perspective. It gives everybody the opportunity to maybe
appreciate why we are doing this. It is such a unique
experience, as we begin a Monday in this House, to see such
tremendous co-operation among members. It is amazing what can be
accomplished when everybody comes together and rises above
political stripes.
I will also point out, as the parliamentary secretary, that the
bill is very straightforward. None of the changes proposed in
the bill are unusual or revolutionary in any way, as the House
heard from other members. Rather the changes are designed to
ensure clarity of operation for the Mennonite church.
The bill was requested by the Conference of Mennonites of Canada
and was sponsored in the other place by Senator Kroft to start
with. Senator Carstairs then sponsored the private bill in the
last parliament, but unfortunately it died on the order paper.
So here we are today.
I would like to point out that even though the bill is routine
and non-controversial, it speaks to the larger issue that builds
on the foundations of Canada's economy. That issue is important
for the framework of legislation affecting corporations as well.
Whether these corporations are aimed at making a profit in the
global economy, or whether they are co-operatives aimed at
advancing the interest of their members, or whether they are not
for profit corporations, or in this case churches as was
mentioned earlier, any corporation must have its rules and
regulations built upon a solid base of framework law.
Over the past years the government has worked to modernize its
corporate framework legislation as we all know. A sound
corporate governance structure is a fundamental requirement for
healthy investment, innovation, trade and economic growth. In
recent weeks we have debated Bill S-11 which amends the Canada
Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act.
These are the framework laws that establish basic rules for
corporate governance in these kinds of bodies. For example, they
set out the rights and obligations of directors, officers,
shareholders and co-operative members. Part of the objectives of
Bill S-11 are to eliminate duplication and reduce costs of
compliance. Let me emphasize, we want to allow business
corporations and co-operatives the flexibility to organize their
affairs within a sound legislative structure.
We place a high priority on this kind of co-operative framework
legislation because it helps Canada compete in the global
economy. We amend these pieces of legislation to position
Canadian businesses, investors, shareholders and co-operative
members to respond quickly and creatively to rapid developments
in the marketplace.
This brings me to the bill before us today, Bill S-25. At first
it may seem that there is very little in common between the
corporate framework law affecting companies and co-operatives and
that which affects the Mennonite church.
1125
After all, the House will see in subclause 3(4) that the first
objective of the corporation in question is:
—to promote the spiritual welfare and the unity of spirit of the
members of the Corporation and, by mutual assistance, to foster,
diffuse, encourage, advance and strengthen the work of the
kingdom of God;
We rarely find these objectives as part of the corporate goals
of the business covered under Bill S-11.
The next object listed for the corporation is:
That tradition has existed in Canada since the 18th century when
the first Mennonites came to Canada from the United States
following the American revolution. It was clearly pointed out by
the member for Elk Island. I appreciate him providing the
history, because it gave everyone the opportunity in the House
and across our country to understand fully what the bill all
about.
Let me point out that another wave of immigrants came from Russia, as
I mentioned earlier, in the 19th century following the Russian
revolution. More recently Mennonites from many different
backgrounds have made Canada their home, including Chinese,
Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Taiwanese, French and Spanish, as
well as German.
Over the centuries the tradition has produced a unique
socio-religious culture based on self-sufficiency within tight
communities. It is a culture that emphasizes peace and relief
projects.
Since its incorporation in 1947, the needs of the Conference of
Mennonites in Canada have changed. Corporate governance laws in
Canada have also changed. This is why, even though the aims and
objectives of the Mennonite conference are different from the
kinds of corporations covered in Bill S-11, there is a unity of
purpose in the need to provide framework law that meets today's
needs.
Bill S-25 would give the Mennonite church in Canada greater
flexibility to carry on its affairs and makes its incorporation
status consistent with modern corporate legislation. The bill
would remove the factors that limit the corporation from
operating internationally. In this way we can see a commonality
of spirit between the bill affecting a church and our corporate
framework legislation designed to make industrial corporations
competitive internationally.
This is a routine piece of legislation. I am sure and know, as
we have heard, that my colleagues unanimously support this
effort. At the same time, the bill reminds us all of our
importance to work together in the House co-operatively.
In closing, I personally want to thank everyone here for this
co-operation. I know that as we move forward we will do the
right thing.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of parliament from Winnipeg, Manitoba, I too would like to
take this opportunity to add my support for Bill S-25. I am very
pleased to hear of the level of co-operation and good will from
all parties in the speeches we heard to date.
I will briefly point out that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is
home to quite a large Mennonite population. It has been my very
good fortune to get to know many of the activists in the
Mennonite faith in my neighbourhood and in the area.
I will add some comments on how impressed I have been with the
level of commitment Mennonite people in my riding have shown to
issues such as building a sense of community, social justice,
goodwill on a number of levels and certainly a sense of personal
sacrifice. The Mennonite people feel very strongly that their
faith in their day to day lives must be integrated to the point
where I believe the social gospel really is the overwhelming
motivating influence.
If Bill S-25, as has been said, would enable Mennonites to
restructure their administrative side so they could be more
effective in the work that they do, then it is incumbent upon us
to support it without any hesitation.
One of the things that I have been most impressed about is
meeting anti-war activists, pacifists in the truest sense of the
Mennonite faith. As recently as this month, I received a number
of letters at my offices from people of the Mennonite faith
pointing out that they did not choose to pay income tax that
would be put toward military development. They did the
mathematics which showed that if 6% or 7% of the total budget
goes to the military, they would withhold that amount of money
from their income tax. They would not give it to the government
to spend on those things.
1130
It is a longstanding gesture in the pacifist anti-war movement
and I have nothing but admiration for those who make that comment
with their spending power, with their taxation dollars. I
believe it becomes an administrative nuisance, certainly for
Revenue Canada, but it is the type of peaceful demonstration that
very clearly puts their point of view front and centre.
To speak briefly on the work that they do in my immediate area,
I have said many times that the riding of Winnipeg Centre is an
area of great need, it being the core area of Winnipeg. The
Mennonite activists, to their credit, have actually targeted this
part of my city to move into deliberately in order to try to
elevate the standard of the neighbourhoods in that area.
There are middle class people, be they teachers, nurses or
whatever, who could afford to live out in the suburbs where it
might be safer and more pleasant and where there would be more
access to services, but they consciously choose as a group, en
masse, to move into an area of the greatest need and therefore
bring the stability of their two parent families and well
educated children with them to elevate the overall standard of
the neighbourhood. That in itself is a level of civic duty that
we do not really see. When people go beyond making a donation to
a charitable organization, when they actually alter their own
personal lives to do what is right for their home community, I
think there is nothing more admirable.
Others have pointed out that they have personal contact with the
Mennonite faith. My family as well has integrated with the
Mennonite community in that I have cousins, uncles and aunts in
the Schroeder family from the Portage area. Even though I was
raised as a Catholic, not as a Mennonite, I did gain a great deal
of personal knowledge about the Mennonite faith by virtue of our
shared family issues.
The other thing I would like to point out is the development
work that they have done in the Mennonite communities of Winkler,
Altona and Morden in Manitoba. This part of Manitoba is actually
the most stable and prosperous part of the province now, due in
no small part to the entrepreneurial skills and industrialization
of the area brought about by the Mennonite people. It was
otherwise just an agricultural community. They started small
businesses and small manufacturing such as the wood manufacturing
industry in Manitoba. The largest single private sector company
in Manitoba is Palliser Furniture, which is the largest wood
products manufacturer in all of Canada.
I just wanted to take this opportunity as a member of parliament
from Manitoba and from Winnipeg to add my enthusiastic support
for the bill. If it helps the Mennonite community in the
structuring of the good work it does, we should certainly be
foursquare in their corner on this.
One of the other services the Mennonite community has brought to
us in the province of Manitoba is the mediation and conciliation
service they offer through their church. Whenever there is an
issue like two neighbours arguing over a fence, they have the
option of taking it to the mediation service offered by the
Mennonite church rather than going to litigation. It has been
and continues to be of very great value.
I am very proud to be part of this. Bill S-25 is one of those
things that we should be able to do as a cleanup at the end of
parliament, with multiparty support and easy passage.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to comment on the
procedure behind the bill and to object formally to having the
bill originate in the Senate. The Senate is not elected, is not
democratic and is not accountable. It seems to me that any bill
should originate in the House of Commons, not in the other place,
which is not accountable to anyone.
I want to file that objection as a matter of principle. I think
we have to do something about the Senate. I believe it should be
abolished. Some members, like my friend from Calgary, would like
to see an elected Senate, but the polling I have seen shows that
only 5% of the country supports the existing Senate.
1135
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
1140
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see
the clock as 12 p.m. so we may then proceed to government orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PATENT ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-17, an act to
amend the Patent Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will be please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): At the request of the
government whip the vote is deferred until later today at the
end of government orders.
* * *
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-16, an act to
amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): At the request of the
government whip the vote stands deferred until later today at
the end of government orders.
* * *
1145
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from June 1 consideration of Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the
motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motions Nos. 5, 6
and 7 at report stage of Bill C-11 respecting the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act.
The bill has raised a lot of concerns at the hearings that have
gone on across the country. A lot of people have expressed
opinions on the immigration bill. The bill talks about the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger. It also talks about supposedly bringing
the Immigration Act into line after such a long period of time.
One of the problems is that our immigration policy requires a
tremendous amount of review. The current legislation has not
been implemented in the way it should have been. If it had, we
would have no need for a haphazard bill that is trying to address
the issue but failing to hit the key point.
An hon. member: They are our amendments too.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That is right. Our amendments were
made after consultations with many groups across the country. My
colleague who is the critic for immigration brought in amendments
to address what is viewed out there to be a very flawed bill and
an immigration system that needs a complete administrative
overhaul. We do not need a legislative overhaul; we need an
administrative overhaul.
The cuts that have taken place have resulted in a situation
where the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is having a
difficult time meeting the growing needs of what has become an
attractive place to which to come. We are happy that a lot of
people want to come to Canada. Nevertheless, sitting in my
office I have seen my workload in immigration increase. I am
sure every member of parliament has seen an increase of
immigration inquiries in their offices.
This is a direct result of the cuts that have taken place, which
threw the burden on members of parliament to try to address the
concerns. I had an opportunity to travel with the minister of
immigration and I have seen firsthand the problems. Even spousal
applications, which the minister said should take six months,
have extended to the level where they are taking eight or nine
months.
When we make inquiries of the department or of our missions
overseas the delays are longer. The typical response is that
they do not have the resources to address the growing need. What
is the solution to all these things?
The bill tries to address some of them, but it fails to provide
for effective administration of our current policy which would
see cases of legitimate immigrants and those who jump the queue,
who bypass the system, handled expeditiously. If they have a
legitimate claim they can stay. If they have an illegitimate
claim they should leave.
1150
We are mired in so much bureaucracy, so much red tape and so
many issues of a smaller, frivolous nature that genuine
immigrants are finding it difficult. Those who abuse our system
are taking advantage of these lax laws and the result is that
Canadians are losing confidence in our immigration policy.
We are all immigrants. This is a land of immigrants and
immigration will be a focal point in Canada for years to come.
Let us do it right. Let us get the confidence of the Canadian
people. Let us attract the people we want to attract. Let us
give hope to refugees who are fleeing their homes and do it in
such a manner that the message goes out that yes, Canada is a
land of opportunity which welcomes genuine refugees and genuine
immigrants.
However because of the cuts, the way administration is done and
the haphazard laws that are brought in, confidence in immigration
is evaporating. This is true not only for Canadians but for
prospective immigrants who would come to the country, build it
and bring prosperity to it.
I have spoken to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I
have heard from a lot of people that we have a system in which
they do not feel comfortable. When they apply we go through a
process that is too long, a process where we challenge small
things. It is interesting that the focus is on smaller
administrative issues and ignores the bigger picture, which is
that we have almost 230,000 immigrants coming into the country.
All the resources are focused on smaller issues while ignoring
the real objective: making the process easier and faster for the
legitimate immigrants Canada needs.
Let us be realistic. There is competition out there to attract
good immigrants. There is competition from Australia, Britain,
Germany and the U.S.A. They are streamlining their procedures.
They are out there aggressively trying to attract good
immigrants. What do we do in Canada? We work slowly. We are
mired in small administrative issues that in the long term would
not have a major impact.
We should rightly be concentrating on those who are queue
jumping. However we have dragged it out so long, as my colleague
said, that we now have a higher load of refugees in Canada whose
issues have not been addressed.
The opposition parties have called on the government to look at
the issue to see if amnesty can be given so that we can clear the
backlog and carry on. However, as the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has said, it would mean rewarding those who come
through the back door.
However they have come through the back door because our system
allows that to happen.
1155
Our appeal process allows it to happen. Smugglers and others
have used the system and this has eroded confidence in it. We
need to restore confidence in our immigration system so that
everyone is comfortable with it and can trust and have confidence
in it.
It is difficult to achieve this with the bill the government has
brought in. As usual, it is a haphazard band-aid solution. My
colleague will speak to it further.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will say a couple of words at this stage of the debate
about immigration and Bill C-11 that is before the House today.
Our party, through our critic from Winnipeg North Centre, has
moved at the committee stage some 80 amendments to the bill. I
will make a couple of general comments and observations about the
bill.
We have somehow along the way lost our vision in terms of
immigration and the value of immigration to this great land of
Canada. Many of us in the House are either immigrants or sons or
daughters of immigrants. My father emigrated from Sweden in
1910. My mother's parents both came from Britain at roughly the
same time. I am a first generation Canadian on my father's side
and a second generation Canadian on my mother's side.
Saskatchewan is a tremendous province that has been settled by
immigrants. A lot of people from the Ukraine, Russia, Germany
and many countries around the world came to Saskatchewan and
founded the province in 1905. In doing so they joined with the
first nations and Metis people who were there well before the
Europeans and people from other lands came.
During those days, following the great national policy of Sir
John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about the value of
immigration and how we had to bring in skilled people from all
over the world to build this great country with its vast regions,
vast resources and lack of population.
We had that vision of the country for 50 to 80 years. We
welcomed immigration as much as possible and tried to build this
great mosaic of people from many lands and cultures along with
our two great languages and first nations people. That was the
whole vision of the country.
I remember the Trudeau years in the House of Commons. I was
elected in 1968 when this vision was recharged. It started
recharging during the Pearson years from 1963 to 1968. The vision
was about what the country could be in terms of bringing in
immigrants. The Official Languages Act, which was enshrined in
our constitution, established the two official languages of
Canada. In 1982 the charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in
our constitution multiculturalism, which was a reflection of
those who came or whose ancestors came from other lands;
languages; and the rights of first nations people. These
included treaty rights and a reference to the Metis people.
That was the whole dream, to create this big cultural mosaic.
Canada became like a pearl necklace with all these beautiful
pearls, all of them a bit different and all of them connected to
form this great country of Canada.
Somehow during the Mulroney years and then continuing on through
the most recent government, this dream and this vision seems to
have been tightened up. We seem to be looking at obstacles to
uniting families and bringing skilled people into the country.
During the committee stage our critic, the member for Winnipeg
North Centre, moved several amendments to try to recreate the
vision and the dream, which is what the bill was supposed to be.
It was supposed to an overhaul and a revamping of the Immigration
Act. We in our party believe it has fallen far short of doing
that.
Before the bill becomes law, we encourage the government to
seriously consider taking a look at some amendments that would
once again make our country more visionary in terms of
immigration.
1200
I would like to give the House a couple of examples. What we
see in the legislation is the continuation of a landing and
administration fee commonly referred to as the head tax. This is
something that is repugnant in a modern day society and in fact
came in a number of years ago because it was not part of our
general practice in terms of immigration in Canada. The bill
does not address the issue of a head tax and it should when we
are talking about a major revamping of immigration laws.
There is a failure in the bill to expand the family class
category. This is one of the amendments suggested by my
colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that would expand the family
class category to include an immigrant's immediate family, such
as brothers, sisters and grandparents.
This is particularly important when we look at provinces like
Saskatchewan or Manitoba which have populations of slightly over
one million people apiece. When immigrants come to Canada they
tend to go to the larger centres, such as Montreal, Toronto or
Vancouver, and, to a lesser extent, to places like Ottawa. It is
more difficult to get people to go to Saskatchewan or Manitoba.
However, by changing the family class category it would be easier
through family unification to get immigrants into smaller towns
in rural Canada and to provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the
Atlantic provinces and so on. This was a suggestion made by our
party and we believe these are some of the things that should be
done.
The United States, Australia and in some cases western Europe
are winning the battle to get more highly skilled and educated
immigrants into their countries. We should look at being more
aggressive in terms of getting more highly skilled and trained
people into Canada because it would have a direct impact on our
economy.
Canada is the third largest country in the world and yet its 30
million people are spread over various parts of the country.
Canada is a country with vast resources and reserves that could
be spent bringing in more people from around the world and
creating a more dynamic and exciting country in the process.
Canada has the greatest potential in the world. It is still
ranked number one by the United Nations. We should not be
hesitant in revising the Immigration Act to ensure that we bring
in more highly skilled immigrants and unify families. We should
get rid of the head tax and all kinds of discrimination based on
economics or whatever and create a great mosaic.
I spent much of last weekend in Regina going to what is an
annual tradition in that city. It is called a cultural mosaic.
This year there were some 17 pavilions celebrating the heritage
of people from places like China, the Philippines, Hungary,
Ukraine, Austria and Germany. There was also a francophone and
first nations pavilion. This has become an event with tens of
thousands of people lining the streets waiting to go into the
pavilions to taste the traditional foods of these countries.
On Saturday night I could not even get near the Ukrainian
pavilion because it was so popular. People were lined up around
the block. There were hundreds of cars containing people who
wanted to see the shows, the dancing and the traditions as well
as looking at souvenirs from these countries.
This event has worked well in bringing people together in a
celebration of a great cultural mosaic that Canada really is.
This cultural mosaic has made us more tolerant as a nation in
terms of preserving our two official languages and in terms of
enshrining some rights for first nations and Metis people in
Canada.
I urge the government to be a bit more generous in terms of the
legislation and the proposed amendments.
In conclusion I would like to make reference to Alex Kuziak who
is over 90 years old and lives in Yorkton. He was the first
Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be a member of a cabinet in
Canada. He was a member of the CCF cabinet of Tommy Douglas back
in 1948 in the province of Saskatchewan.
1205
I was here in 1969 when that act came in and there was a great
division in the country over it. Mr. Kuziak was a very strong
supporter of the Official Languages Act. What he said to me has
always remained in my mind. He said that because our country was
more tolerant of diversity and was open in terms of immigration
of people from all lands, it made us more tolerant in other ways
as well, including recognizing that Canada has two official
languages.
There is a lot of wisdom in Alex Kuziak's words. He referred to
diversity and how it made us a more tolerant, loving and caring
nation in terms of how we treat all peoples from all over the
world.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is indeed a learned member of this
institution. I do however want to square part of the immigration
comments he made with respect to the Conservative government.
I remember former prime minister Brian Mulroney stating that
there was no obligation more compelling and no duty more
irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities,
linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of
fairness and justice.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle probably remembers Gordon
Fairweather as well. In that regard it was the Mulroney
government that initiated the IRB concept because refugees'
rights are indeed human rights and by no means do we want to
determine on mere paper the future of individuals, whether they
live or die, or face persecution. Establishing the IRB and an
oral hearing was a testament of that time and ironically it is
the Liberal Government of Canada that now appears to be the most
reticent of any political party in the House to protect the
rights of permanent residents and protect refugees in that
perspective.
