37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 075
CONTENTS
Friday, June 8, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Third reading
|
| Hon. Robert Thibault |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1010
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1030
1035
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1040
1045
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1050
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1055
1100
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| KIDNEY DISEASE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| SENIOR CITIZENS
|
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| ITALIAN RELAY TEAM
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1105
| MARK STAROWICZ
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| EDMONTON, ALBERTA
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| INFRASTRUCTURES
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| KABYLIA
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1110
| LABOUR DISPUTES
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| CENTRE DE LA NATURE DE LAVAL
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| BEVERLEE BELL
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| ORPHAN CLAUSES
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1115
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| MUSEUMS
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1120
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1125
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1130
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
1135
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1140
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1145
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| HARBOURS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1150
| Hon. David Anderson |
| SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1155
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FOREIGN AID
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1200
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| CANADIAN AIRLINES
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-375. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1210
| NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-376. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT
|
| Bill C-377. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-378. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-379. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-380. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| MAXIMUM SPEED CONTROL DEVICE ACT
|
| Bill C-381. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1215
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-382. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-383. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CHILDREN IN LAW ACT
|
| Bill C-384. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CUSTOMS ACT
|
| Bill S-23. First reading
|
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1220
| Canada Post
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Third reading
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
1225
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motions Nos. 1 and 2
|
1230
1235
| Mr. John Maloney |
1240
1245
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1250
1255
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1300
1305
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1310
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6
|
1315
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1320
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1325
1330
| Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1350
1355
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1400
1405
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
1415
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1420
1425
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 075
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 8, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Robert Thibault (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm
Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to begin third reading debate today with regard to Bill C-25,
which amends the Farm Credit Corporation Act of 1993. These
amendments would enable Farm Credit Corporation to continue its
tradition of anticipating the changing needs of agriculture with
innovative products and services. The main focus of the FCC
remains the same: to save and work with Canadian farm families.
Canadian farmers are well known for their resourcefulness,
flexibility and determination to succeed in the long term. They
need a financial institution that shows the same flexibility and
commitment to change with their evolving needs.
For 41 years Farm Credit Corporation has been the national
financial institution that has consistently identified emerging
needs, specifically, to work with and save Canadian family farms
and farm families as well as to introduce needed services to
address the gaps wherever they are in agriculture.
These new amendments would allow FCC to continue this tradition.
The federal government has created these amendments to ensure the
continued relevancy of the act. It is very relevant to all of
these family farms. After review by the standing committee, the
amendments remain unchanged. I will briefly review the major
amendments.
The first amendment would change the name of Farm Credit
Corporation to farm credit Canada. In French it would change
from Société du crédit agricole to Financement agricole Canada.
This change reflects the corporation's mandate to serve rural
Canada as a federal crown. Adding the word Canada to the
corporation's name also demonstrates the federal government's
ongoing commitment to rural Canadians.
Another key amendment would allow FCC to offer business services
to producers either directly or through partnerships. Producers
would have access to the broad range of business services they
need to succeed in a competitive environment. The new
legislation would enable FCC to offer equity financing to
producers and farm related businesses. Many farming and farm
related operations need access to equity as well as term
financing. In fact, rural communities cannot develop local value
added agricultural industries without venture and equity capital.
An important amendment to the act would allow FCC to provide
financial services to farm related businesses that benefit
agriculture. Currently the corporation can lend only to
businesses that are majority farmer owned. By extending services
to more farm related businesses, FCC would help rural economies
grow and would create jobs in rural communities. These are the
key amendments directly impacting producers and farm related
business.
Before beginning the amendments process, I asked FCC to consult
the industry it serves, and I know the minister worked with it
too. It is amazing, but the corporation really did its work. It
met with more than 100 agricultural and financial industry groups
last year to get their input. It met with more than 400 people
to talk about what the bill would deliver to Canadian farm and
farm families.
In general, the agricultural groups consulted were very
supportive of the proposed changes. However, some producer
organizations expressed the concern that FCC should continue to
concentrate on serving the needs of producers. As a result, we
created an amendment specifically to address this concern. The
amendment states that the primary producers would continue to be
the main focus of FCC's activities. Again, we consulted with
producer groups in developing this amendment.