The amendment that we are advocating would ensure that permanent
residents who have been in Canada for at least three years would
have the capacity to apply for an appeal should they face being
removed under the criminality clause of Bill C-11. Permanent
means that there is a right to due process and we should embrace
that particular issue.
On Motion No. 5 the Canadian Alliance wants to be able to define
danger to security. Right now it is far too broad. It wants to
utilize the definition used in the CSIS Act, and we support that
initiative.
Motion No. 6, which would amend clause 50, deals with removal
orders and enforcement. The initiative is supported by groups
such as the Maytree Foundation. We consider it to be a question
of accountability. It is an important issue that a ruling made
by SIRC would be utilized should CSIS step out of bounds. The
intent is that SIRC is supposed to be a watchdog over CSIS in the
event that it makes an intervention which is potentially over the
top, unfair or just not Canadian. That is a good initiative.
In short, a watchdog must have teeth to serve any protective
function and that is why our party supports the Canadian Alliance
initiative in that regard.
1210
Finally, Motion No. 7 is the compromise amendment that I spoke
about a few moments ago. It would provide permanent residents
the opportunity to have appeal rights if they maintain residency
status for three years.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Group No. 2 at report stage of
Bill C-11.
The amendments being proposed in Group No. 2 deal with very
fundamental concerns with respect to Bill C-11. The concerns
pertain to our ability as a nation to ensure that all people on
Canadian soil are guaranteed basic rights and liberties. We are
talking about the application of the charter of rights and
freedoms for all people on Canadian soil, which is one area where
Bill C-11 falls down very seriously.
I do not need to encapsulate the numerous presentations made by
many presenters on Bill C-11 but we do need to talk about how to
make the bill better. It is a seriously flawed bill and it must
be amended in order to bring us in line with our traditions, both
in terms of being a compassionate humanitarian nation and in
terms of applying the charter of rights to all our citizens.
One of the most egregious sections in Bill C-11 is clause 64.
One of the amendments before us today tries to deal with that
serious problem in the bill.
We heard from many groups, not just the Canadian Bar
Association, about the problems with clause 64. I hope the
minister and the government will read those broad ranging
concerns because, in the view of my NDP colleagues and in terms
of members in all opposition parties, the notion that is
contained in clause 64 is repugnant. It is a denial of the
rights of citizens with permanent resident status in this country
to pursue normal appeal procedures in the event that they face a
deportation order. The clause reads:
As many groups said to us in committee, no one condones any
criminal actions nor believes that we should ignore or be lenient
regarding any such charge that falls into one of those
categories. What we are talking about is the right of an
individual to appeal a decision and the right to pursue through
the courts what we have come to accept as a normal course of
action pursuant to a civilized society.
It is not just the Canadian Bar Association that has raised
those concerns. Earlier today we debated and discussed in
collegial terms Bill S-25 pertaining to the Mennonite Church of
Canada. I want to put on record the concerns of the Mennonite
Church of Canada and, in particular, the Mennonite Central
Committee regarding Bill C-11, particularly the clauses that we
are trying to amend today and the clause that deals with human
rights and civil liberties.
The Mennonite Central Committee noted very clearly that Bill
C-11 would create inadmissible classes of people in an unjust and
unnecessary manner. Grounds for inadmissibility include:
security, human or international rights violations, serious
criminality, organized criminality, poor health, being poor or
being from a country against which Canada has imposed sanctions.
The committee went on to state that those provisions would take
us beyond the limits called for in the United Nations convention
relating to the status of refugees. It also stated that the
provisions would take us beyond what is necessary for a humane
and just society.
1215
That is what we are talking about today: how to make sure that
this bill has the provisions for taking all the necessary actions
in terms of criminal elements while assuring that we adhere to
the principles of the charter of rights and that applied basic
rights of appeal and rights for proper review be incorporated
into that process.
Time and time again Canadians came before us at committee as we
dealt with Bill C-11 and told us that we will have missed a
golden opportunity if we allow Bill C-11 to go forward as
drafted. What has caused Canadians so much concern is the tone
of the bill. It is not just the tone in terms of words and
rhetoric, but a tone that is carried through into the actual
application of the law. Time and time again Canadians and
organizations in the country who appeared before the committee
and have written to all of us on numerous occasions have said
“Goodness gracious, we have operated for 25 years under an old
law that needs revamping”. They said that we have new
circumstances to deal with, the world has changed and Canada is
missing the boat by not coming forward with a visionary piece of
legislation that will take us forward into the millennium.
The questions for us today are threefold. First, how do we
uphold and maintain Canada's past involvement in terms of
offering refuge for Canadians and ensuring that we operate always
on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Second,
do we always, at every step of the process, ensure that the
charter of rights applies to everyone on Canadian soil? Third,
are we able to compete for immigrants internationally, globally,
in a very competitive world?
I think what we have all come to conclude from discussions on
the bill is that we have missed the boat on all three of those
fundamental issues. We have missed the opportunity to be
visionary and to educate and challenge Canadians about the most
fundamental reason for having an Immigration Act for the next
century.
Some of the concerns that we heard during our committee hearings
had been brought to the attention of the government earlier, when
the previous minister of immigration actually embarked upon a
major consultative approach and heard from Canadians in the
spring of 1999. That was a process to hear from Canadians in
order to revamp the legislation and resulted in a report called
“Not Just Numbers”. That title says a lot about what we are
supposed to be about as a country and where we have missed the
boat here today with Bill C-11.
It should not be just about numbers, but about our vision for
the future and our responsibilities on the global scene. It
should be about our adherence to international conventions
pertaining to refugees and torture. It should be about shaping
the kind of society we want, not only for this country but the
kind of example we want to pursue globally.
If we could go back and do this again, I would say this to the
Government of Canada: listen to the voices of Canadians who have
spoken out so clearly on this bill. I do not think we can point
to any voices at all in Canada who are absolutely satisfied with
Bill C-11. To the contrary, most people who have paid attention
to this matter and are concerned about immigration and refugee
policies feel that the bill is a bad bill and should not become
law today.
If we are talking about entering this millennium with vision and
with commitment to the principles that have built this country,
then we have to reconsider. That is why we in the NDP feel so
strongly about the bill, why we tried so hard to amend it and
why, unless the government listens to some of the concerns being
raised today, we will have to oppose it. It is not good public
policy. It is not good legislation. It will not ensure that
Canada is able to deal with the need to attract immigrants, the
need to be welcoming to newcomers and the need to ensure that we
play our role globally in terms of people in need of protection.
Not to carry out that fundamental objective is to do a great
disservice to parliament and to the country.
1220
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I actually was not going to say much here this morning but I feel
I must respond to the comments of the two previous speakers to
the bill, the critic for the NDP and the critic for the
Conservative Party.
When they talk about the fact that the government is not living
up to its charter of rights obligations and that it is taking
away appeals from people, I think there are a couple of things
that are conveniently left out. One of them is who it is we are
talking about here in terms of permanent residents who are facing
deportation. A permanent resident is a landed immigrant. I am
sure everyone knows that no government would in any kind of a
light fashion institute deportation proceedings against someone
who has attained landed immigrant status. It would have to be
pretty serious, and what exactly does it mean?
There is a rule in the bill that we refer to as the 10 and 2
rule. The people we are talking about who could, may or might
face deportation proceedings in this instance are people who have
committed a crime for which they have been charged, tried,
convicted and sentenced. The sentence must be a minimum of 2
years and the crime must allow for a maximum of 10 years. It is
the 10 and 2 rule.
If the crime is serious enough to have at least a 10 year
sentence applied and the decision by the judge is that the person
who has been convicted, and that is very important, must serve at
least 2 years out of a possible 10, then the person has committed
a crime that the ministry would see as serious enough, possibly,
to institute deportation proceedings. It is not automatic. A
notice would have to be sent.
The suggestion that people do not have a right of appeal is just
patently false. What they do not have a right to do is jam up
our federal courts in appealing. They do not have a right to
come out after their sentence is over and they are facing
deportation proceedings and then jam up the judicial system while
they continue to stay in the country, avoiding the deportation
order and perhaps reoffending.
Members opposite say the government has not listened to
Canadians. I am sorry, but I represent a riding, Mississauga
West, where immigration is one of the hottest issues. I can tell
members that Canadians have told me loud and clear that they do
not want Canada to be seen as a safe haven for criminals,
convicted felons, violent perpetrators, terrorists or
subversives.
Some would say this is against the charter of rights. Come on.
There is a right within the bill for people who have been
convicted and sentenced. By the way, they would most likely have
appealed it, so they would have gone through the criminal justice
system appealing everything all the way. If the appeal did not
set them free, they would have been incarcerated. When they get
out this government wants the right to say that it no longer
wants those people in the country continuing with those kinds of
offences. That is number one. Let us be clear about that. The
government has done the test on whether or not the bill will
stand up to charter challenges and it is absolutely convinced it
will.
Canadian people have a right to feel safe in their communities.
One of the arguments I hear from the Progressive Conservative
critic is that people who come to this country could be here for
20 to 30 years and then the government would turn around and
deport them because they have committed a serious crime. If they
have been in the country for 20 or 30 years and have not sought
Canadian citizenship that clearly is their option. There is no
obligation on them to become citizens, but if they want to become
citizens and a productive part of our society then we welcome
them to do that. If they choose not to do that and they simply
maintain the status of being landed immigrants or permanent
residents, as it is referred to in the bill, then they run the
risk, and they should know they run the risk, following a
conviction on a 10 and 2 crime, a serious enough crime, that they
may well be deported.
1225
They can appeal that decision to an independent adjudicator, who
will make a decision as to whether or not that deportation order
should be upheld. The decision of the independent adjudicator is
judicially reviewable in the courts. If the order continues to
be upheld, it can be appealed under humanitarian and
compassionate grounds, which is also judicially reviewable in the
courts. I count that as four reviews.
Members opposite would paint some kind of a clandestine approach
to this, as if we are simply saying, no, they are out of here,
they get the boot and they do not get a chance to have their
cases reviewed. That is simply not the case.
Yes, the Canadian Bar Association did come before the committee
and appealed to it to allow for continued extensive use of the
court system. Frankly, in the bill we have listened to
Canadians. They do not want these people abusing our court
system while they are free to reoffend. We as a government must
have the right to make sure our citizens are safe.
I have one final point with regard to refugees. The member for
Fundy—Royal, the Progressive Conservative critic, wrote an
article that was published in one of the Toronto dailies on
Friday, wherein he said that refugees only get to apply once in a
lifetime. I do not know why he would say that when he knows that
in fact is not the case, that if there are changed circumstances
a person can reapply every six months, not just once in six
months but every six months. With new evidence, new
information, with changed circumstances, refugees can apply again
and again.
For people who have applied for refugee status and have no
change in their circumstances, the bill does not allow appeal
after appeal. We have all seen and heard of the abuse and we
know about such situations. In fact there have been some
recently mentioned in the media, about people who have stayed in
the country illegally for five, six or seven years while they
abused the system and used the appeal system.
To suggest that the bill is flawed because we have stripped
people who are on Canadian soil of their rights is just
fundamentally inaccurate, in my view, and is not a fair portrayal
of the bill. Canadians have told us that they want our
immigration system to be open and welcoming to immigrants and
refugees who need our protection and who will come here and help
build a greater Canada, but they no longer want to tolerate the
kinds of abuses they have seen where people have been free in our
society to reoffend, to commit additional crimes. We have lost
some of our best young people to such tragedies as the Just
Desserts file and many others. We will simply not tolerate it.
That is what Canadians have told us and that is what the
government intends to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed motions to
amend Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.
Bill C-11 had a predecessor, namely Bill C-31, introduced during
the last parliament, on April 6, 2000.
This is a bill that did not get passed in 2000 for the simple
reason that the government decided to call an early election.
As a result, more than 400,000 men and women in Canada or
elsewhere in the world are still waiting on permanent resident
status or permission to come to Canada.
The government has lost a whole year while men and women who
view Quebec, for instance, as the promised land where they wish
to spend their future, could have been allowed to immigrate to
Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois could not disagree with the principle that it
was high time to amend the immigration and refugee protection
act. This bill allows men and women who qualify as good
potential citizens to settle in Canada, while closing the door
to all those who, for all manner of reasons, do not and would
not have the ability or the right to settle here.
1230
The minister, who described her bill as tough and intended “to
close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity—so
that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants”, cites
fine principles, which we must support. The Bloc Quebecois
supports all ideologies aimed at preventing people who are not
good citizens from settling in the promised lands of Quebec and
Canada.
However, those good citizens in the various parts of the world
could still come and enrich our fine country, which has again
set as a objective, it must be said, 300,000 new arrivals annually
in order to consolidate the fabric of the community affected by
the aging of the Canadian population. Canada must see
immigration as promising for the future. The objective of
300,000 new arrivals Canada set for itself has never been met.
That means that its immigration policy never met projections or
estimates or demands from coalitions made in the course of
discussions and dealings with the stakeholders from the various
sectors. Finally, it means that the objectives set by the
stakeholders, expert and elite, who can represent immigration
across Canada, were creditable,
but I repeat, Canada has never met its objective. In 2000,
barely two-thirds of the objective of 300,000 new arrivals was
met. All this to say that it is time we made a major amendment
to the immigration and refugee protection act.
With regard to the motions tabled by our wise member colleagues,
there are three I would like to comment on. They are the
motions in Group No. 2, but I would like to return to the
motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 3 as well. I would, by this, like to
have the members understand the ideology and philosophy that
should underlie any legislative amendment to legislation as
important as that on immigration.
With this bill, we should always keep in mind a fundamental
principle, namely the principle of coercion, concentration and
discussion that has always guided previous amendments to the
Immigration Act. All the stakeholders must be given a real
opportunity to discuss things together. This is why critical
work was done in committee to support the amendments that were
tabled regarding this bill.
Motion No. 2 tabled by the hon. member for Laval Centre deals
with clause 5(4) of the bill, which would allow the governor in
council to make the regulation at any time after the proposed
regulation has been laid before each House of parliament. The
bill does not include all the components of the important
immigration host system or program.
This bill does not explain all the host programs. Regulations
have been and will continue to be tabled from time to time to
improve this legislation.
Regulations are adopted to improve existing acts. Clause 5(4)
would allow the governor in council to make or approve
regulations that were tabled in the House without first having
been reviewed in committee. I can only agree with the hon.
member for Laval Centre on this matter. The bill was considered
in committee and it has already been the object of a major
debate during the last parliament, as Bill C-31.
1235
We have trouble seeing why the governor in council is being
allowed to approve regulations tabled directly in the House,
without prior discussion in committee, as in the past. I
therefore support Motion No. 2 moved by the member for Laval
Centre.
I hope that members will understand that the purpose of
legislation as important as the Immigration Act must be debated.
All stakeholders, all those who have made immigration as
important as it is in Canada, must be allowed to continue their
work in a climate of consensus. That is the purpose.
The consensus is there. All parties in the House are agreed
that they do not want bad citizens settling in Canada, but they
do want Canada to reach its objective of taking in 300,000 new
arrivals annually, which it has yet to do.
What we therefore need is legislation which will create a
climate conducive to consensus and discussion so that
immigration may play its rightful role in our society.
As for Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance member for
Surrey Central, not only must there be the consensus to which I
referred in my speech on Motion No. 2, but we must ensure that
bad citizens are not allowed into Canada. I think that this is
a view shared by all Canadians and recognized by all parties in
the House.
Paragraph 34(1)(d) of the bill mentions:
Obviously the word danger is open to interpretation. Our
colleague from Surrey Central submits that it might be
worthwhile to replace this wording with the following:
Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
provides a definition of threats to the security of Canada.
Examples are provided, such as espionage or sabotage, foreign
influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are
detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of
acts of violence.
These definitions are far more specific than the single word
danger, which can lead to serious confusion.
I will close with a brief discussion of Motion No. 9 from my
colleague the hon. member for Laval Centre. The purpose of her
motion is to put an end to the interminable delays in processing
new arrivals in Canada. As a result of these delays, the
provinces often have to meet the costs of supporting people who
are already on Canadian territory or, in the case of Quebec, on
Quebec territory.
Hon. members must understand that all of us here in this House
should support Motion No. 9, which will make it possible to
reduce the long delays involved in examining people's status as
immigrants to Canada.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely
pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee
protection act.
This is a very important matter for me. I have been interested
in it for a number of years, because I sit on the board of the
Greater Montreal United Way. We manage assistance for agencies
providing help to refugees and immigrants. We know that each is
treated in much the same way. Often problems related to the
arrival of refugees impact the way we look at immigration.
As my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, legislation
adapted to the new realities of Canada and Quebec and the world
as a whole is most welcome. The environment has hugely changed
the pressures of population movements that are a part of
globalization.
It is not said often enough, but the arrival in numbers not only
in Canada but in all western countries of persons from southern
countries is part of the globalization process we speak of
daily.
1240
This is an extremely important bill. It is also a bill that
calls on the most fundamental values shared by Quebecers and
Canadians and that reflects a commitment to international
solidarity.
All members will agree that our primary concern with this bill
must be to show extreme generosity toward those who, for reasons
having to do with their political opinion, sexual orientation or
religion, must leave their country to save their lives and those
of their loved ones.
This commitment to international solidarity must transcend our
concerns when we review Bill C-11. This is particularly
important for Quebec and Quebecers, because, as we know Quebec
welcomes more than its fair share of refugees on a per capita
basis, and we are proud of that.
At the same time, we must, as members representing Quebec's
interests, remind this House that there are major costs
involved. Quebec must pay some $80 million to provide the
necessary assistance to refugees even though this is a federal
jurisdiction.
In this respect, Motion No. 9, to which the hon. member for
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred and which was moved by the
hon. member for Laval Centre, is an absolute priority for us.
Indeed, the system must be much more efficient, not only for
administrative reasons, but also for reasons that relate to
international solidarity and to which I referred. We need to
create the proper environment to make the system much more
efficient.
This brings me to a third point. When we talk about efficiency,
we must think about the rigour with which we should deal with
refugee and immigration issues in general, to admit to Canada
and Quebec people who not only have refugee status, but who also
meet immigration requirements. We must be able to prevent
undesirables from entering Canada and Quebec. This rigour must
not mean that the federal government can get around providing
appropriate resources to administer the act.
Motion No. 9 deals with this issue.
The proposed legislation could be extremely rigorous, extremely
comprehensive with respect to this obligation to show
solidarity, this obligation to ensure the safety of residents of
Canada and of Quebec, but the government's primary concern in
introducing Bill C-11 must not be to make this bill as repressive
as possible in order to keep refugees out of Canada and to try
to economize on the necessary resources.
In this regard, I think it is extremely important to remind the
federal government, the Liberal government, that additional
resources are needed to implement any legislation, although I do
agree that this legislation must be rigorously enforced.
There is one final point I wish to make before looking at the
individual motions.
It is clear that the government's wish to introduce this bill is
also motivated by a certain pressure from our neighbours to the
south, whose view of this obligation to show solidarity towards
refugees perhaps differs from that of Canadians and Quebecers.
I would not want decisions taken in the House to be coloured by
this desire to comply with our American neighbours, as has
unfortunately been the case in various connections in recent
months.
In fact, we have noticed a certain anxiousness on the part of
the government to comply with pressures that had less to do with
public opinion in Canada or in Quebec than they had to do with
public opinion in the United States or with what the U.S.
government wanted. The missile defence shield, the energy
agreement, and so forth, are just a few examples that come to
mind.
I therefore think it extremely important that our concerns not
be allowed to overshadow our obligation to show solidarity, that
the necessary resources be made available to enforce the
legislation, and that the toughness of the legislation reflect
our values and needs, not those of our neighbours to the south.
1245
It is in that context that the Bloc Quebecois views Motion No. 5,
for example, as extremely important in order to better define
what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. As we have
mentioned already, we feel that section 2 of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service Act would be a good basis for
defining what is a threat to the security of Canada.
In that law, the definition includes espionage, sabotage,
activities detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in
support of the threat of acts of serious violence and activities
intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of
the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
It is clear that those activities would indeed constitute
threats to the security of Canada. However, it is also clear
that people who defend causes in their countries, who protest or
show their disagreement with policy directions, who are doing it
democratically whenever possible and with a will to resolve
problems peacefully, should not be covered by that definition.
In our opinion, the universal charter of human rights should be
respected in the spirit of the legislation.
Therefore, we feel that a much clearer and more specific
definition of the concept of threat to the security of Canada is
absolutely necessary for this legislation to be applied to the
fullest extent, but without arbitrariness and most of all without
injustice toward people who, in all good faith, defend a cause
with which we sometimes are in agreement.
In the same spirit, while we agree with the motion and the
amendment to more clearly define through the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act the concept of threat against the
security of Canada, we disagree with the idea that the Security
Intelligence Review Committee would be the organization that
should make recommendations to this effect. We question the
appropriateness of involving the SIRC review committee in this
regard.
I would like to focus mostly on Motion No. 7, proposed by my colleague
from Laval Centre. Its purpose is to maintain a level of appeal
for people who have been refused refugee status or admission
into Canada on grounds of serious crime, security, violation of
human rights or organized crime.
As we know, the present act provides for two stages. When the
adjudication division takes expulsion proceedings, an appeal
division can hear the arguments that the refugee or the
permanent resident might make to challenge the decision. In our
opinion, it is very important that this level of appeal be
maintained. In this sense, clause 64 of the bill must be removed
entirely. Once again, I feel that through clause 64 the
government is trying to hide the lack of resources to apply the
bill that will eventually be passed by invoking administrative
reasons and removing a level of appeal.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois hopes that Bill C-11 will be
amended to respond to the real values of Quebecers and
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the speaker from the Bloc Party expressing
concerns about a number of the amendments shows that if members
in this hon. House have so many concerns about the legislation,
undoubtedly there are a number of flaws in it.
1250
I want to concentrate on clause 64 and the amendment suggested
to it. Perhaps first we should ask what does Bill C-11 do in
relation to appeals for permanent residents?
Bill C-11 as it is denies an appeal for permanent residents if
they are subject of a report under section 44. Permanent
residents can be deported without an appeal or without
consideration of their circumstances as a result of a single
criminal sentence.
I know it is hard sometimes for people to have patience. We say
that people who come into the country should live by the laws and
rules of the country. If they do not and they break the law,
then they should be expected to pay the price. However, every
court in the land has an appeal process. It is only fair that,
regardless of how serious perhaps the offence is, at least the
person should have the right to an appeal, because no one ever
knows what might come up in the appeals process that will throw
an entirely different light upon the case itself.
Even if they have lived here since infancy or whether they have been
here for 20, 30 or 50 years, immigration officers will be solely
responsible for making the decision as to whether deportation of
these permanent residents is appropriate. Again, it is an awful
onus or pressure to put on immigration officers of having the
sole responsibility of deciding whether or not these people
should be deported.
Once that decision is made, the wheels of enforcement turn and
there is no review of that officer's discretionary decision. For
all the talk from the department that these decisions are taken
seriously, that they are serious decisions and that there will be
safeguards to prevent inappropriate deportation for long term
residents, the legislation provides no such safeguard at all.
We are reminded sometimes of the statement “I am from
government, trust me”. That is basically what is being said
here, that we should not worry about it because there will be no
problem. If the legislation does not give any protection, then I
am afraid we are depending, as is said, on a rotten stick.
When the department speaks of an adjudicator making a tribunal
decision and the subsequent possibility of judicial review, it is
only with respect to whether the permanent resident has the
necessary conviction and sentence. There is no jurisdiction for
the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to
proceed with enforcement. That is what has been lost by taking
away the appeal jurisdiction, one of the most fundamentally
important parts of Bill C-11.
While it may be necessary to remove individuals since they have
reneged on the responsibilities that come with having status in
Canada, we must for reasons of fundamental justice give them a
real appeal opportunity. That is what the amendment asks.
Despite the fact that once they cross that line they know what
lies ahead, they should in all fairness have at least an appeal.
I believe in 1985 the Singh case set out the importance of the
oral appeal and said that people should not be deprived of the
rights to have their case heard. Canada prides itself on being a
land not only that accepts immigrants. In fact, our country has
been built because of people who have come from all over the
world, settled here and have contributed so much. We also
realize there are people who come here, break the law and must
pay the consequence. Being the fair and honest government that
we are, the type of free country where we feel everyone is equal,
the least we could do for someone is to give him or her an
appeal.
1255
What the amendment suggests in this case is that the appeal
rights shall be given to all permanent resident who have
maintained permanent resident status for a three year period
before being subject of report under section 44. The three year
period is chosen in order to be consistent with the length of
time one must be a permanent resident before applying for
Canadian citizenship. Therefore, if within that three year
period someone breaks the law, he or she then should at least
have the right to an oral appeal.
There is a lot of good stuff in the bill, like most bills, but
there are also some weaknesses. In passing legislation that is
going to determine how we will treat immigrants coming to the
country and how we treat immigrants who will be deported from the
country, the least we should do is make sure the legislation is
proper and that laws and rules apply in the spirit of the type of
country Canada really is.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure I rise to speak to Bill C-11. As the
Chair can see by the interest of our party, this is a very
serious issue with respect to immigration and the bill now before
us. I am pleased to have the opportunity to echo some of the
comments made by our critic from Fundy—Royal who has had the
carriage of this bill, as well as others like the member for St.
John's East.
Bill C-11 is a very important piece of legislation. As I
mentioned earlier, my colleague from Fundy—Royal spoke to the
salient points. However, it is important that we identify a
couple of major issues in the legislation, which are necessary to
bring forward because Canadians as a whole must recognize there
are some deficiencies. The government itself has not seen fit to
change some of those deficiencies in the legislation. Going
forward with Bill C-11 as it is now is not going to resolve all
of the issues with respect to immigration.
The first issue is with respect to the refugee status. We
recognize it in the legislation. The refugee board itself will
be reduced in numbers. There will be an adjudicator. Let us see
this in proper perspective.
An individual from outside the boundaries of this great country
of Canada who wishes to apply for refugee status makes a
presentation, not to an adjudication board but simply to one
person. That is not to say that the individual will not give
full concentration to that one application, but a judgmental
decision will be made. One person listening to an
applicant in some instances may not hear the full story or may
not be apprised of all the issues, may make a decision based
upon the judgment of the day, and perhaps the applicant was
not as forthcoming as that one individual should have been.
Mistakes can be made. At that point the applicant
unfortunately has no further appeal process. The applicant is
then told that he or she no longer can file for refugee status in
Canada and must go back to the country of origin.
1300
At that point in time the adjudicator in this particular case
may be sending an individual back to a circumstance that may well
be a matter of life and death. There are other countries in the
world that do not appreciate human rights as much and as well as
we do in this country. We are perhaps sentencing this particular
individual to life or non-life at that point.
It is important that there be another appeal process aside from
the adjudication itself. That appeal process is there but it is
only a paper appeal. When a paper appeal and not a verbal
appeal is made, it is forwarded to the department and we do not
know who in the department will be making the final decision.
My party is suggesting that if we are to go through this process
we should allow the applicant to make an appeal in person. We
never know what types of information or omissions were not given
initially to the adjudicator. It is now only one person, not a
board of three as before. Let us have the opportunity to make a
verbal appeal to the department. It is a simple change that our
party feels would enhance the legislation.
My second point deals with the clause that suggests that if a
crime is being committed or has been committed and an individual
who has landed immigrant status is accused and sentenced for that
crime, it is immediate that the individual must then be deported
back to the country of origin.
Let us walk through this closely. We all know the process of
immigration in this country. People from all over the world have
an opportunity to come to Canada. Once they have been given
landed immigrant status they have the opportunity to work, raise
their families and educate their children. They contribute to
the community and to the taxation system of the country. They
can do that as a landed immigrant for as many years as they wish.
A landed immigrant can make an application to become a Canadian
citizen after living in Canada for three years. If I were a
landed immigrant I would make sure that after three years I would
make such an application to become a citizen, but others do not.
They decide for a lot of good reasons to simply retain their
landed immigrant status. People could in fact be landed
immigrants for 20 to 30 years and contribute to our society in
any number of ways but should they be charged and convicted of a
crime after 20 years they could be deported because they are not
Canadian citizens.
Our party says that if a crime is committed there have to be
consequences, but we also believe that after three years as a
landed immigrant, which is the timeline that it would normally
take to make an application to become a Canadian citizen, an
individual should have the opportunity to appeal. We are simply
talking about fairness and equality. People who have been here
and in fact have been Canadian citizens in everything but name
only should have the opportunity to appeal their case. We are
talking about human beings. We are talking about people,
families and children who should have rights when they come to
our borders and want to become members of our society.
I speak with some passion to the immigration laws. I suspect
most members in the House would be able to point to the fact that
I would not be here if it were not for the immigration rules of
this country when my grandfather immigrated here from another
culture. If he had not been allowed to come to this country, I
would not have had the opportunity to stand in the House today as
a representative in the parliament of this great country.
1305
I thank the House for allowing me to speak to Bill C-11. There
should have been an opportunity to make it better. Our job as
parliamentarians is to make bills better and to make the best
legislation possible so the people who we serve have the best
opportunities.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the comments made by some members of the PC caucus.
The member for Fundy—Royal was an active member of the committee
and worked very closely with all members of the committee in a
very co-operative way. The issue I wish to comment on has to do
with the appeal rights of landed immigrants who have been in this
country for a number of years
If in fact there was a serious criminality charge which caused a
two year sentence, I want to assure the House that not only did
we hear representations but the committee discussed this at some
length. We did not take the issue lightly at all. The member
who just spoke made the point that permanent residents who have
been in this country for a great number of years may or may not
choose to become Canadian citizens, that it is their decision.
They are obviously fully engaged in Canadian society as they pay
taxes, have families, have homes and so on. Therefore there is
an attachment.
I believe there are a number of mechanisms before such a
permanent resident would be removed from the country because of
the serious criminality issue and they should be brought to the
House for consideration. The committee took the issue very
seriously, debated it and discussed it to ensure that some of the
things that have been mentioned would be taken into account. The
removal of permanent residents, regardless of whether they have
been here for 3 years, 20 years or 25 years, and the significance
and the attachment they have to this country should be taken into
account.
I want to ensure that the House understands that while the
amendment was worthy of consideration in committee deliberations
and is worthy of consideration by the House, the decision to
remove a permanent resident under those circumstances would not
to be taken lightly. The bill would ensure that these removal
orders were issued by an independent adjudicator of the IRB at an
admissibility hearing. It would not be made by an immigration
officer who would immediately move on a permanent resident who
had been sentenced for more than two years. There would be a
hearing of some sort by the IRB where the issue would be dealt
with.
I should also indicate that before the referral to the IRB a CIC
senior official would consider personal circumstances such as
family ties and attachment to the cultural language of their home
country. If people have been here for 15 or 20 years and for
some reason, based on a serious criminality charge, they may be
sent back to their home country, that home country may not have
an attachment to them. They may have been here as children and
yet not as Canadian citizens. Therefore we should take into
account whether or not there is any cultural language attachment
to their home country.
It is important to look at the immigration status and the length
of time in Canada, as well as the type and nature of the crime.
As we know, in the judiciary there is flexibility. A two year
sentence may in fact be a little different for some other crime.
We would look to see if the crime was of a violent nature. That
must also be taken into account.
The final decision to send the report to the immigration
division would be taken by a senior official to ensure that all
factors have been given due consideration. In other words, it
would be someone at the senior level. Once they look at the
permanent residence, the sentence that they have received, the
personal attachment and the value that they have to this country
then the official would take this issue under full consideration.
1310
I should mention that the IRB's decision is subject to judicial
review. If the judicial review upholds the removal order there
would still be the opportunity to seek ministerial authorization
to remain in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons.
The member for Fundy—Royal wanted to make sure that the IRB
decision did have judicial review, that its decision would not be
taken lightly and that it would be done by senior officials of
CIC. He also wanted to make sure the minister could ultimately
review a case under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The amendment speaks to how we could ensure that permanent
residents are protected and the value they have given to this
country would not be taken lightly. We have built in mechanisms
that would not allow us to simply remove them from Canada on the
basis of a charge without looking at their total contribution to
Canada.
We sometimes wonder about the value of citizenship. As has been
indicated, 80% of people who come to Canada move toward
citizenship within three years. Why should people become
Canadian citizens? These individuals realize that permanent
residency does have status but citizenship offers more protection
under the laws of Canada.
Everyone knows that we cannot deport citizens. Based on the
bill, we may be able to remove permanent residents who have
committed serious crimes or who have violated human rights and so
on. In the past people did not want to make a decision as to
whether or not they needed to give up their citizenship in their
home country when they came to Canada. In one way this sends a
message to those people that there is greater value to
citizenship and that they ought to look at the additional
protection they have as citizens of Canada.
Safeguards have been built into the system by the hard work of
the minister, the committee and the member for Fundy—Royal.
There is value to permanent residency. We cannot just throw
people out of the country if they run afoul of the law.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-11
which have been spoken to previously by other members of our
Conservative caucus and addressed very thoroughly by our critic
for immigration, the member for Fundy—Royal.
We are discussing something that, quite frankly, I am surprised
we would be discussing in this time, place and century. I am
referring to the deportation of Canadian citizens. I fail to
understand the logic behind deporting an individual to the
country they came from who has declined to take out Canadian
citizenship even though that person has been in Canada for 25,
30, 40 or even 50 years.
I have many friends and family members who have been permanent
residents of Canada for 25 or 30 years. They pay taxes and enjoy
all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen except that
they cannot hold public office. That is the only difference.
1315
Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the
country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any
other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a
criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to
a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what
being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always
thought being Canadian is about.
Amendment and appeal rights would be given to all who have
maintained permanent resident status for a three year period
before being the subject of a report under clause 44. We have
chosen a three year period to be consistent with the length of
time one must be a permanent resident before applying for
Canadian citizenship. That to me is a straightforward, plain
speaking, very smart amendment to this piece of legislation.
We are not trying to be flippant or frivolous. We are not
saying that one is given permanent resident status one day and
deported the next. We are saying that someone who has been here
for three years has some rights of citizenship even if he or she
has not applied for citizenship status.
However it takes away from the issue of permanent residents who
have been here for 20 years. There are not hundreds of them out
there; there are thousands. I would dare say that there are
hundreds of thousands. I do not expect that all of them will
commit criminal offences. However should that happen, surely in
this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport
them to a country to which they no longer have ties.
What would Bill C-11 do? As it is, Bill C-11 would deny an
appeal to permanent residents who are the subject of a report
under clause 44, which I just mentioned. As a result of a
single criminal sentencing, permanent residents could be deported
without appeal and without consideration of their circumstances.
I do not think anyone in this place is trying to justify criminal
behaviour. However under the law as we embrace it every Canadian
has a right to appeal.
I would further that by saying every permanent resident who has
been here longer than three years has a right to appeal. It is a
fundamental tenet of Canadian justice that if someone is accused
of a crime or even sentenced for a crime then he or she has a
right to appeal the judgment. I am not a lawyer and do not
pretend to be. However that is a fundamental tenet of fair play
and justice. We should surely be no stranger to that in the
House.
This would include people who have lived here since infancy,
which may be for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. Immigration officers
would be solely responsible for deciding whether deportation of
permanent residents is appropriate. Many permanent residents
have children who were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens
even though the parents may not have obtained Canadian
citizenship because, quite frankly, they do not need to. They can
enjoy all the fruits and benefits of Canadian society except for
and precluding the holding of public office.
Those are the rules as we have defined and made them. To say
that people can be deported without the right of appeal because
they have been sentenced to a crime is surely a mistake. Once
the decision is made the wheels of enforcement turn and there is
no review of the officer's discretionary decision.
1320
For all the talk of the department that the decisions are taken
seriously and that there will be safeguards to prevent the
inappropriate deportation of long term residents, the legislation
does not provide those safeguards. The legislation speaks of the
possibility of safeguards but there is no safeguard.
I am amazed when the department speaks of an adjudicator making
the tribunal decision and of the subsequent possibility of
judicial review. It is only with respect to whether the
permanent resident's conviction and sentence were proper. We
are not appealing it. We are not taking a second look at it. We
are asking if it is correct.
There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court
to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. What
has been lost by taking away the appeal division's jurisdiction
is one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11.
While it may be necessary to remove individuals who renege on the
responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, and
specifically Canadian citizenship, for reasons of fundamental
justice we need to give them a real opportunity to appeal.
That does not take away from the importance of recognizing that
a country should have the ability to deport residents who are not
citizens. However we need to take into account that there is a
difference between someone who has been here three or four years
and someone who has been here thirty or forty years. We need to
rethink whether we are back in the days of Britain when they sent
their convicts to Australia. Is that where we have gone?
Will deportation all of a sudden be one of the chief tenets of
the Canadian justice system? Can we deport people because they
have committed crimes? Let us take a look at what the crime is.
Mr. Joe Fontana: A serious crime.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: What is a serious crime? There is too
much leeway in the bill. It gives the final say to review
officers who may not have the clear credentials to make these
decisions. It does this without appeal. It seems to me, based
on the tenets of Canadian society as I understand them, that is
not the Canadian way.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to be on the record on this piece of legislation. I come
from a downtown urban riding in Toronto where immigration matters
represent a large amount of my constituency work. I like the
member's amendment. I too believe that someone who has spent 25
or 30 years of his or her life in Canada is virtually Canadian
and should be treated as such.
In my riding I have a lot of people from different communities.
When these people initially came to Canada their facility with
the language was such that they were almost apprehensive in
approaching the department of immigration to put their personal
files in order. For the last number of years they have been hard
working, constructive Canadians in every way, shape or form
except for that piece of paper.
1325
We must remember that 40 years ago, when Toronto had a large
influx of people from every part of the world, it was not an
uncommon experience. In those days there was such fear of
dealing with the Government of Canada that we had mobile
citizenship vans. We would send public servants and judges out
into the community to try to lower the apprehension of Canadians
so they would come forward and put their personal files in order.
I am hoping our colleagues on this side of the House can rethink
that section of the legislation.
We are in the final days of this session of parliament before we
go back to work in our constituencies for the summer. I would
bring to the attention of not only members of the House but
officials in the department of immigration, not just in Ottawa
but in every region of the country and every embassy around the
world, the important world youth days event which the department
of immigration will be dealing with next summer.
The department will begin preparing for world youth days as we
take our break this summer. As of the middle of July the world
youth days website will be receiving information from registrants
from every country on the planet.
One of the very special initiatives under the leadership of the
current minister of immigration was that for the first time ever
we have had a visa waiver fee for an event like this one. It was
a decision of the whole House of Commons to support this
important initiative. It will bring a million plus young people
between the ages of 16 and 30 to Canada, to Toronto, where all
will celebrate the values of sharing and caring for each other.
The House of Commons supported the notion that a visa waiver fee
be put in place.
I know that when a bill like this one is on the floor of the
House officials monitor and read the proceedings. I would say
not only to all members but to everyone in the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration that it is a very special moment for
Canada when we can reach out to young people from every part of
the world and welcome them to our country.