The corporation has a long tradition of consulting the
agricultural industry to identify the needs. When the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture told FCC that beginning farmers need
more financial options, FCC listened. In 1998 it introduced
agri-start loans to help young farm families build successful
farming operations. The lending volume in the past few years
tells us that agri-start addresses a real and compelling need.
Since it was first introduced agri-start has generated almost
1,300 loans at a value of $134 million.
In 1999, a hog producer near Brandon, Manitoba came to FCC with
an idea and FCC listened. Why not offer a lending product that
allows hog producers flexible payment options so they can make it
through the price downturns in the industry that exist today? To
address this identified need, FCC designed the flexi-hog loan
last spring. Since then, lending for this loan has amounted to
$20 million.
1010
In the year 2000, many Quebec producers signed up for a
provincial subsidy program to help them adapt their waste
management facilities to meet current environmental standards.
FCC created the enviro-loan, which enables producers to make the
upgrades and pay off the loan when they receive the subsidy at
the end of the project. The enviro-loan is now available across
Canada.
At FCC innovation is not confined to products and services. FCC
is at the forefront of a growing movement in agriculture to enter
partnerships to give customers more comprehensive solutions.
In the past several years FCC has built a network of 27 partners
to offer more comprehensive financial packages to producers and
to farm related businesses. FCC works with agriculture based
businesses including input suppliers, livestock brokers and a
national network of equipment dealers. FCC partners with public
sector financial institutions such as the Business Development
Bank of Canada and the Alberta Financial Services Corporation.
The corporation also works with private sector institutions such
as credit unions and is very successful with this across the
country.
In March FCC announced an innovative partnership with private
and public sector organizations to help farmers with life cycle
planning. AgriSuccess is a joint initiative that offers seminars
and online information to help producers to address long term
planning issues. The initiative increases access to business
planning services throughout rural Canada.
The amendments we are discussing today would position FCC to
continue in its role as a catalyst and innovator. Through FCC,
producers and farm related businesses would be able to access the
range of services they require no matter where they live in rural
Canada.
FCC recognizes that the future of farming is linked to the
growth of the value added sector in agriculture. This new
legislation would position FCC to support the future growth of
this sector.
The spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship is alive and well
in agriculture today. What the industry requires is a financial
institution that understands the needs of agriculture and acts as
a partner to support future growth and success. Certainly, as
one of the farmers here in this Chamber is saying, part of this
success is due to the people who work for FCC in the more than
100 offices across the country. These people most often have
farm related backgrounds and are very close to their communities.
FCC has served that purpose for 41 years. These amendments
would help ensure that FCC continues to contribute relevant
solutions to agriculture for many years to come.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in essence what Bill C-25 would do is
expand the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation. We in the
Canadian Alliance, and I as a farmer from Manitoba, support the
FCC. Certainly it is a vehicle that the federal government has
used over the years to implement federal government policy where
the FCC is able to provide a service that is not being provided
by the private sector.
We in the Canadian Alliance are still concerned that this
expansion will take away from and provide unfair competition to
lending institutions like the credit unions as well as farmers,
the primary producers, who now have to compete not only with each
other in the immediate farming sector, but also with those beyond
the primary producer level.
We all know that when lending institutions, including the Farm
Credit Corporation, look at who they lend money to they look at
the cashflow of the borrower. As it is now with the farm income
situation in Canada in many sectors and in many commodities, it
may well turn out that the cashflow is insufficient in farmers'
primary production, and the money will end up flowing from the
Farm Credit Corporation to the agribusinesses as opposed to the
farmers. Then where will the farmers get credit?
By extending FCC's lending abilities beyond primary production,
the bill would put FCC into direct competition with private
lending institutions and would overlap with other government
institutions such as the Business Development Bank.
1015
The federal government has various vehicles that are necessary
to deliver credit to value added businesses and industrial
complexes. However if farmers do not hold primary ownership, the
Farm Credit Corporation to a large extent will turn into another
Business Development Bank of Canada.