Quite often the experience people have when they go into an
embassy or are interviewed by an immigration officer can set the
tone for how they feel toward Canada, their place of destiny.
Many of these young people will be coming abroad for their first
time to a strange country and it will be very important that our
officials abroad make them feel they are welcome in Canada.
I would say to all members of the House that over the last two
months the support and execution of this project have been very
special.
1330
We will be celebrating the principles stated in the summary of
the bill in Toronto next July. I want not only to participate
in debate on the bill but also to say that we need to review the
section that deals with retroactivity. I ask for the indulgence
of the House to support all immigration officials that will be
asking for counsel on this special event.
As far as Citizenship and Immigration Canada goes, it will be
the largest processing event in the history of the country. It
will be five times the size of the Olympics, should we be blessed
with the Olympics in the middle of July. They at least have
seven years to plan it. We in the House, along with all the
various departments, have a year. I appreciate being given the
opportunity to put these thoughts on the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on
Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please
say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion
No. 7 stands deferred.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 3 to the House.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved:
1335
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
That Bill C-11,
in Clause 101, be amended by adding after line 15 on page
44 the following:
“(1.1) Subparagraph (1)(b) does not apply and a claim
for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee
Protection Division for a new determination where:
(a) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed
since a previous determination; or
(b) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence
from being presented during a previous determination.”
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing
lines 6 to 8 on page 51 with the following:
She said: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's usual
courtesy. They want me to be the first one to talk. We are now
discussing the third group of amendments accepted by the Chair
to improve Bill C-11. I am forced to admit that the government is
convinced that Bill C-11 is nothing short of perfect.
However, this is not what we heard when we went to the big
cities that receive immigrants and refugees.
Ninety-nine per cent of those involved said that people are very
concerned about how this act will be applied, even more so
because there are no regulations associated with the act.
Regulations will be drafted later on.
Fortunately, we managed to obtain that the bill would stipulate
that the regulations will be tabled in the House and referred to
a committee. It is a start. However, as for the amendment that
the government should not adopt any regulations before obtaining
an opinion, it seems that it has not been accepted since the
governor in council will have the power to give effect to the
regulations as soon as they are tabled.
There are three amendments in the last group, since one was not
accepted. The first amendment, the one I am proposing, is
designed to put pressure on the Liberal government.
We know that it takes a lot of time to deal with refugee cases.
People have complained about it. Some refugee claimants have to
wait for months and sometimes for years before they know where
they stand.
I think the federal government is like most people: a bit of
pressure helps. If no decision has been made on a claim 90 days
after it has been filed, my amendment would require the federal
government to assume the social and medical costs.
We know that Quebec is generous. Members need only look at the
number of people who decide to live in Quebec when they claim
refugee status. It is clear that the future mirrors the past.
1340
However, on the one hand, we hear the minister say that the
process should be more rapid and, on the other, the measures in
the bill include, for example, the elimination of the appeal or
a second refugee claim. We might also need a penalty of some
kind. When a contractor does not abide by a contract, there are
penalties. Essentially, that is what we are suggesting, a kind
of penalty for the government.
I also tend to agree with the second amendment, which has been
moved by my Progressive Conservative colleague.
He proposes that part of the bill not apply and that a claim for
refugee protection “be referred to the Refugee Protection
Division for a new determination where the relevant
circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous
determination, or specific circumstances prevented part of the
evidence from being presented during a previous determination”.
I do not think it will be hard for me to convince hon. members
that an individual's circumstances can change very rapidly. We
have recently learned of the terrible shooting in Nepal, which
wiped out the entire royal family. What is going to happen
there now? We do not know, but a week ago things in Nepal were
relatively quiet, according to our viewpoint from this side of
the world.
This is therefore a recognition that, in the real world,
individuals' circumstances can change dramatically. The
amendment by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative
Party is aimed at acknowledging this.
Can we believe that the government is going to support this
amendment? If it does what it usually does, I think it will say
no. That is its specialty, moreover. If one is convinced that
what one already has is total perfection, why say yes to any
changes? Yet we are told that the purpose of the opposition in
a debate is to improve bills. That is all very fine on paper,
but in reality we have trouble proving it.
The last amendment I presented is what certain of my Liberal
colleagues would term a cosmetic amendment. It is not really
that, for it states as follows:
(b) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious
criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada for an
offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an
offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term
of imprisonment of at least 10 years;
The bill speaks of a term of imprisonment of at least ten years,
but here we are speaking of a maximum term of imprisonment of at
least ten years. Hon. members will grasp the difference. To us
it is a very important one, as we do not, of course, want to
keep major criminals in this country, yet we do believe that a
minimum of justice needs to be applied, and that the terms must
be clear. Amendment No. 12 is intended as a clarification to
clause 112(3)(b).
Clearly, Bill C-12 is going to be passed before the summer recess.
It is also clear that summer in the House of Commons will begin
before June 21. I think it a great shame that this is
preventing us as parliamentarians and as individuals from taking
decisions which could make the Immigration Act, which, let us
remember, is already 25 years old, this being its first
overhaul, a piece of legislation whose purpose would truly be to
help hundreds of thousands of people, many thousands of
families. Yet the government wants to pass the bill as is.
1345
I find this disturbing. One wonders whether the government
listened to the various stakeholders who shared their views with
the committee. The people who appeared before us are competent
individuals.
Those who testified included the Canadian Bar Association and
the Canadian Council for Refugees. We also heard from
academics, researchers, and community groups, who are daily
trying to meet the basic needs of people who have applied for
refugee status, immigrants who are arriving in a new environment
and who need help in getting properly settled in Canada and in
Quebec.
It is as though the government had decided, from its lofty
perch, that all these fine people knew nothing, had seen
nothing, and were incapable of analyzing a situation or showing
any logic.
If this bill is any indication, logic which is coupled with a
sense of humanity must frustrate this government. We on the
opposition benches believe strongly in logic, but we believe
just as strongly in a sense of humanity, generosity and openness
to the world at large.
It is not too late. If, by chance, the government were to pass
the 11 amendments under consideration today, that would already
be a step forward. Right now, I will not be able to take
such a step. I must take my seat.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): That is one way of putting it.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to apologize. I think that last week I might have
referred to the member as being from Laval East or Laval West. I
want to make sure that it is Laval Centre and she is in the
centre politically also.
Before she leaves the Chamber I want to give her some good news.
The government will support her Motion No. 12, her amendment,
because we believe that the motion introduced by the member is a
technical amendment to ensure that serious criminality as defined
in this section of the bill is consistent with serious
criminality as defined in subclause 36(1). We believe that this
amendment does not change the definition of serious criminality
or substantively alter the amendment made by the standing
committee to this clause, because again the member will know that
we have discussed this issue beforehand.
We appreciate the fact that the amendment made by the member for
Laval Centre further clarifies the government's intent. We are
prepared to approve it, just as we have seen in committee when
the member for Fundy—Royal came up with a good amendment and we
approved it, and the Alliance critic's, so the committee has been
very open.
I want to make one final comment as it relates to what the
member for Laval Centre talked about in terms of Canada being
generous and compassionate. I want to reiterate what I think all
the members of the committee heard. Throughout the country all
of our witnesses were proud of the country's heritage, of its
proud culture and proud historical contribution toward Canada's
generosity in terms of refugee protection around the world. Ours
is one of four countries in the world that takes in refugees, is
compassionate and understanding of their persecution, of their
plight, sometimes in their countries. Our country is one of the
most generous on a per capita basis of the number of refugees.
The bill continues to talk about Canada's historical record,
about the fact that we believe that Canada has a part to play in
trying to resettle some refugees who are being persecuted, around
the world. The bill will make it easier for refugees to be
processed through the system.
1350
There are a number of changes in Bill C-11 that will allow for
quicker adjudication and decision making by single panel refugee
board members, by ensuring that the system works really well,
especially for those who are in limbo. We have heard of cases
where people are still here after eight or nine years but because
of documentation problems or a number of different situations
they cannot be permanent residents even though they have been
given refugee protection. There have been some very positive
amendments put forward on Bill C-11 which will make the situation
a lot better than it is today.
I also want to tell the member for Laval Centre that the
committee has moved on the issue of rehearing a denied refugee
claim where there are changed circumstances. Perhaps there was
violence in the relationship but the woman could not bring it
forward during an IRB hearing because her spouse was there and
she was afraid. We have made it possible, thanks to the good
work of the committee, to ensure that those facts are reheard by
the IRB. While it is not a revolving door or a second kick at
the can in terms of a second appeal or a second refugee claim, we
appreciate that sometimes there are circumstances that could not
be brought up in the first hearing, and under the bill, those
changed circumstances would be heard.
I would hope that the member for Laval Centre as well as my
other colleagues on the committee appreciate that some of their
hard work is found in the amendments to Bill C-11 that they and
members of the government have proposed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of
Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate, Group
No. 3, on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and
the granting of refugee protection. I will address my remarks
with respect to the four motions in the bill.
Motion No. 9 in regard to the refugee protection section of the
bill is a Bloc amendment. It adds new clause 95.1, which states:
The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee
claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and
until a decision is made in respect of that claim.
Since social and medical costs are under provincial jurisdiction
and immigration is under federal jurisdiction, and because of the
federal government's mismanagement of the refugee claims and the
inefficient refugee claim process, why should the provinces bear
the cost? It seems logical, even though the separatist Bloc
member may have meant to show patriotism toward Quebec, but it is
not fair to assume that the provinces can afford the entire cost
of relocation and the medical expenses of refugees who are not
yet permanent residents, landed immigrants or citizens.
The Canadian Alliance, through our chief critic for immigration,
the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved the amendment that
the minister shall consult with the municipality with respect to
resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where
applicable. This amendment was not accepted by the Liberal
government's immigration committee.
The government should be encouraging open and accountable
discussion among CIC, Health Canada, HRDC and DFAIT as well as
the provinces and the non-government organizations related to
immigration. Rather than a co-operative approach, the arrogant,
weak Liberal government always uses a confrontational approach
with the provinces and territories. We should work with the
provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants. The
Liberals are again are missing that opportunity in the bill.
1355
In regard to Motion No. 10, in the convention refugee and
persons in need of protection clause, this Tory amendment will
add, after the end of paragraph 1 of clause 101:
That is a claim for protection by the claimant has been
rejected by the board.
—and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the
Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where:
(a) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since
a previous determination; or
(b) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from
being presented during a previous determination.
In fact, new evidence should be one of the very few grounds to
create a new hearing.
In Motion No. 11 the Tory amendment again deals with procedure
for appeal to the refugee appeal division. In subclause 110(3)
it proposes to delete the following the refugee appeal division
shall proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of
the proceedings of the refugee protection division, and may
accept written submissions from the minister, the person. Then
the clause continues. The amendment proposes to replace that
with the refugee appeal division may proceed with a hearing
where new evidence may be introduced, the record of the
proceedings of the refugee protection division is used, and
submissions may be made by the minister, the person. Then the
clause continues.
The original clause supports a closed system and hinders the
accountability and fairness of the act. This amendment will make
the procedure allow a hearing to introduce new evidence instead
of disallowing the hearing based on the record of proceedings of
the refugee protection division.
The bill does not respect rule of law. Many witnesses, even
including lawyers, told the committee that.
Motion No. 12 is a Bloc amendment that deals with pre-removal
risk assessment. Under protection in paragraph 112(3)(b), the
bill states:
(b) is determined to be inadmissible
on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in
Canada punished by a term of imprisonment of at least two years
or with respect to a conviction outside Canada that, if committed
in Canada, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of at
least 10 years—
Lines six to eight of that paragraph would be replaced by:
This amendment is a little complicated. It is an extension and
it clarifies the original wording. A part of this amendment is
just a housekeeping correction and the other deals with the
length of term of conviction to justify the magnitude of
criminality outside Canada.
This part is so serious and important, particularly in light of
the recent reports that more than 200,000 people are staying in
Canada illegally. About 15,000 people or more are under
deportation warrants, according to the Auditor General of Canada.
They are supposed to be deported, but they are still in Canada
and they are missing. Also, I am—
The Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member,
but he will have three minutes remaining in the time for his
remarks at the conclusion of question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
WOMEN'S WORLD CUP CYCLING RACE
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my great honour to inform this House of the recent successes of
two Quebecers, Geneviève Jeanson, of Lachine, and Lyne Bessette,
of Knowlton.
Geneviève Jeanson won the gold medal, Saturday, in the fifth leg
of the women's world cup cycling road race in Montreal, and Lyne
Bessette, the bronze medal. The race took place on Mount Royal
and included the top world cup racing teams.
1400
This is Geneviève's seventh victory this season, and Lyne won
for the second time in her career the prestigious Tour de l'Aude
less than a week ago.
Please join me in congratulating these two accomplished athletes
and thanking them for bringing glory and honour to Canada.
* * *
[English]
RAIL SAFETY
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this government has announced a $700 million fund
for improving rail safety. The minister has not indicated how
much of this will be allocated for safety at unmarked rail
crossings.
On Friday the parliamentary secretary implied that rail safety
was not a concern to the people of Saskatchewan. I can assure
the government that he is dead wrong.
Saskatchewan has 2,000 more rail crossings than the combined
total of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, B.C. and Quebec. Since
1987, 70 people have died in Saskatchewan from accidents
occurring at rail crossings. What is the government's response?
More studies.
The Saskatchewan Safety Council along with the rail industry has
proposed a cost effective solution. When will the government get
out of the way and allow this initiative to proceed?
* * *
BRIGADIER GENERAL DENIS WHITAKER
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has lost one of her true heroes. Brigadier General Denis
Whitaker, one of the most distinguished and decorated soldiers
Canada has ever produced, passed away last week.
Brigadier General Whitaker took part in the ill-fated Dieppe
raid and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. He later
commanded the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry during the northwest
Europe campaign of 1944-45 in the liberation of France, Belgium
and the Netherlands.
For his outstanding leadership and courage he was awarded a bar
to his Distinguished Service Order. He went on to command the
3rd Infantry Brigade until his retirement in 1951.
General Whitaker was a member of the Order of Canada, a
recipient of the Efficiency Decoration, the Canadian Forces
Decoration as well as an Officer of the Legion D'Honneur (France)
and a Commander of the Order of the Crown (Belgium).
The remarkable Denis Whitaker was also an all star quarterback
for the Hamilton Tigers, a national squash and racquetball
champion, a business executive and published military historian.
Men and women of the calibre of Brigadier General Whitaker are a
rare and valuable treasure. He will be greatly missed.
* * *
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I had the pleasure of attending, along with my colleague
from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, the first ever joint meeting of
NAFTA legislators to discuss North American steel issues.
As NAFTA legislators we agree that a global steel crisis whose
roots lie outside North America has created an unprecedented
situation of global steel overcapacity and market distortions.
NAFTA governments must address these issues for effective and
comprehensive steel policies.
That being said, in Canada and specifically in my city of
Hamilton we have two very innovative and technologically advanced
steel companies, Dofasco and Stelco, which are well positioned to
reap economic awards in a fair trade environment.
As legislators we pledge to continue to work closely together.
Our first meeting was a good start but we must continue to push
for fair trade in steel.
We must ensure the effectiveness of trade laws and trade law
enforcement in North America and we need to address world steel
overcapacity and market distorting practices through the
exploration of multilateral solutions.
Canada must continue to be a leader in these negotiations on the
steel industry and vigorously defend the best interests of our
domestic producers.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday was National Transportation Day, which marked the start
of National Transportation Week.
On this special occasion, I think it important to pay tribute to
Canadians working in the transportation field and helping to keep
the network safe and efficient. They number nearly one million
persons.
This is the thrust of the Government of Canada's initiative to
create a policy framework to define a type of network for the
next decade. It is time Canada had the best highway network in
the world.
This framework would be based, among other things, on the work
of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, the Transportation
Climate Change Table and the discussions held at the Millennium
Transportation Conference.
Our network must be safe, efficient, affordable, accessible and
sustainable. The measures taken will help develop trade and
stimulate competition, productivity and technological innovation.
* * *
1405
[English]
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 12th
anniversary of the mass murder of students and freedom starved
citizens in Tiananmen Square.
Twelve years ago today, to the shock and horror of the world,
the order was given to reclaim the square at all costs.
Tanks, armoured personnel carriers, machine guns and 40,000
storm troopers, that is what they were that day, crushed
thousands of pro-democracy protesters. Hundreds and maybe
thousands were killed. The exact numbers are not known because
the government has never given a full account of the deaths and
has blocked all attempts at an investigation.
Commemorations of the event are even forbidden in China and
police routinely visit known dissidents and families of victims
on the anniversary to warn them not to publicly mark the date.
As China slowly opens itself to the world, we must let it know
that we will never forget its barbarism in the square 12 years
ago today. We can never forget. We will never forget.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May
21, the Canadian government announced the signing of an
international social security agreement with the Slovak
Republic.
This agreement will make it easier for Canadians who have lived
and worked in the Slovak Republic, and for Slovaks who live in
Canada, to qualify for old age, disability and survivor
benefits.
This agreement is an important step toward strengthening the
relationship and areas of co-operation between our two countries.
It should also be noted that international agreements such as
this one are increasingly important, as global economics and
greater international co-operation create increased labour
mobility and movement between countries.
To date, Canada has signed social security agreements with 44
countries.
* * *
LE COURRIER-LAVAL
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
weekly Le Courrier-Laval was just awarded first prize by Quebec's
weeklies association. Considering that there are over 140
weeklies in Quebec, this is quite the achievement.
Le Courrier-Laval was published for the first time on January 19,
1945 and is in its 56th year. With a circulation of close
to 105,000 copies, this newspaper is read by practically every
household in Laval.
This recognition of the journalistic value of Le Courrier-Laval
is definitely not a coincidence. For the past three years, a new
team has been working extremely hard to meet the challenge of
excellence by diversifying the newspaper's content and by using
more appealing graphics.
Le Courrier-Laval achieved its objective with the support of 86
people. Without their involvement, the Laval weekly would never
have won this prestigious award.
It is with pride that, on my behalf and on behalf of the
residents of Laval, I congratulate Le Courrier-Laval. To
publisher Serge Lemieux and news editor Jocelyn Bourassa, I say
“Mission accomplished”. Now, they have no choice but to surpass
themselves; because Laval believes in excellence.
* * *
CANCER
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday
was National Cancer Survivors Day. This, the fourteenth annual
edition, offered hope to a number of people affected by cancer.
Cancer is a terrible disease affecting far too many of us. Yet
many Canadians who have a brush with cancer have strong chances
of recovery. The latest figures show a drop in cancer death
rates.
People who learn that they have cancer are no longer facing an
automatic death sentence. Thanks to new screening techniques,
the greater availability of information and state of the art
treatments, they have hope of a full recovery and a return to a
normal life.
Sunday's celebration provided all those who have recovered from
cancer and those close to them with the opportunity to
demonstrate that life after a cancer diagnosis can be a reality,
thus sending a message of hope to all those who have this
disease.
* * *
[English]
ROGER CYR
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to pay tribute to
Roger Cyr, long time president of the Hong Kong Veterans'
Association and a tireless and successful advocate for veterans'
rights, who passed away on May 26.
Out of one of the most tragic events during World War II comes a
story of heroism and determination. After Hong Kong fell to the
Japanese, roughly 1,200 Canadian soldiers were forced into slave
labour for almost four years. Roger Cyr made it his personal
goal to see that every one of these soldiers was compensated for
his unjust treatment and eventually the Canadian government did
just that. It paid them an average of $22,000 for their forced
labour.
During Remembrance Day ceremonies in 1998, Mr. Cyr had the
unprecedented honour of standing beside Governor General Roméo
LeBlanc during the march past of veterans and took the salute.
He deserved a salute from his comrades then, just as he deserves
to be recognized and remembered by all Canadians today.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
GENERAL MAURICE BARIL
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
June 28 will be a big day for the Canadian Armed Forces.
General Maurice Baril, Chief of Defence Staff, is retiring after
a 40 year military career which has brought him to the uppermost
echelons of the Canadian military hierarchy.
There are so many highlights to his career that I could never
list them all in my brief statement. I will limit myself to the
pinnacle of his career, promotion to the position of Chief of
Defence Staff, on September 17, 1997.
That promotion was ample evidence of the value of Maurice Baril.
During my two years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Defence, I had the immense privilege of contact with
this exceptional man, who became a friend. I was struck right
from the start by his sense of organization and leadership, and
particularly by his great human qualities. A humble and modest
man, he inspired confidence in his troops.
General Baril, all members of this House join with me in
extending our best wishes on your well-deserved retirement. We
will miss you.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Health Canada continues to play catch up on critical
safety issues associated with BSE or mad cow disease.
It took more than 10 years after Britain began measures to deal
with the crisis for Health Canada to complete its first major
assessment of the problem. It is now one year after that report
was received and we still do not see wide scale livestock testing
or an outright ban on animal protein in the feed of animals
destined for human consumption. We still do not have a ban on
food and confectionery products containing beef byproducts from
countries where BSE has been detected. There is still no ban on
the use of potentially infected deer and elk in rendering plants.
The government seems to be trying to do the absolute minimum
needed to comply with the World Health Organization. The minimum
will not do. Britain is dramatic proof of that. We urge the
health minister to stop lagging behind and to make BSE prevention
an urgent priority.
* * *
[Translation]
LA FÉDÉRATION DES FEMMES DU QUÉBEC
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, members of the Fédération des femmes du Québec elected
Vivian Barbot their new president.
Born in Haiti and a teacher at the Cegep in Victoriaville,
Ms Barbot was head of the Fédération des enseignantes et
enseignants de cégeps of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec,
and has been a member of the intercultural relations committee
of the Ligue des droits et libertés. She is also known for her
public stands on the rights of immigrants and the defence of the
French language.
She succeeds Françoise David, to whom we are indebted for the
bread and roses march in 1995 and the World March of Women in
October 2000.
The Bloc Quebecois thanks Ms. David for her energetic defence of
the interests of women in Quebec, and congratulates the new
president, Ms. Barbot. We offer Ms. Barbot our co-operation and
wish her a most productive mandate serving the interests of the
women of Quebec.
* * *
SOFTWARE THEFT
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Alliance against Software Theft has announced a 3%
drop in software theft in Canada,
but the figures show that software theft has cost Canada
$457 million in sales of business applications and software in 2000.
The cost of software theft is high: losses of jobs, wages and
tax revenue in Canada.
We will inevitably have to become aware of the importance of
adopting copyright protection policies.
We must encourage businesses to continue, through
educational programs, legislative measures and enforcement, to
raise the awareness of members of the public who use
unauthorized copies of software.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of heritage and culture, in an attempt to enhance her
leadership bid, has been making funding announcements all across
the country.
The minister of industry and trade, not to be outdone, is giving away
public money like it is going out of style in order to enhance
his chances at the leadership.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs uses CIDA and other corporations
to deliver some of his goodies for appropriate credit, attention
and hopefully support. Benefits from a lot of these expenditures
are questionable.
A large percentage of that money should go to the Department of
Health where it is needed to help the underdog minister in his
bid.
1415
The final player in the leadership race, the Minister of
Finance, is so busy solidifying his lead that he does not know
where the money is going. He did not bring in a budget. This is
blatant pork barrelling. It is not good government
What price are we paying for power? Is the golf course not good
enough any more?
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to congratulate two constituents of York West,
Albert Cheng of Weston Collegiate Institute and Sai Krishna
Satyanarayana of le Collège français, on receiving a local
excellence award from the millennium scholarship foundation.
Both students have demonstrated outstanding achievements in
academic life, significant contributions to the community and
leadership in innovation, all qualities that have helped to
enrich the quality and community of life in York West.
The millennium scholarships foundation originates from a
Government of Canada initiative that represents a significant
investment in the future of young Canadians and an original way
of celebrating the new millennium.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
JUSTICE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is
this government's lack of pragmatism that explains why our
children will not be effectively protected against sexual
predators using the Internet to find their victims.
Will the minister acknowledge publicly that she has learned from
her mistakes and will, finally, introduce new legislation to
protect our children?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be
well aware, we have legislation before the House that deals with
the protection of children in relation to Internet luring and
other aspects of child pornography as they relate to technology.
Unfortunately the hon. member's party and others play politics
in this regard. It is part and parcel of legislation, all of
which deals with amendments to the criminal code. If people were
interested in protecting our children instead of playing
politics, I expect they would work with us to practise
legislation in—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister put the portion of legislation that would
have protected children from Internet criminals into a big bill
that has other controversial issues in it. She knows that. That
is the reason we are not supporting it.
Will the minister bring in standalone legislation that will
protect our children from Internet sexual predators? Yes or no.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provisions to which the
hon. member refers are amendments to the criminal code.
Bill C-15 which is before the House is legislation, all of which
deals with amendments to the criminal code, many of which were
before the House before the last election. There is absolutely
no excuse for any hon. member of the House not to have informed
himself or herself in relation to the legislation and be prepared
to move forward.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us give another example. Western premiers decided
that they could not wait for the minister. They are to set up a
sex offender registry on their own. Ontario has also decided
that CPIC is not suitable for this issue.
When will the minister set up a national sex offender registry
to protect our children from sexual predators?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that we
have one of the best registries in the world, CPIC, which is the
envy of all police forces around the world. We have indicated to
the provinces and the people that any corrections which need to
be made with CPIC will be made.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP disagrees with the minister. Canadians are
very disappointed with the justice minister's refusal to
co-operate with the opposition to pass long needed laws dealing
with child predators on the Internet.
The minister is now prepared to delay the legislation. This is
unacceptable to Canadians. Why will the Minister of Justice not
put politics aside and ensure that the provisions in Bill C-15
dealing with child predators are passed as quickly as possible?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I challenge Alliance members to put politics aside and
let the legislation come to a vote now. If they will not do that
they are the ones playing politics with the safety of our
children.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that answer is unacceptable to Canadians. Protecting
our children from sexual predators is a priority of Canadians.
Everyone knows that the government is playing political games by
lumping animals and children together in the same bill.
Given the unanimous consent of past child protection provisions,
will the Deputy Prime Minister stop playing games with Canadian
children, stop playing American style politics and pass—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the polls out today show that the Alliance is
unacceptable to Canadians.
The message to the Alliance is not to stand in the way of Bill
C-15 and good legislation like it if it wants to protect
children. It should join with us in protecting our children and
let the legislation come to a vote, or it will go even further
down in the polls. That is the message of Canadians to the
Alliance.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the
Access to Information Act, the Bloc Quebecois has obtained a
copy of a communication strategy, which serves as a sort of
guide for the federal government in its dealings with the
government of Quebec. This document tells ministers and members
how to behave toward the government of Quebec.
My question is for the minister of public works.
How can the federal government justify adopting a belligerent
marketing approach and identifying the enemy as the Government
of Quebec? Does this not confirm what we had always known, that
the federal government had decided to make war?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never seen this document.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact that
the minister who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to have
studies done has not seen the document indicates a problem
somewhere.
On page 13 of the document—I will refresh the minister's memory—we
see, and I quote “The first concern of perceptual positioning
here is not service as such, but moulding the mind of the
consumer”.
Is not the role of a modern democratic government to serve its
citizens, rather than try to brainwash them?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, who
previously sat in the national assembly, should perhaps look at
his own documents.
I can assure the House that yes, there are a number of people
working for the government across the country and a number could
write documents and could express thoughts. However, the
government has never commented.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this same
document says, and I quote “Transfer payments to the provinces
reduce the scope of the federal involvement in the provinces”.
Is this not the reason why the first federal cuts to reduce the
deficit were made to transfers to the provinces, because these
transfers do not contribute to the federal government's
propaganda?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's information is inaccurate. The
government cut a lot more in direct spending than in transfers
to the provinces.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's strategy is increasingly clear. It consists in
making taxpayers pay for its mad obsession with propaganda.
Is this not also why, in spite of huge surpluses, the federal
government does not want to increase transfers for health and
education and is much more interested in investing in
propaganda?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that as soon as it had restored fiscal
balance, the Government of Canada's priority was to strengthen
transfers to the provinces, the Canada social transfer and
equalization payments.
* * *
1425
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister says that economic indicators sometimes cause
him to lose sleep. I would like to ask the minister about
environmental indicators that should be causing him nightmares.
First, Canada has the second worst environmental record among
OECD nations. Second, Canada's greenhouse gases are on track to
rise 44% above Kyoto targets. Third, Environment Canada under
the finance minister is the worst funded of all departments.
With those environmental indicators how could the finance
minister ever sleep at night?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gives no indication of where these
assertions come from. There is no truth whatsoever to the
reference to the figures with respect to greenhouse gases.
I do not know where she gets her statements. She has
consistently asked questions of this nature before, which really
have no answer unless we have some factual information rather
than her wild surmises.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
incredible. The facts are out there. The government keeps
ignoring the facts. Now they are trying to dangle $145 million
as if it were some kind of serious response to Canada's
environmental deficit.
The finance minister knows that $145 million is 1% of what is
needed to deal with our water quality crisis. Instead of
preening as Mr. Green, why does the finance minister not muster
the courage, the resolve and the resources for the robust
environmental strategy that he used to champion when he was on
the opposition side a decade ago?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made available in the last
period since the budget $1.1 billion for climate change alone,
plus other substantial amounts.
I do not know where the hon. member gets the figure of $145
million. She has plucked that out of a hat somewhere. All I can
say is once again it is the NDP saying that a figure of $145
million is insignificant. It may be very significant and deal
with the problem to which it will be applied.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is about the helicopter
scandal. The Prime Minister stated last week that the government
wanted, and I quote—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair wants to hear
about this as well. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has
the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: The Prime Minister said last week
that the government wanted:
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: They applaud the scandal. When did
the Prime Minister learn that splitting the contract would add
$400 million to the price tag? Why did the government go ahead
with a split contract that adds an unnecessary $400 million?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely wrong. He talks about a
possible contingency which is not an absolute decision that this
would cost $400 million more.
When he got to his feet and asked about the helicopter scandal,
I thought he was talking about the EH-101 deal he was associated
with along with Mr. Mulroney.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there will be time to debate that. My question is for the Deputy
Prime Minister. Would he tell the House whether there was
written advice to the Prime Minister and to the government to
split the helicopter procurement project? If there was that
written advice, will the government table in the House the
written advice on which that decision was taken?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to have
two contracts in schedule 1 is a government decision. With one
contract we had three bidders. With two contracts we have a
possible thirteen bidders. That means more competition, more
transparency, more Canadian companies getting involved, more
Canadian technology and more Canadian jobs.
* * *
1430
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for months now the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has been refusing to provide or to make
public his department's legal opinion on the Marshall decision in
the Supreme Court of Canada.
We now know why he has refused. Department of Justice lawyers
in the federal court have taken a position on the Marshall
decision contrary to the stated public position of the minister.
Would the minister confirm that justice department lawyers
acting on his behalf in the federal court in Nova Scotia have
denied that natives have a treaty right to harvest lobster?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member does not have
his facts correct. I did provide an answer to his question to
me. Legal advice is provided by the Ministry of Justice. I have
to consult with all the members to make sure we can provide that
advice.
In the Marshall decision the supreme court ruling clearly said
there was a right to a commercial fishery. We are following the
Marshall decision in the supreme court.
Unfortunately the hon. member and his party speak about helping
aboriginal people but whenever we want to do something for the
aboriginal communities, they are against it every time in the
House.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has spent hundreds of
millions of dollars buying lobster boats, licences and gear
because he said that the Marshall decision recognized a treaty
right to harvest lobster.
The Department of Justice lawyers, in federal court, disagree
with the minister. They deny that natives have a
constitutionally protected right to harvest lobster.
Which is it? Who is speaking for the government on treaty
rights to harvest lobster? Is it the minister of fisheries or is
it the Department of Justice? Who is speaking for the
government?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government speaks with one voice. We
have said it from day one that the supreme court clearly said
there is a right to a commercial fishery.
I have also said it is not an absolute right but a regulated
right. Yes, we are spending money to make sure that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is very hard to hear one voice when there
are 10 or 20 others yelling. The Chair has to be able to hear
the person speaking. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has the floor.
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, we hear the Alliance
Party members say they want to help aboriginal people but when it
comes to helping them with government programs, they stand in the
House and say they are against it every time.
Why do you not make up your minds on whether you are interested
or—
The Speaker: It would be helpful if members would address
the Chair as well.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the federal
government's propaganda document, transfer payments are hurting
its visibility, so it took a different tack with Quebec.
My question is for the President of the Privy Council. Is this
not the real reason for the drop in federal government transfer
payments for education, and the explanation for its stubborn
insistence on a millennium scholarships program that nobody
wanted?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have had occasion to point out, transfer
payments have increased. They have never been as high as they
are today, if one takes into account the increase in the value
of tax points.
If the Bloc Quebecois is so intent on scandal, why does it
not ask its head office to release the infamous Plan O, which
would have squandered over $16 billion of Quebecers' savings in
the vain hope of calming the markets after a yes in the
referendum?
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the
smallest investment in education in 30 years.
Does this document not also make it clear why, in September
1999, contrary to all expectations, the federal government
terminated its agreement with Communication Québec and set up
its own communications program, 1-800-O-Canada?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
question, because it gives me an opportunity to point out that
1-800-O-Canada is one of the rare telephone services to have a
human voice at the other end of the line, and it is a great
success.
The reason we ended this contract with Quebec and with Manitoba
as well is because, with a central telephone system for the
entire country, we must naturally be able to answer in both
official languages.
* * *
1435
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Alberta government has officially declared the
province a drought disaster area. Almost 90% of the provincial
agricultural area does not have enough soil moisture for annual
cropping this year.
In my riding conditions are reminiscent of the dust bowl of the
1930s with precipitation at 20% of the last 50 year average.
Farmers are crippled by this drought and it could get worse.
Forage crops in many areas have already been lost and forest fire
conditions have been extreme in northern central Alberta for some
weeks.
What is the government prepared to do to help farmers deal with
these extreme drought conditions?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly it
is very unfortunate about the conditions our western neighbours
are putting up with in regard to the pastures, but this year for
the first time in history two million acres of pasture can be
insured under crop insurance. That is a federal-provincial
program. I certainly encourage all the ranchers to enlist in the
program.
Also, the order in council on Friday approved a transfer to the
Alberta treasury of its balance of the $500 million. This $126
million is available today.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Alberta provincial government has offered $73
million in emergency drought relief to the province's livestock
and honey producers. The PFRA, supposedly existing to help
farmers with water supply, ran out of money four days after the
renewal of this year's budget.
Again, what will the government do to help farmers with this
crisis of drought conditions?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for giving me the chance to remind him that this money
that is coming from the federal government to Alberta will be
available today, but first the Alberta government has to sign the
contract.
Alberta is one of the provinces that has not signed yet. As
soon as the member encourages his premier to sign, this $126
million will be available.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government's philosophy is abundantly
clear: avoid transfer payments because they take away from the
visibility of the federal government.
Does this not explain the federal government's refusal to
negotiate with Quebec a true parental leave program that would
cover all families?
Is it not because agreeing to negotiate would deprive Ottawa of
its visibility, so families are left to bear the brunt of its
refusal?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is guided by but one concern,
providing Canadians with the best services and the best
policies.
If Canadians find these services and policies to be good ones,
it is certainly not the result of brainwashing; it is because
they are being given good government.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there has been $500 million worth of propaganda
since 1995. Page 12 of the document identifies the three
problems the federal government has in Quebec: transfer
payments, provincial autonomy and Canada-Quebec agreements.
Does this description of the federal government's problems in
Quebec not explain the rigid federal attitude when it comes to
having to negotiate with Quebec?
Does it not explain certain behaviours seen on the other side of
this House when the time comes to discuss Quebec and its needs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would not be difficult to demonstrate that ours
is the most flexible federation possible. Every time the Bloc
Quebecois tries to come up with a foreign model, we can prove to
them that Canada is more flexible than other federations. For
almost any example they can come up with, we can prove—as for
example once again recently with the Young Offenders Act—that the
practice in Quebec finds support and assistance within the Canadian
federation.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is yet another internal
military document that contradicts the minister's statements in
the House. This report clearly states that the end of the cold
war did not eliminate the threat of foreign submarines in our
waters. Rather, it compounded the threat. We now need better
protection against rogue nations and modern day aggressor
submarines than we ever did.
Why do so many internal military documents call for increased
protection when the minister politically calls for cuts in
capability?
1440
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has the situation all wrong. The
helicopter that has been proposed to us by the military, and that
we have accepted the statement of requirements for, will have a
vigorous and robust anti-submarine capacity, but it will have
that robust capacity to deal with the current threat by
submarines and will not live in the past like my hon. colleague.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, cold war requirements should be
minimum standards, not maximum standards.
It is well known to all that the threat to Canada's maritime
territory is largely subsurface, by many more nations' submarines
than in the 1960s.
Submarines with missile capability are in place or can be
available to rogue nations worldwide. Why would Canada ever
consider decreasing its NATO anti-submarine capability by
politically decreasing the fly time and range capabilities of the
helicopters that hunt them?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention
of the member the committee meeting of last week in which Vice
Admiral Maddison indicated to the member that all written
requirements were written were written by him, written by the
military to do a job in today's world, not in the cold war era in
which the member seems to live.
These submarines, these helicopters, everything that the
Canadian forces have re-equipped with, are on military
specifications, and they meet the demands of Canada's national
defence.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
community of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu has a long military history
dating back to the 18th century. This tradition is being
maintained with the presence of the Canadian forces in the
region.
[English]
The Minister of National Defence recently made an important
announcement in St-Jean, Quebec. Could the parliamentary
secretary inform the House about this announcement?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the
Minister of National Defence announced a five year, $45 million
support contract with the Fort Saint-Jean campus for use of the
site facilities. Four programs will be located there, bringing
in 400 students annually: the military training assistance
program for the partnership for peace countries; the Canadian
forces management development school; the regular officer
training plan year; and summer second language training.
The Fort Saint-Jean campus is a wonderful site and we are
pleased to continue our relationship with it.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Canada is
the only industrial country in the world where the national
government has not made a serious financial contribution to
public transit. Under its transportation equity act in the
United States, the federal government there is now contributing
some $10 billion Canadian per year to public transit.
Will the Minister of Finance now follow the lead in the United
States and make a substantial contribution to public transit in
this country? He has had seven long years to show some
leadership. Will he show leadership on this issue now?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have news for the hon. member. The Minister of
Finance showed leadership last year by announcing a $2 billion
infrastructure program to be matched by the municipalities and by
the provinces, and much of that money can and will be spent on
public transit.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if someone has stolen the Minister of Finance's
tongue today. He is not responding to questions.
I will ask him again. Every year the Minister of Finance
collects some $5 billion on excise taxes and GST from gasoline
and diesel fuel and yet puts very little of it back into public
transit in Canada, which reduces smog and is good for the
environment.
Will the Minister of Finance now initiate a tax credit or tax
exemption on public transit passes, which would be great for the
environment? Why does he not show that leadership and show it
now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows the Canadian government, as do
other governments, receives its sources of funding from a series
of taxes. Those taxes are then spent in terms of the Canadian
priorities.