We in the official opposition attempted to correct the problems
through amendments to the legislation both at the committee level
and during report stage. For example, we brought forward an
amendment which would have limited lending to businesses not
directly related to primary production.
The amendment, defeated by the government at committee, would
have addressed one of our primary concerns; that FCC would shift
its focus away from primary production to non-farm businesses.
The amendment would have ensured that the needs of farmers do not
become secondary to business lending by FCC.
FCC has stated that it will continue to focus on primary
producers. That is fine and dandy but it is just an intention.
We tried to have the legislation reflect and put on parameters
and outside limits as to where FCC could go with its lending.
Right now it is virtually unlimited. The legislation did not
define who primary producers were. We tried to define that with
our amendment but it was defeated.
Farm Credit Corporation has stated that 80% of its internal goal
will go to primary producers. It should therefore not have
objected to putting the limit into legislation. Why would it not
agree to put it in legislation? It obviously wants to ensure it
will be totally unhindered if it decides to move away from the
primary producer and move its primary lending to agribusiness
beyond the farm gate.
We also brought forward an amendment that would have limited
FCC's ability to provide lease financing to primary producers
only. The amendment would have helped ensure that the focus of
FCC remained on primary producers. It would also have limited
the government's ability to directly undercut private financial
institutions in the lucrative lease market.
Here we get into the issue of unfair competition by a government
agency which has all the advantages because it is insulated to a
large degree from market forces. FCC has unrestricted ability to
undercut private financial institutions. Under the World Trade
Organization, this type of unfair activity breaches trade rules
and there are mechanisms by which it can be rectified. Internally
in Canada I do not know that there is anything that can control
government misuse of Farm Credit Corporation's abilities.
The official opposition also brought forward an amendment that
would have limited FCC's ability to provide equity financing only
to businesses whose majority owners were primary producers. The
amendment would have helped ensure that the primary focus of FCC
remained on farming operations.
It is disturbing that every attempt to guarantee through law
that FCC remain focused on farmers has been rejected by the
corporation and the government.
Some have expressed concern that farmers may pay higher interest
rates to cover the increased risk associated with equity
financing. Our amendment limiting equity financing only to
businesses owned by farmers would have reduced that risk.
Others in the business world have expressed concern that the
changes to the Farm Credit Corporation would allow the government
to use FCC to bail out large, even multinational, agriculture
businesses. Here again there is nothing to restrict the FCC from
taking that kind of action.
1020
We will have a potential return to the situation of the early
1990s when the taxpayer of Canada had to put close to $900
million into the Farm Credit Corporation to get it back on its
feet. That kind of exposure without limits only serves to
increase the exposure of the Canadian taxpayer who is already
heavily overtaxed by the government and always on the hook for
its misuse and waste of money.
Our amendment would have allowed FCC to help develop farmer
driven, value added processing but would have limited its ability
to lend to large agribusinesses such as grain companies.
The Farm Credit Corporation has repeatedly stated that its focus
will be on small and medium sized businesses that directly help
improve the financial outlook for farmers. It therefore should
have had no objection to our amendment. However, the defeat of
our attempts to put this stated goal into law brings into
question the government's commitment to keeping FCC's lending
focused on small and medium sized businesses and it gives farmers
another reason for concern.
The official opposition made another attempt to keep FCC focused
on farmers by bringing forward an amendment to Bill C-25 which
would have limited the size of loans FCC could provide to
businesses not owned by farmers.
Again, if the FCC is committed to primarily lending to farmers
why would it object to the amendment? Why would the government
object to the amendment if it had no intention of changing the
focus of the Farm Credit Corporation without coming back to
parliament?
We also brought forward two amendments at report stage that
would have ensured that the Farm Credit Corporation complemented
the services already provided by private financial institutions
and crown corporations. Credit unions have testified before the
agriculture committee that the Farm Credit Corporation has
already undertaken predatory pricing actions. An example was
cited from the Niagara region of Ontario.
One credit union told the committee how FCC deliberately lowered
the interest rate to farmers after it learned that the rate
provided by the credit union was better than the government rate.