Those priorities are very clear. The Minister of Transport has
just outlined what is a very aggressive and a very imaginative
program of the Canadian government, working with the provinces
and with the municipalities to do so, in the same area as the
Minister of the Environment has demonstrated.
We are doing it in a wide range of areas, working with the
municipalities in terms of the environment and in terms of
climate change as the Minister of Energy has outlined. The fact
is we do receive money—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
* * *
1445
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, since
the tragedy of Walkerton, Canadians have been demanding national
drinking water standards. The least Canadians expect from the
government is for it to invest in drinking water and sewage
infrastructure.
Why is the environment minister failing to fight? Why is he so
reluctant to promote green infrastructure to properly treat
sewage and to ensure Canadians have safe drinking water?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program just referred to, of
which the entire opposition appears totally unaware, makes $2
billion available for infrastructure projects. Green
infrastructure is the theme. In my province the figure is 75%
must go to water, sewage and solid waste projects and 25% to
other projects.
There is a major program which the Conservative Party never
brought in when it was in power, and of which it is still
unaware. I suggest the member look at the figures. He will find
it is an important contribution to improving the infrastructure
in municipalities.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
know that the infrastructure focus should be on water. We also
know that the regional minister from Manitoba is seriously
supporting a $12 million gift from the infrastructure program to
a proposed privately owned arena in the city of Winnipeg.
Would the minister responsible for infrastructure please tell
the House if she would prefer to have the dollars for
infrastructure go to water projects or to arenas?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so
much nonsense from a member in the House of Commons.
We made announcements with respect to flood litigation. We made
announcements with respect to Haywood, Cormorant and a number of
other communities for safe water. We have a number of others
being requested. In the whole of western Canada there are
roughly 2,000 applications, of which roughly 50% are water
related.
We are spending and spending wisely. The member does not get
it.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the level of violence in the Middle East seems to be
about to escalate. Canada has a very good reputation in the
world in general, specifically with both parties in the Middle
East.
What specific steps has the government taken toward the
Palestinian authority to secure a ceasefire before the violence
escalates?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to
offer our condolences to the families of the victims this
weekend.
On Saturday the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke with the
foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to convey Canada's condolences.
We also spoke with the Palestinian minister, Dr. Nabil Shaath, to
express the concerns of the Canadian people that terrorism and
violence must end.
We urge everyone to go back to the table and implement the
Mitchell report.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is laudable. It is good to urge them to go back to
the table, but Canada recently handed over $5 billion through
CIDA to the Palestinian authority. The foreign affairs minister
met with Yasser Arafat.
Has the government considered and will it start putting
restrictions on aid that goes to the Palestinian authority,
contingent upon the authority controlling violence in the Middle
East?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that endless war has been
dragging on for too long.
As indicated in the Mitchell report, it is important that the
two sides go back to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
It is important to end this endless war and to have everyone back
at the negotiating table.
Canada will make every effort to help the two sides sit down and
negotiate.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in its attempt to hastily rectify the employment
insurance system, just before the election call, the federal
government failed to meet the needs of the unemployed.
Today, the government has an opportunity to do a lot more for
them. We concur in the unanimous report by the standing
committee on human resources development, and if it wants to pass
legislation in this regard before the recess, it will have the
support of the Bloc.
This is a basic issue for the unemployed. Can the Minister of
Human Resources Development tell us when the government will
reveal its political will and act?
1450
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member rightly states that the
government recently passed Bill C-2, where we repealed the
intensity rule, where we made changes to the clawback initiative,
and where we made it easier for parents to get benefits upon
re-entry into the workplace.
Where were they? They were blocking that act. From my point of
view I think members of the Bloc have a lot to respond to in
their own constituencies.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the committee recognized unanimously that this was not
enough and hence the Bloc Quebecois' opposition.
The federal government has everything it needs to act. It has
the support of the opposition and, if it so wishes, we will
approve its bill by Friday. In fact, it has a unanimous report
by the standing committee on human resources development in which
all of the parties call on it to act. The needs are there, they
are desperate.
On what pretexts can the government still justify its inaction?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the track record on this side of the
House is very clear. We made significant changes to the
Employment Insurance Act, not the least of which was the doubling
of parental benefits and, as I pointed out, the changes under
Bill C-2.
As we were trying to pass Bill C-2, it was the Bloc that
actually voted for the House to close down. Where is its
interest when it comes to employment insurance?
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance refuses to acknowledge that a
lower Canadian dollar means a higher cost of living for many
Canadians, particularly those on fixed incomes, many of whom are
seniors.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his government's policy
is directly responsible for a higher cost of living, particularly
as it affects seniors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I will certainly admit is that according to the
most recent numbers real personal disposable incomes grew by 5.4%
and are now at a record high.
At the same time I will admit that the real gross domestic
product in Canada grew at an annualized rate of 2.5%. That is
twice the rate of growth in the United States, and that benefits
all Canadians including our seniors.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is at least one Canadian senior who is expecting a
42% increase in the next little while. What about the rest?
The average increase in the cost of living of Canadian seniors
has skyrocketed. Fuel costs to heat their homes have gone up.
Weekly grocery costs have gone up. Gas prices have gone up.
Medication costs have gone up.
When will the minister stop forcing Canadian seniors and those
on fixed incomes to bear the major burden for the lower Canadian
dollar?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at what was done in budget 2000, after a long
delay brought in by the previous government we reindexed all the
benefits in the Canadian benefit system. The prime beneficiaries
of that are Canadian seniors and those who are on fixed incomes.
The question is: Why did the Alliance vote against that?
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased
to learn that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council has awarded $53 million in funding for basic research.
Such research is essential to develop the knowledge base on
which to build the knowledge based economy.
Can the Secretary of State explain how the SSHRC awards its
funding and what proportion goes to Quebec?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
I recently had the pleasure of announcing that the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council is going to provide
$56.5 million in funding over three years for 737 research
projects in such areas as economics, culture, business and the
environment, as well as $3.5 million for 100 post-doctoral
scholars. I want to congratulate the recipients.
Quebec's share of this is 31% as far as the number of
researchers is concerned, and 27% of the total funds.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the United States returns
over 90% of its federal fuel tax revenues back to each state for
highway improvement. The Canadian federal government returns
only 4% to the provinces.
Maybe the Minister of Transport does not realize that Canada's
highways are in deplorable condition and as a result we are
losing more and more transportation business to the U.S.
1455
If the minister is only returning 4% of the fuel tax revenues to
the provinces, what is he doing with the other 96%?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned before, we receive funding from a number
of sources and we invest it. More than likely the answer to the
hon. member's question is that we put it into health care.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will let that one go. It
will cost an estimated $17 billion to upgrade Canada's highways.
My province of British Columbia alone needs almost $3 billion.
That is five times more than the $600 million Ottawa has offered
to fix the entire Canadian highway system.
Western premiers want Ottawa to set up a national highway
program that will return the fuel tax money it takes from the
provinces. When will the Minister of Transport return a
significant share of fuel taxes back to the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will know that under the government we
have now embarked upon our third infrastructure program. Under
the leadership of the President of the Treasury Board and the
Minister of Transport we are investing very heavily, and will
continue to do so, in our highway transportation system.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently, Unibroue thought it had federal government
certification that its products were GMO free.
Now we learn that the government is refusing to give Unibroue
this certification, which it needs to export to Europe, because
no GMO labelling policy exists in Canada.
Will the government not admit, in the light of this example,
that businesses need a labelling policy, because Europeans, just
like Quebecers, want to know what they are eating and drinking?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency does not certify food products as GM free.
Companies can label their products, but they do not get this
support from the CFIA. Unibroue has misinterpreted this and we
have asked it to take the decertification off its website.
In Canada companies are free to do this but, as the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has often said, labelling must be
meaningful to consumers, enforceable and credible under all
circumstances.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. Recently we
have been reading more and more articles in the media concerning
high levels of sulphur in fuels, air pollution and health
problems that result from these high levels.
On this issue could the minister tell the House what actions are
being taken to deal with the issue of high sulphur levels in
fuels in Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the announcement I made earlier this year covers
gasoline, diesel and fuel oils outside road fuels. It will reduce
the amount of sulphur in gasoline from its average now of 360
parts per million to 30 parts per million. In on road diesel,
the figure will go from 500 parts per million to 15. The dates
for this are the end of 2004 for gasoline and June 1, 2006, for
diesel.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has not been
able to convince her cabinet colleagues that Bill C-15 needs to
be passed before the summer recess. Consequently she will now be
forced to proclaim yet another amnesty for the owners of more
than half a million legally owned and registered handguns that
the government banned six years ago with Bill C-68. This is the
fourth amnesty since December 1998.
Her own actions and the Bill C-15 amendments prove that these
firearms are not dangerous at all when in the hands of
law abiding, responsible owners. Instead of proclaiming amnesty
after amnesty why does she not admit they were wrong to ban these
registered firearms in the first place?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have only two things to say.
First, in relation to Bill C-15, why does the opposition not stop
playing politics and pass the amendments to the criminal code?
Second, I would ask the hon. member why he does not join the
vast majority of Canadians and support our gun control
regulations.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over three
months ago, the Minister for International Trade told this House
that he hoped the basic texts used in the negotiations on the
free trade area of the Americas would be made public.
Upon his return from Buenos Aires, close to two months ago, he
announced triumphantly that he had obtained the authorization of
the other ministers to release the texts.
We are still waiting for the basic texts to be made public.
1500
My question to the Minister for International Trade is simple:
When will the texts be made public? The minister must realize
that we want these texts before the deadline for negotiations.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for giving us
another opportunity to stress the extraordinary contribution of
Canadian diplomacy to promote transparency in the process on the
free trade area of the Americas. Indeed, this was a major
success for Canada.
We must now have the texts in the four languages. Canada has
provided the French version of these documents. The Portuguese
version should be ready. We should have the texts in the next
few days, or relatively soon.
This is a major success for Canadian diplomacy and for
transparency in international trade negotiations.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, by splitting Bill C-15 and removing the very
controversial animal cruelty and firearms provisions much good
would flow. Children would be given greater protection from
demented Internet stalkers. We could have some tough new
provisions introduced through the criminal code.
Why has the justice minister dug in her heels and refused to
allow quick passage of very positive criminal code amendments?
Clearly Canadians know who is playing politics here. It is the
very stubborn minister of justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
right. Canadians do know who is playing politics, and that is
all the opposition parties over there.
We have made it absolutely plain that Bill C-15 deals with
nothing more than amendments to the criminal code. Many of these
amendments to the criminal code were in fact introduced before
the last election.
There is no excuse for all those learned men and women on that
side of the House not to work with us to move the bill forward
quickly.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act
to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to allow
municipalities that wish to do so to license establishments of
places of business where prostitutes may legally perform their
trade.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1505
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(donations to food banks).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment would permit a donation to
food banks of food to be treated as a charitable gift,
notwithstanding that the value of the food has already been
deducted as a business expense of the donor.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-370, an act respecting the rights of
children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
recognize in law the basic rights of the child enumerated in the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that are not
already covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-371, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to housing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment would amend the Canadian
Bill of Rights to include the right to proper housing at a
reasonable cost and free of unreasonable barriers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-372, an act to provide for the harmonization of
environmental standards throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
establish a process of consultation with the provinces to
establish uniformity in the environmental standards applied in
Canada and in every province.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since each member is very lucky to have one bill ever drawn, is
there not some rule that prevents this member from having 400
private members' bills, all which will never see the light of
day?
The Speaker: I do not know anything about the light of
day or the light of the night, but I tell the hon. member that
there is no limit on the number of bills that an hon. member can
introduce in the House.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wish to seek unanimous consent to propose the following
motion:
That the bill entitled, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the
Salaries Act, shall be disposed of as follows:
1. The House shall proceed for the second reading stage of the
said bill immediately after oral questions on Tuesday, June 5,
and, during this stage, no member shall speak for more than 10
minutes, and that no later than 15 minutes prior to the
conclusion of government orders on that day all questions
necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage shall be
put and any division necessary to dispose of the reading shall be
taken forthwith;
2. That immediately after routine proceedings on Wednesday, June
6, the bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole House,
provided that, (a) any member may table an amendment which, if in
order, the Chair shall put at the appropriate time, (b) after no
more than one hour of consideration by the said commitee on clause 1,
the committee shall proceed to subsequent clauses, which shall be
subject to debate and amendment, (c) any divisions requested in
the committee shall be deferred until the end of the committee's
consideration of the bill and (d) no later than 15 minutes prior
to the ordinary time of adjournment, all necessary questions to
dispose of the committee stage and the report stage of the bill
shall be put and any division necessary be taken forthwith; and
3. That after oral questions on Thursday, June 7, the House
shall immediately proceed to third reading stage of the said
bill, during which no member shall speak for more than 10
minutes, and that no later than 15 minutes prior to the
conclusion of government orders on that day all questions
necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage shall be
put and any division necessary to dispose of the reading shall be
taken forthwith.
1510
In other words, the vote shall be taken Thursday afternoon at
the end of government orders.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56.1(1)(a), I move:
That the bill entitled, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the
Salaries Act, shall be disposed of as follows:
1. The House shall proceed to the second reading stage of the
said bill immediately after oral questions on Tuesday, June 5,
and, during this stage, no member shall speak for more than 10
minutes, and that no later than 15 minutes prior to the
conclusion of government orders on that day all questions
necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage shall be
put and any division necessary to dispose of the reading shall be
taken forthwith;
2. That immediately after routine proceedings on Wednesday, June
6, the bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole House,
provided that, (a) any Member may table an amendment which, if in
order, the Chair shall put at the appropriate time, (b) after no
more than one hour of consideration by the said committee on
clause 1, the committee shall proceed to subsequent clauses,
which shall be subject to debate and amendment, (c) any divisions
requested in the committee shall be deferred until the end of the
committee's consideration of the bill and (d) no later than 15
minutes prior to the ordinary time of adjournment, all necessary
questions to dispose of the committee stage and the report stage
of the bill shall be put and any divisions necessary be taken
forthwith; and
3. That after oral questions on Thursday, June 7, the House
shall immediately proceed to third reading stage of the said
bill, during which no member shall speak for more than 10
minutes, and that no later than 15 minutes prior to the
conclusion of government orders on that day all questions
necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage shall be
put and any division necessary to dispose of the reading shall be
taken forthwith.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their
places?
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from people in the Peterborough area
who would like to see VIA Rail service re-established between
Peterborough and Toronto.
The petition aims at improving the environment by reducing
greenhouse emissions and accidents on the highways. It is hoped
to strengthen Peterborough as a business, educational and tourism
centre. It has support all along the route in federal ridings
like Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Markham, Scarborough—Rouge River,
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
I am pleased to say that the petition has already resulted in a
constructive meeting between the Minister of Transport and
citizens of the Peterborough area.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from citizens in Peterborough who are concerned
about the continuation of sanctions in Iraq. This is an issue of
great interest in Peterborough. It has resulted in a weekly
vigil at my office among people including people who are of Iraqi
origin, now Canadians, and people who visited Iraq. They are
concerned about the condition of poor people in Iraq,
particularly the children.
The petitioners call upon parliament to accept the
recommendation of the foreign affairs committee for the lifting
of sanctions and the establishment of a diplomatic presence in
Baghdad. They call for serious peace negotiations and they urge
that Canada persuade the UN committee to quickly approve funds
for the rebuilding of water, electric power and all production
infrastructure. They ask that the compensation fund taken from
the oil for food program be suspended.
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents
in my riding and elsewhere who draw to the attention of the House
their displeasure with the government for disbanding the coast
guard dive team which operated out of Richmond, British Columbia.
The removal of the dive team causes the public to be put at
risk. The fact that the coast guard dive team was disbanded may
have contributed to the death of Paul Sandhu. The petitioners
believe that more lives could be lost if the dive team remains
disbanded. They call on the government to reinstate the dive
team.
SUICIDE PREVENTION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am presenting a petition signed
by approximately 200 residents of my riding. They know that
approximately 3,500 to 4,000 Canadians die each year by suicide
and they are calling on parliament to pass legislation that would
create a national suicide prevention strategy.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present yet another petition from
Canadians concerned about the state of our health care system,
the inaction of the government to stop the trend and the move
toward two tier health care.
The citizens who have signed the petition are concerned about
the shortage of nurses, the backlog in emergency rooms and the
lack of access to necessary medical treatment. They call on the
government to take immediate action to save public health care in
Canada and to stop two tier American style health care from
coming to Canada.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the
following petition to the House of Commons.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
Great Gulf Homes Inc. is in the process of destroying a priceless
wetland habitat on the Mimico marsh in Brampton, thus endangering
birds, trees and wetland species.
The petitioners call upon parliament to lead the provincial and
municipal governments in the preservation and restoration of the
wetland site by co-ordinating public and social processes to turn
over the lands to the public trust.
1520
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two
petitions on behalf of the constituents of
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
The first one calls for a reinstatement of the strychnine levels
of poisoning that we used to use on our gophers. It is an
epidemic this year, with the drought as well. They are growing
faster than we can control them. With the new stuff they are
giving us we actually think it makes them a little more virile
rather than causing them any sort of problem.
ABORTION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in my second petition hundreds of my
constituents are calling for a defunding of public spending on
abortions.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group
No. 3.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, before question period I was debating the three
important motions in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-11.
The situation with respect to immigration in Canada is very
serious. About 200,000 people, according to different reports,
are illegally staying in Canada. According to the auditor
general, 15,000 people are named in deportation warrants and they
are missing. Also, 60% of visitors who apply for refugee status
in Canada arrive at Canadian ports without any kind of
documentation.
Canadian borders are like sieves. We do not have exit control.
CIC cannot track those who are missing or are staying illegally
in Canada. The situation is very serious.
Since this is the last group of motions in amendment at report
stage of Bill C-11 we are missing the opportunity to debate many
worthwhile amendments, many of which were put forward by the
chief critic for the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River. The amendments related to consultation by
CIC with the provinces, municipalities and other NGOs. They were
related to family reunification and one dealt with once in a
lifetime sponsorship by a Canadian citizen of related family
members.
There were also amendments related to foreign academic degrees,
to refugees, the discriminatory head tax, the appeal process and
various aspects of the refugee process. The whole appeal process
is just like the layers of an onion. We can keep on peeling it.
We need to streamline the appeal process. Since the government
has not been particularly interested in stressing the appeal
process it could only be done through amendment, and the
amendments were not accepted.
Other amendments would have fixed the outdated 40 year old
health standards in Canada. The standards are so old and
incomprehensible that we need to fix them. Those amendments were
not accepted.
There were amendments related to improving communication among
CIC, CSIS, RCMP, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the
Department of International Trade and various NGOs involved in
immigration work. There is no communication. The minister
believes that she knows better or more than expert advisers from
various organizations like CSIS.
That is probably the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister for International Cooperation attended the Tamil
tiger fundraising.
1525
In a nutshell the amendments were related to training and
staffing requirements, security risks, human smuggling, organized
crime, fraud, bribes, the operations of overseas officers and
patronage appointments. All these amendments—
The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but
he has had a generous allotment of time. I know the Chair has
been quite lenient. I am afraid his time has expired.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this is an important group of amendments at report stage
of Bill C-11. They pertain specifically to the parts of the bill
dealing with refugees and refugee sponsorships.
We spent a considerable amount of time on this section in
committee. We heard from many Canadians who work directly in the
field of refugee sponsorship and helping displaced persons. They
ensure that Canada, as has been the case in the past, is a place
of refuge, a place of safety for people confronted with
political, economic or social persecution and conditions that are
unacceptable from the point of view of any notion of being a
civilized society.
Our main focus in this section was to try to ensure that Canada
continued to be a place of refuge and respectful of our
humanitarian and compassionate consideration of such cases around
the globe. There was some progress. The bill took into account
some of the concerns of organizations involved in refugee
sponsorship and moved from Bill C-31 to Bill C-11 with some
significant changes.
I also know that during the course of committee hearings the
government heard further concerns and made a few changes. However
there are some significant areas of concern that remain and need
to be addressed.
The amendments before the House today attempt to do that. We
tried to do our part at committee with dozens of amendments
pertaining to refugee sponsorship and refugee protection that
were not adopted by the government and regretfully were
disregarded.
Our fundamental concern is that Canada should use this
opportunity to ensure that we are fully in compliance with
international conventions pertaining to refugees and torture.
The committee heard from numerous groups that are very expert
and knowledgeable in this field. They told us that Canada
through the bill is still not fully compliant with our
international obligations.
It is a terrible shame that in 2001, at this opportune moment
when we have a window to overhaul our immigration and refugee
act, we are not taking advantage of this opportunity. Something
with which we will have to deal over the next number of years and
will remain a challenge is how we convince the government of the
day to actually take these obligations seriously and act on them.
It was clearly stated to us by numerous organizations that
Canada is not doing its part. The chair of the committee rose in
the House today to speak about Canada's work on the international
front and our role in terms of refugee protection and suggested
that Canada was one of four countries that is outstanding in this
regard.
First, I want to say that is not enough. Second, that account
of the situation does not fully consider the advice and
information we received from many groups. We were told quite
clearly that we remain negligent in our duties as the Parliament
of Canada and have not fully acted on the requirements.
We made some suggestions that we addressed this morning and
afternoon such as the right of a refugee to make a second claim
regardless of whether there were new circumstances or new
information.
1530
Despite what we have heard today, the amendments we proposed to
allow second claims were not adopted and the advice was not
considered. That continues to constitute a serious burden on
some refugees and has a disproportionate impact on women in
particular.
On that point, we were successful in convincing the government
to agree with our amendment to conduct a gender analysis of the
bill within two years of the proclamation of the act. That
offers us some consolation and sense of fulfilment to know that
at some point the government will do what it ought to have done
leading up to the introduction of this bill, and that is a gender
analysis. It is something the government promised would be done
with respect to every bill introduced in the House. It promised
there would always be a gender analysis and that it would always
take into account the disproportionate impact of any law, program
or policy on women.
It is clear from the advice we received during the hearings that
the government did not do a thorough gender analysis of Bill
C-11. Women continue to face a disproportionate impact as a
result of many provisions of the bill.
One of those provisions has to do with the ability to make
another claim after being turned down, regardless of whether
there are new circumstances. Women are often not in a position
to tell their whole story. The trauma they have experienced
cannot necessarily be communicated to their families for risk of
losing the family. They often cannot tell their whole story for
cultural reasons. They must sometimes live in silence after a
terrible and traumatic incident, with no recourse and no way of
getting the attention of officials to ensure that their situation
and the status of their family is recognized and that they are
able to find refuge in Canada.
It was clear to us from the outset that, especially in the case
of women, there had to be an opportunity to make a second claim.
There had to be a way for women to tell their stories when it was
appropriate and when provisions were made for keeping their
stories as private as possible. We have not addressed that
situation.
The government says it has made changes that make it a bit
better. Yes, there are a few things that make it a bit better.
However by and large we have not allowed for a genuine process
whereby refugees who cannot tell their whole story or who must
relive an ordeal are able to seek the attention of officials and
get refugee status in Canada.
To help refugees make their stay in Canada a productive one, it
is clear to us that the government must do more in terms of
sponsoring and assisting groups that care for and nurture refugee
families who come to Canada. There is an enormous number of
groups here which give all their volunteer time, energies and
resources to sponsoring refugees and refugee families from all
over the world.
In my constituency one that comes to mind is the North End
Sponsorship Team, otherwise known as NEST, a group that has
devoted the last 15 years to sponsoring some 60 refugees and
refugee families from four different continents. This
organization, made up of the Lutheran and United churches, is
prepared to take on high risk cases and refugees with large
families. It is prepared to do the work that other groups are
not always prepared to do, and its efforts need to be recognized
and supported.
In a province like Manitoba, were it not for the work of the
church community, private sponsorships and the provincial nominee
program of the provincial government, there would be no increase
in immigrants and refugees coming to our province.
1535
That indicates the failure of federal government policy and this
legislation to ensure we are able to continually attract
newcomers to every part of the country and to compete
internationally in attracting immigrants.
If we begin by addressing the fundamental issues of refugee
status, the right to make a second claim, adequate documents and
compliance with international covenants and agreements on
refugees and torture, we will have done a great service.
Unfortunately that is not the case as the bill stands.
I plead with members on all sides of the House, but mainly with
government members who have failed to get the message, to act as
soon as possible to address these concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is
the NDP immigration critic.
Now it is my turn to give my party's position at report stage of
Bill C-11, on Group No. 3, which includes Motions Nos. 9, 10 and
12.
[English]
It is a point of fact that the country is not a big Lethbridge,
a big Baie-Comeau, a big Hampton, New Brunswick, or even a big
Winnipeg. It is a multicultural, pluralistic society that we
have been able to build together and garner collectively as one
of the most fabulous places to live. The country we have been
able to build reflects values that all Canadians share quite
dearly.
We are a country that relies heavily on immigration, values
human rights and is one of four principal countries that receives
convention refugees. The bill does not reflect the objectives or
values that Canadians share with respect to immigration.
We have heard Liberal government members give testimony before
Canadians across the country about alterations that were required
with respect to this flawed bill. However when it came to the
clause by clause stage we were only able to garner modest
augmentations to the bill instead of making it a pioneering piece
of legislation of which we could be proud.
As a lawyer I know that the House has probably heard that the
Canadian Bar Association has difficulty with a number of issues
with respect to the legislation. It is not only the Canadian Bar
Association. Liberal colleagues, along with all four opposition
parties, have a problem with the bill as well.
The party of Pearson, Trudeau and Wilfrid Laurier now seems to
be the most reticent to protect the rights of refugees and
immigrants. I will quote from the immigration committee chair,
the hon. member for London North Centre, when he stated “It is
lucky that I do not have to vote”. Referring to the opposition,
he said “When they start sounding more Liberal than we do, I get
concerned”.
The chair had a very open approach at the committee level. He
was very encouraging with respect to opposition members and we
were able to earn some improvements. However it is not a
pioneering bill. That is why it is being panned in urban Canada
in particular, which for the most part has been the great
reservoir for new Canadians. That is a fact. That is what we
must live with when we pass a bill that is not pioneering.
1540
I will speak to a couple of the amendments before us that would
augment that aspect. The Progressive Conservative Party will
support the Bloc motion de mon cher collègue de Laval Centre
which reads:
The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee
claimants at the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and
until a decision is made in respect of that claim.
The motion says that refugee claimants whose claims have not
been processed would have social and medical coverage while they
await a decision.
Essentially the amendment by the hon. member for Laval Centre
advocates that we not let these people live in limbo in
perpetuity. We must address the issue, particularly when there
are children and vulnerable populations involved or if someone is
sick and a potential refugee. It is a very noble gesture that my
colleague in the Bloc has put forward.
I will skip to the 12th motion, also put forward by the Bloc. By
adding the word maximum, the motion would clarify the
imprisonment threshold for the potential removal of a permanent
resident. Some may call this a housekeeping issue but it would
give us an opportunity to raise the fact that the government is
stripping the appeal rights of permanent residents which, as I
said before, is un-Liberal, un-Canadian and draconian. Other
individuals have used that terminology before I did as a member
of the Progressive Conservative Party.
There are two other motions in this group to which I will refer,
in particular Motion No. 10. I thank my friend and colleague
from Winnipeg, the NDP critic on immigration. I also pay tribute
to the member for Winnipeg South Centre who was the catalyst for
us to improve the second appeal issue.
Members know as I do that the protection of refugee rights is
the protection of human rights. If we get it wrong people could
die. If we get it wrong people could be persecuted or face
injury. That is why it is imperative that we get it right.
Approximately 25% of appeals granted to refugees are approved.
That is because we do not get it right the first time. There is
a massive envelope that we miss the first time around. Although
different, it is the same issue. We want to add an amendment
which members on both sides of the House supported. We got
almost a semi-compromise amendment from the member for Winnipeg
South Centre who helped the NDP critic, the Bloc critic and
myself. I am quite sure the critic for the Canadian Alliance was
on board for the motion as well.
We are not saying that we would have a new claim for all
refugees on a second appeal. It would only be if the relevant
circumstances of the claimant had changed since the previous
determination or if specific circumstances had prevented part of
the evidence from being presented during a previous
determination.
That is the issue. Let us suppose a person comes to Canada and
is granted refugee status because his or her country of origin is
at war. The person goes home and, a few years later, because of
the country's volatility, the situation changes. Under existing
legislation that person would not have the right to a second
claim in his or her lifetime. That is a fact. That is what is
wrong and that is what we are trying to fix.
1545
I will try to dovetail the remarks of my NDP colleague who had
the advantage of going before me. This amendment is very
anti-woman as well. In this circumstance it could be possible
that there would be reasons for women who had been persecuted or
sexually assaulted not wanting to bring forth that evidence on
their first appeal. Only later would that information came to
fruition. That is an example where the evidence was not deduced
at that time. That person should have the right to a second
appeal as well.
Bill C-11 could have been a good bill. It is framework
legislation that we got wrong. We are not protecting refugees
from persecution and possible death and injury. That is why the
Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting it,
however, I ask all members to support that motion in particular.
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am happy to see the government is
doing broad based consultations on various immigrant issues. I
invite the federal government in the course of these
consultations to discuss with the provinces the issue of
expansion of family class to include brothers and sisters.
Second, with regard to the recognition and accreditation of an
immigrant's professional degree, this issue falls under
provincial jurisdiction. This is why I encourage the provinces
to come together and create a national standard, making the
degree recognition standard across the country. Only with a
national standard on degree accreditation can skilled and
hardworking immigrants be attracted to Canada and succeed.
Finally, in regard to sponsorship relationships that fall apart
as a result of divorce, there are many cases and circumstances
when a couple's marriage ends in divorce because of abuse of
false immigration conditions. I encourage the government to
ensure that Bill C-11 has conditions to protect the vulnerable,
and encourage those individuals who find themselves in this type
of situation to automatically report the matter to the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration so that a proper investigation can
be launched immediately.
The government eliminated the landing fee on refugees. I ask
the government to consider eliminating the landing fee on all new
immigrants.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am glad to add our remarks to this set of amendments regarding
Bill C-11. I understand that these amendments deal specifically
with refugee issues.
I am happy to take part in this debate for the simple
reason that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is the part of Winnipeg
where most people who are deemed as refugees or most newcomers
seem to settle. The core area or downtown area of Winnipeg seems
to be the place where they can find affordable housing and access
to reasonable settlement services that help them get their start
in Canada.
I am proud Canada plays an active role around the world in
providing safe refuge to those who seek sanctuary, whether they
have to flee religious persecution, political persecution or
whatever their reason may be. There is a certain spirit of
generosity I believe that most Canadians share in reaching out to
those who need the safe sanctuary of Canada.
Other speakers have mentioned groups that are playing a
particularly active role which enables these people to leave
their troubled homelands and to come to Canada.
1550
Certainly there are church groups within my riding that work day
and night to try to sponsor refugees and refugee families. They
do fundraising, but their activism does not stop in terms of
financial contributions. They also do a lot of follow through.
They actually stay with the refugee or refugee family to help
them to break into mainstream Canadian culture, to get them over
the hurdles and barriers which exist when newcomers come to
Canada, to help them find work and get fully integrated. Some of
the church groups in Winnipeg do a wonderful job.
I want to make special mention of an organization. It is the
Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council found on Edmonton Street
in my riding. I work closely with this organization because it
is charged with the responsibility of administering the
settlement services that are offered to refugees in Winnipeg. I
cannot say enough about the dedication of these individuals. The
people there work in conditions that we would all find very
taxing. It is an under-resourced organization. I believe it
does an awful lot with very little. Its budget has been cut back
in recent years in terms of stable core funding, of which we have
been very critical.
We believe that we are getting incredibly good value for our
dollar by adequate funding to organizations like this because
they do so much to alleviate the load from the department
officials who would otherwise have to deliver and administer
these settlement services. I would speak very forcefully of the
restoration of levels of funding to organizations like the
Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council.
They were very vocal and active through Bill C-31 and Bill C-11
in pointing out some of the shortcomings of those bills or
putting forth very solid recommendations on how these bills could
be improved, not just in the refugee area, but also in areas of
family sponsorship.
Even though I know we are on the subject of refugees right now,
I want to make a point that I did not get a chance to make under
earlier motions. Using the low income cutoff for family
sponsorship is fundamentally wrong. It is a flawed way of
putting a line in the sand. It does not do the city of Winnipeg
any service because large cities like it are lumped into the same
category. In other words, if people want to sponsor one of their
family members, they have to be at a certain level of family
income to undertake that sponsorship.
The family income arrived at is the same in Winnipeg as it is in
Toronto, Vancouver or other major cities. I could demonstrate
quite easily that the cost of living is a great deal lower in the
city of Winnipeg. The cost of housing is about one-quarter of
what it is in the city of Toronto. We should not be held to the
same standard when it comes to the reunification of families or
the sponsorship of families.
Some might think that failed sponsorships put some sort of
burden on municipalities in terms of social welfare costs. I can
provide some figures from the Manitoba Immigration Interfaith
Council. Out of 13,700 welfare claimants in the city of
Winnipeg, only 11 of those were actually the result of failed
family sponsorships in immigrations. Eleven out of 13,000 is not
an undue burden on our city. Those who think that could come
about are simply not working with the actual facts.
Another group that has been very active in the advocacy for
refugees is of course the Canadian Council for Refugees. They
came before the committee for Bill C-31 and again for Bill C-11
with some very thoughtful recommendations on how the bill could
be more fair in its treatment of the refugee determination and
admissibility of permanent residents. I would encourage
government to revisit the brief from the Canadian Council for
Refugees.
I do not think there is a single organization in this country
that is as authoritative on this issue or has worked as
diligently to try and develop standards for managing the refugee
influx into this country.
1555
It was one of the council's recommendations that brought in the
whole subject of gender analysis and how necessary it was that we
use that screen for any legislation introduced by parliament. I
am very glad the member for Winnipeg North Centre managed to
convince the committee that we needed to undertake a
comprehensive gender analysis in legislation of this type.
An example which was pointed out was the need to allow women a
second hearing in terms of being turned down as a refugee.
Sometimes the circumstances that qualify them as a refugee are
not easy for them to make public. In the initial application
some information may be held back for any number of cultural
reasons or personal safety reasons. If this information needs to
be heard or needs to be introduced, it would have to be
introduced at a second refugee hearing. That is being
contemplated now through the hard work of those of the committee.
I want to thank the Canadian Council for Refugees for being the
one to really push that issue and the members of the committee
for seeing fit to make that one of the priorities.
Another gender issue I would like to point out also has to do
with the family reunification. As we do this comprehensive
gender analysis I hope this comes forward. In terms of
sponsoring other family members women are disadvantaged in that
regard as well. Given that there is this income threshold by
virtue of which a person is allowed to sponsor or not sponsor
another family member, given that women earn only 66% of what men
do on average across the country, women or households led by
women are less able to sponsor family members than households
where the male is the bread winner.
I would suggest this is another amendment that needs to be
introduced in the interests of fairness. In the interest of
people's chartered rights, this issue needs to be addressed. I
would hope the gender analysis that is undertaken is sensitive to
that issue now that we have put it on the record.
Another organization that has been influential in advocating on
behalf of refugees is the Maytree Foundation in Toronto. The
organization has put forward some of the best prepared material
on the subject. It was satisfied that there was some recognition
of the issues it raised.
The foundation advises that that Bill C-11 includes some
positive, but also some negative measures relating to refugee
protection in Canada. It speaks to the issue of identity
documents. There are times when personal documentation is
extremely difficult to access when people flee their homeland
under persecution, often in the dead of night. There are places
in the world that if refugees need the documents we demand they
have to make application for those documents. Then they become
flight suspects. When prospective refugees make application to
get their marriage licence or birth certificate from the city
hall or agency, the spotlight shines on them and they may in fact
not be able to get them.
I am honoured to raise the names of the organizations of the
Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council in Winnipeg, the Maytree
Foundation, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the
contributions they have made.
An hon. member: Here comes trouble.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): There is not
trouble, Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition might
think.
An hon. member: There is going to be though.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: There might be. One never knows.
I want to address the issue around refugees, which my hon.
friend recently talked about.
One change to Bill C-11 that is really important from the
standpoint of refugees is the one year window of opportunity that
they will have to sponsor family once they have been accepted as
a convention refugee.
1600
That opportunity has not existed in the past. This is contrary
to some of the media articles, notably the one by Diane Francis,
whom my colleague from Scarborough East greatly admires, in which
she stated that all the people who come here as refugees cheat
the system and go on welfare, which is what my friend from
Winnipeg was saying. The article creates the image that these
people are a burden on the taxpayer, whether it be at the
municipal or federal levels. I agree that statistics will be
available to show that is simply not true. It is an image put
forward by some of the more extreme right wingers, both in
political circles and in the media, which is most unfortunate.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who come here and
apply for refugee status are people who have some stress in their
lives. They are either fleeing persecution, torture or possible
death. Many of them come from very unstable countries with a
military presence.
There will of course be people who try to abuse the system and
that is one of the things we are trying to address with the
changes in Bill C-11. However for people to suggest that all
refugees are in that category is profoundly unfair and it creates
a stereotype that is not true.
I have travelled with the immigration minister to our ports
overseas to visit with immigration staff and to go to refugee
camps. Unfortunately the member from the official opposition has
declined to attend, for whatever reason. It is an educational
experience to see the situations in Africa, Moscow and other
parts of the world where there are terrible economic problems.
One example that will probably stay with me the rest of my life
is when I was in Nairobi, Kenya. I sat in on interviews with
people who were applying to come to Canada. Through a
translator, one woman told a story of how she and her husband
were dragged out of their bed in the middle of the night to the
front yard where her husband was shot and killed. Her teenage
son ran to help his father and he was also shot and killed. A
third boy came out and he was put in the back of a truck. She
was thrown into the truck and then put in prison for two months
where she was gang raped every day by seven guards. To this day
she has yet to see the son who was taken away. She does not know
if he is alive or dead, being tortured, in a work camp or perhaps
sold into slavery. She has no way of finding out what happened
to him. While this woman was being tortured and raped in prison
for two months, her three children, who were under the age of 10,
were left to fend for themselves.
This is a reality that many of these people are facing. As
Canadians, we need to understand the terrible suffering and
brutality that is going on in the world. As Canadians, we need
to find a way to open our doors to these people so we can help
them.
This woman was applying for refugee status in Canada. I will
never forget the moment when the immigration officer asked the
woman's 11 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grew
up. Through an interpreter, she said that she wanted to be an
airline pilot. The closest these people would be to an airplane
would be 10,000 feet as it passed over them while they were
wandering in the desert.
1605
If that young 11 year old girl could arrive in Canada, go to
school and have the opportunity for a life, it is not beyond the
realm of possibility that she may one day be flying MPs between
Toronto and Ottawa on a regular basis. Who knows? It is not
beyond the realm of possibility because this is Canada and that
is what the bill is about.
The bill is about opening up our doors to people throughout the
world who need the compassion, the opportunity, the caring and
the help that we as Canadians can provide.
My old friend, Johnny Barker of the United Steelworkers in Sault
Ste. Marie, used to say “Don't let your bleeding heart run away
with your bloody head”. The point of that is, of course we have
these terrible problems throughout the world but does that mean
that we should just let our hearts bleed or should we put in
place some realistic, achievable goals for trying to help the
world's refugee population? If we can once and for all close the
back door to the illegals who do abuse our system and our
generosity, then we will be able to open the door to people like
the lady I met in Nairobi and her daughters.
What I find particularly troubling is that so much of the focus
of the debate around Bill C-11, not from the speaker just before
me but from the critics for the other parties, is why we are
taking away appeal rights for convicted criminals. It is
difficult to understand why we are worried about people who have
been convicted of a crime that comes with a 10 year sentence and
who receive at least two years of actual sentence time as a
result of that conviction. They have a right to appeal that
through the criminal justice system, to have that appeal turned
down, to spend two years in jail and then we have the opportunity
as a country to deport these people. There was anguish in
committee. Members opposite said that it was awful to treat
people like that?
We are not talking about refugees. We are talking about people
who are landed immigrants in this country, not Canadian citizens,
who commit a serious crime.
Madam Speaker, as a lawyer you would know that to get a two year
sentence in this country one has to do something pretty serious
in the criminal justice system. We are not talking about minor
felons here, we are talking about serious problems.
Why the opposition continues to foster the idea that somehow we
should provide greater rights and protection for convicted
criminals or potential terrorists in this country is truly
mind-boggling. It has been an enormous exercise in frustration
to listen to the members opposite put forward that kind of
argument. I can only think that they do it because they are
opposing for the sake of opposing instead of realizing that the
aims in Bill C-11 and the aims of the minister are to deal
strongly and forcefully with people who would abuse our system,
commit crimes and do things against our society. We can deport
them and once and for all not allow them to re-offend.
The bill would bring integrity to the immigration and refugee
system in the country. I hope members opposite will see fit to
support it.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the group of motions
which would amend the refugee portion of the new immigration
bill.
1610
I have to say that I agree a lot with what the member from the
governing party said earlier. However one thing I have found is
that what the government says and what is in its legislation is
often completely different, and that is the case with the
legislation today.
I think everyone would agree that what Canada wants to do with
our immigration and refugee system is to make the immigration
system work better than it does now for people who we want to
attract to this country. Our system has failed miserably in that
regard and the changes in the legislation will not fix that up.
I think most Canadians would agree that, when it comes to the
refugee system, changes need to be made that would not only allow
genuine refugees to be accepted in this country but that we would
be able to offer refuge to genuine refugees in other parts of the
world living in camps, sometimes for years and years, and those
who are identified by the United Nations as genuine refugees.
The system we have now will not do that and the new legislation
will not fix it. A very high percentage of people who have been
accepted as refugees right now are not in fact refugees by the
United Nations' definition or by this government's own definition
which is broader than the United Nations' definition.
Canadians also want a much faster process in terms of reuniting
families. When someone has been accepted to this country as a
refugee or through the independent immigrant stream and they have
dependants, a spouse, parents or grandparents, when they want to
reunite their families our system fails miserably in a number
of cases. Every member of parliament knows about that because we
have cases in our offices.
In the case of a family reunification, which one would think
would take less than a year certainly, sometimes it is three to
four years later and the accepted refugee is still trying to be
reunited with family members. That is not Canadians want.
I suggest that there are not many
in the House who would support anything much different.
I think that is widely supported by members from all political
parties.
Here we are today at report stage of Bill C-11 talking about the
changes to the refugee system. What is in the bill now before
these amendments certainly will make our refugee system work
better in terms of accepting genuine refugees and keeping out
those who are not genuine refugees. The system that is meant to
work for those who are not genuine refugees is in the other part
of the bill dealing with immigration.
The amendments, quite frankly, will not improve the bill enough
to make it good legislation, although some would certainly help
in that regard. It is pretty sad, after talking about this new
bill, that it is the government's second or third attempt at it.
It has been years now since the government brought forth its
first effort to reform the Immigration Act. The legislation,
which I will speak to tomorrow in a more general way, or whenever
it comes back to the House for third reading, will not fix the
immigration system.
I would like to say as well that the auditor general made
something very clear in his last report and in the report 10
years ago when he said that even if the legislation were fixed to
make it a good act that it would not solve the problems this
government has in immigration.
It would not fix it because many of the problems are in
administration and this act would not change that administration.
1615
That is the other thing I think Canadians should not forget.
Even if this were a good piece of legislation that would bring
forth a brand new act, even if that were the case, which it is
not for the reasons I have outlined already, it still would not
fix the problems in our immigration and refugee system because
administration is a big part of the problem and this would do
nothing to help improve administration.
Here we are after all these years, about four years since the
government first brought forth the legislation, and the
government's own member, the speaker before me, is standing and
explaining what he wants from the piece of legislation. He knows
in his heart that the bill clearly does not give what he wants in
a new immigration act.
Here we are, all these years later, facing a situation where, if
this legislation is to pass, which I hope it does not, we will be
stuck with an immigration act that will not work for Canadians.
It will not work for genuine refugees. It will not work for
people who we desperately need in this country and who come
through the independent categories. It will not work for family
reunification in cases where we are genuinely talking about
family reunification.
What has this four years done? What good has it brought? What
would the new act do to help Canadians? In certain narrow areas
it would make things better. In a broad way it would make things
worse. While some of the amendments in this grouping would help
if they were passed, we know that the government will pass only
what it wants. We know that because that is the way things work
around here. Should it pass—it has failed before—we will end
up with a bill, after all of this, that just simply will not do
what it is intended to do.
I would encourage Canadians to listen to members of the
governing party when they are talking about what they want from
an immigration system and to compare that to what the new act
would deliver should this legislation pass. They will find the
two just do not match whatsoever. What that means is that
government members themselves know that this piece of legislation
will not deliver what the government says it should deliver. It
certainly will not deliver what the opposition says it should
deliver.
I know my time is almost up so I will just leave my comments at
that. I look forward to speaking on third reading whenever that
may come up. I would not be at all disappointed if it never
comes up.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak very briefly on the
amendment put forward by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal, Motion
No. 10. I first want to thank him for his kind words about my
role in committee. I also would like to recognize his tenacity
in putting forward an amendment that did not pass through
committee and which he feels very strongly about.
I do not think there were any members of the committee who sat
through the 154 presentations from Canadians across the country
who were not gripped by the stories of many who have worked and
fought hard to come to this country and bring their families and
their relatives to this country. I do not think there were many
of us there who were not overwhelmed with admiration for the
commitment, the nobility, in a sense, and the energy of those
Canadians who worked on their behalf. It was admirable. It was
what one would hope of one's citizens and one's neighbours as
active participants in the activities of the country.
I would like to speak to the issue of Motion No. 10 in
particular.
The member put forward this motion in committee. The intent of
the government's position is simply to prevent abuse of the
system by persons who use the refugee determination system as a
means of gaining access to Canada.
1620
As we listened to the many who came before the committee, I do
not think there was a member of the committee who was not touched
by the stories, particularly of women who, when they appeared
before their refugee hearings, either misinformed those present
or held back information about their circumstances and their
claim for refugee protection because of shame, cultural
differences, historic issues or concern in terms of what it would
do within their own families.
Accordingly the committee, in its wisdom, put forward a
recommendation and an attempt to deal with this matter through
the pre-removal risk assessment, in clause 113 of the bill,
whereby people in these circumstances can come forward a second
time to the PRRA to bring forward information that they withheld
for whatever reason earlier in their refugee hearing, have it
considered. It could allow them to gain access as a refugee to
the country.
Therefore I think it is important to acknowledge that the issue
the member is trying to address in Motion No. 10 has been
addressed. He would like to bring it forward in a broader way,
but to do so would simply take us back to the revolving door
aspect that we dealt with regarding refugees prior to the bill
coming into effect.
Before I resume my seat I would like to acknowledge that the
member for Winnipeg Centre quite rightly identified his area as
having large numbers of immigrants and refugees. My riding of
Winnipeg South Centre has large numbers as well, perhaps not to
the same extent as his riding but large numbers nonetheless. In
his acknowledgement of the activities of associations in
Manitoba, I did not hear the member acknowledge the activities of
the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, an organization that has
historically taken the lead in Manitoba and has expanded its
services over the years to meet the needs of an evolving
community. Without an acknowledgement of that organization, we
would be shortchanging the many men and women in that community.
Again on the issue of Motion No. 10, I think the matters that
the member is trying to address in this motion have in fact been
addressed in clause 113. People should not be denied access to
Canada as refugees because they are afraid to tell their stories.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is once again a pleasure to rise on the grouping of three of
the amendments that have been put forward on Bill C-11. I would
like to again congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal, who has
put his heart and soul into this piece of legislation, Bill C-11,
and who has in Group No. 3 one of the amendments we are talking
about today.
When the member for Mississauga West talked about his particular
issues on Bill C-11, he did not quite focus on the amendments in
Group No. 3. He talked about other benefits of the legislation.
However, he should have been here when we talked about the first
and second groupings of the amendments. He probably could have
talked more passionately and certainly more knowledgeably to
those amendments instead of just talking to the bill in general.
However, on Group No. 3 the member for Fundy—Royal has put
forward Motion No. 10. I believe it was the member for
Mississauga West who tried to get across to members of the House
the importance and the urgency of being able to deal with the
status of a refugee who is coming to our shores.
1625
We Canadians too often take for granted what it is that we have
in this great country of ours. Sometimes we do not think of the
challenges this globe presents to the majority of people away
from our own country. It was mentioned that in refugee camps all
around this globe there are people who legitimately have fear and
concern for their own safety and the safety of their children,
their spouses and their families. It is those people we are
focusing on in this grouping of amendments.
When people make application as refugees in this country, there
are some who do so illegitimately and there are systems in place
to ferret out those applications, to certainly not allow in those
who are not persecuted and do not have fear for their own lives
and the lives of their families in their country of origin. In
some cases mistakes are made and some get through the process.
For the most part, as was mentioned by the member for Winnipeg
Centre, the people who do come to our shores and apply as
refugees do so legitimately. As was mentioned, there are some
examples, but very few examples, of those who try to circumvent
the system. That is what we are talking about here: legitimate
refugees coming forward to this country, not only to attempt get
refugee status, landed status, but ultimately to get citizenship
status in our country.
We talked earlier about how the majority of the refugees who
come to our shores and to this country do, through the process,
become contributing members to this society. These refugees do
contribute, not only to our social systems but to our economic
systems. In fact, we as a country depend not only on the
immigration side of this piece of legislation but also on the
refugee side for the people who come into this country and become
Canadian citizens and exist thus far.
I would read a quote to the House. It simply says “A truly
humanitarian country is judged not by how it treats the most
privileged, but rather on how it protects the disadvantaged.
Immigrants and refugees are among the most marginalized and the
least powerful by virtue of their status and the circumstances
upon which they arrived in this country”. Truer words could not
be spoken.
They are the people for whom we in the House must put together a
piece of legislation that will protect them. We must protect not
only the immigrants who apply but also the refugees.
There are three amendments in this grouping, two from the Bloc.
The first one from the Bloc, Motion No. 9, would add new clause
95.1 after clause 95, which deals with the conferral of refugee
protection. This new clause states:
The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee
claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and
until a decision is made in respect of that claim.
I said earlier that there are refugees leaving their country in
circumstances that unfortunately we as Canadians cannot even
relate to. They are being persecuted and their families are
being persecuted. It could be a matter of life and death, so
when they come to our country they do not necessarily have all
the necessary papers. They do not necessarily have all the
identification. They do not have all the paper trail that
Canadians would normally take for granted. They do not have the
birth certificate, the driver's licence, the medical insurance
card. They are coming to our country with nothing except
themselves and their families, looking for a place that they can
call home and that they can contribute to.
When they come here, as the Bloc has identified, when they do
not have all of these documents, they sometimes find themselves
in limbo. It is hard to be able to find out who they are in this
big, wonderful world of ours and where they are coming from.
We have to see whether they have legitimate refugee status.
1630
In the meantime, the Bloc has suggested that after the 90th day
the department should be responsible for the social and medical
needs of a refugee. That is laudable and certainly can be
supported by our party. Given the opportunity to think about
this logically, it would also mean that the government could say
that there is now some urgency to work toward a better timeline
and timeframe to ensure that these applications are dealt with in
a timely fashion. Our party will be supporting Motion No. 9.
Motion No. 12, as I understand it, is a technical motion. It
simply adds the word “maximum” to the clause. We will be
supporting Motion No. 12.
In Group No. 3, the motion that speaks to the bill is Motion No.
10, which was put forward by the member for Fundy—Royal. There
were a couple of issues with respect to Motion No. 10. The
amendment would refer a claim to the refugee protection division.
It would not necessarily be done in all cases but where there was
a new determination.
However, there are two caveats: First, where the relevant
circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous
determination, and that is very important, the claim could then
be referred to the refugee protection division for a new
determination; and second, where specific circumstances prevented
part of the evidence from being presented during a previous
determination. We have talked briefly about that.
Let us put ourselves in the position of a refugee claimant who
might experience problems with language, education not quite at
acceptable levels, or a fear of cultural differences, authority
and bureaucrats. I do not believe there is anyone here who does
not fear bureaucrats but when we put ourselves in the position of
a refugee claimant this is all very difficult to comprehend.
There are a number of things that could happen. There could
simply be an omission of fact from the claimant because of the
circumstance itself and how he or she deals with that kind of
stress and pressure.
There is also the cultural issue, especially when a husband,
wife and family make an application. There may be information
that any one family member may not wish to bring out and put
forward to an adjudicator for any number of reasons. It could
have been a circumstance that happened previously that the wife
may not want the husband to know about. These things do happen.
In those cases it is necessary to allow for a new determination.
The last issue which the amendment deals and which I find is
only logical is the fact that right now the law says there can
only be one refugee claim per lifetime. If people come to our
country and are granted refugee status, we believe they should
have the opportunity to go back to their own country at some
point in time. If they do so and find that the circumstances
have exacerbated the problems, they cannot come back to this
country and make a second claim. The amendment would stop that.
I congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal for all his work on
this particular file. I know we will have an opportunity to
speak to that at third reading.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to this group of amendments
and, in particular, to recognize the contributions, both in
committee and in the House, made to advancing the support for
defending the interests of refugees in Canada.
1635
These individuals have escaped great strife, faced personal
risk, tremendous loss, and in many cases bloodshed and some of
the worst atrocities imaginable to those of us in our very safe
environment in Canada. They seek refuge and the safety of a
place where they can regroup, protect their families, work to
develop futures in Canada or potentially at some point to return
to their homelands.
I need not remind anyone in the House that what they return to
is sometimes devastating. If we look at the former Yugoslavia,
over half the homes were destroyed as a result of efforts at
ethnic cleansing. Effectively all records such as birth records
and property deeds, some of which had been held by the same
families for generations, were gone. For all intents and
purposes many of the refugees who come here have no other choice
because they have been forced out of their homelands. They
actually lose every sense of attachment to their heritage,
birthplace and home country.
We need to consider some of the hardships many of these
individuals endured prior to coming here when we design
legislation and to ensure that we are vigilant in defending what
has been a principle of Canadian immigration policy for some
time: protection of legitimate refugees, recognition of their
rights and support for them during such difficult times.
That is what the PC amendment proposed by my colleague from
Fundy—Royal seeks to do. I find it wrong headed that a
government that is so soft on many groups in society, that is so
soft on crime and criminals, that balks at strengthening or
proposing more effective approaches to young offenders, that
refuses to pursue issues of law and order more aggressively, is
also a government that seems to be disproportionately hard on
legitimate refugees. It is inconsistent with the principles that
have guided Canadian refugee and immigration policies for so
long.
I understand why members of the House on all sides, including
some members on the government's side, have significant
reservations about the government's direction in this regard. We
must avoid public policy reinforcing some of the stereotypes
which to such a degree impede the progress and security of
refugees in Canada.
It is very easy in this place when we create two tiers of rights
for people to feed what would be a self-fulfilling prophecy by
further hurting people who have been hurt so badly by
circumstances that they did not bring upon themselves. Hands
were dealt to them which have been unimaginatively bad. With
some of the circumstances people have had to deal with in their
home countries, to come to Canada and not have every level of
protection, security and equality is offensive.
1640
When we consider that many of these people are escaping some of
the most egregious examples of inequality, prejudice, bloodshed
and ethnic cleansing, it sets a very bad example for the
government to fail to provide every level of protection, support
and security in Canada. We are a country that has been largely
built by people who have chosen this place as their home. In
some cases this was by choice and in other cases it was in
situations of duress and great struggle for freedom and security
for themselves and their families.
I hope government members will be supportive of some of our
amendments in this group. Some of the Bloc amendments also
deserve consideration in the same regard.
I commend the hon. member for Fundy—Royal who because of his
erudite discourse in the House is frequently confused with me.
However I commend him once again for bringing a great level of
commitment to good public policy and of vigilance on behalf of
the huddled masses, or refugees who seek to become Canadians, to
ensure that their interests are protected when the government
fails to do so in the legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on
Motion No. 9 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare Motion No. 12
carried.
1645
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement in
the House to defer the vote until later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to
amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred.
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1650
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Joe Jordan: Madam Speaker, I ask that we suspend the
sitting to the call of the Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the wish of the
House to suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.51 p.m.)
1830
[Translation]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TAX ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to order passed
Thursday, May 31, 2001, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the amendment pertaining to
the opposition motion.
Call in the members.
1900
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 160
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1905
The next question is on the main motion.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent from all parties that the vote on the previous
motion be applied to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 160
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[English]
PATENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the concurrence motion on Bill
S-17.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent in the House that those who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on this motion, with
Liberals voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members present vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP who are present
are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I wish not to have my vote
recorded on this particular motion.
Mrs. Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote no to the
motion.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have my name
stricken from the list of those who voted in favour of the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 217
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Godin
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Skelton
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis
– 13
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the concurrence motion on Bill
S-16.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members present vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, for greater clarity I want
to ensure that I was recorded as voting with the government on
this bill, as well as subsequent bills.
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 232
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-11.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on this motion, with the Liberal
members voting yes, with the exception of the member for
Trinity—Spadina who I understand has left the Chamber.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members present vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
yes on this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the PC Party
vote yes to the motion.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the
Chamber enjoying your words of wisdom. I would like to be noted
as having voted with the government on all the previous motions.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 232
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed
in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Alliance members
present will vote yes to all the motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote
yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes to
the motion.
1915
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that the vote just taken on Motion No.
2 be applied to the following: Motions Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous
motions be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House
with the Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance members
present will vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP are
voting yes to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the PC members will vote
in favour of the motion.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I am voting in favour of the motion,
Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Gallant
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 62
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 170
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent in the House that the members recorded as voting on
the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House with the Liberal members voting yes, with the
exception of the member for Kitchener—Waterloo voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance members
present will vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
will be voting against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will be
voting against this motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote against the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
| Peschisolido
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 84
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1920
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the concurrence motion on Bill
C-6.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the
House would give its consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members being recorded as voting
yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members present vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will vote no to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I just wish to point out that our
colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has had to be absent for
this vote and the one before it.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dubé
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Guay
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 34
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Beaumier
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lincoln
| Manley
|
Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Perron
|
Plamondon
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Serré
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
It being 7.23 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.23 p.m.)