The credit union people came before our committee and their
testimony is in the committee minutes. It is factual. They said
it. They were not being dishonest with us. They were reporting
the facts as they saw them in the business world.
This might have helped one or two farmers at the time, but what
happens after the government forces credit unions out of
business? Maybe in the Niagara region there is not much concern
about the issue but I can tell hon. members that in many small
towns in the maritimes and on the prairies it is very tenuous as
to whether a town can keep a credit union or a big bank because
the business volume is not there to keep them going.
The Farm Credit Corporation is expanding and taking predatory
action that could cause small towns to lose their banks or credit
unions. That would be devastating to many towns and communities.
The original wording of Bill C-25 would have formalized the Farm
Credit Corporation's ability to own and lease land. The Farm
Credit Corporation has stated that this is not the intent of the
amendment. It claims that the leasing provisions are for
equipment but this was not made clear in the legislation.
We brought forward amendments at the committee and report stages
of the bill that would have corrected the problem. It is not
appropriate for the federal government to be an owner of Canadian
farmland. Allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to permanently
hold and lease land could result in Canadian government holdings
influencing the market value of farmland.
Allowing FCC to permanently hold and lease land would also have
provided the corporation an incentive not to pursue every
possible means to allow farmers experiencing financial difficulty
to stay on the land. In short, the bill could provide FCC an
incentive to prematurely foreclose on Canadian farmland.
1025
Even under the current legislation, the FCC has significant land
holding ability. In the year 2000, the FCC owned over 360,000
acres. Ninety-five per cent of that land was in Saskatchewan, the
province hardest hit by the farm income crisis.
I am pleased that the government has agreed to the amendment to
restrict the amount of time the Farm Credit Corporation can hold
on to land acquired as a result of foreclosures and other means.
Under the amendment, such land would be disposed of within five
years of acquisition.
If the farming community and everyone else could rely on the
good intentions of government, we would probably not have
problems with a lot of the bills but governments over the years
have often demonstrated changes of attitude to the good
intentions they have brought out in legislation and promised in
elections. That is why legislation must be framed and drafted so
that it is clear what the government intends to do, in this case
with the extension of credit primarily in the area of agriculture
and agribusiness.
It is strange that the corporation and the government did not
agree to defining primary producer and setting limits to ensure
that the focus remains on the primary producer. That is what we
are asking for in the bill. We did not get it, and that is why
we are opposing the bill. I guess in the end we must rely on the
good graces and good conduct of the federal government and hope
it does not misuse the lending authority of the Farm Credit
Corporation.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, which is so
important for the development of agriculture, I believe.
This brings back memories, since I worked all my life in
agriculture. I know to what extent financing for agriculture was
lacking in the past. I also know to what extent this financing
played a major role in the development of our farms.
I have always great respect for family farms and I have always
worked hard to promote them. When I was involved in Quebec's
farm union movement, family farming was defined as an operation
providing work for a single person work unit, that is a man and
his family, or a woman and her family.
Today, with the development of agricultural technology, we know
that the definition of family farming is no longer the same. It
is definitely much broader because in the past a farm that was
valued at, say, a quarter of a million dollars, was a big farm.
Now, some farms are valued at $3 million or $4 million.
So, the Farm Credit Corporation Act has played a major role in the
development of agriculture and it is normal to review it and to
adjust it as needs evolve. The bill provides that, from now on,
the Farm Credit Corporation will provide financing to businesses
that are upstream or downstream from primary agriculture or
traditional farms.
This could involve financing for the processing of products and
for the commodities used in agriculture. This is where I begin
to have some concerns.
1030
It may be acceptable to modernize agriculture, but what is a
cause for concern is the fact that farms have become so large
and so specialized that we have in many instances completely
lost the concept of the family farm. Increasingly, agriculture
is becoming highly industrialized.
Although I realize that we cannot stop this trend completely, I
am not sure that it is necessarily good for the community as a
whole. For example, one need only think of the concentrated
livestock operations and the pollution problems they will cause,
and in fact already have caused, for the water supply.
There have been incidents in Ontario and there will be others
elsewhere. We have seen how a single farm can contaminate the
water supply of a whole town.
When it comes to financing for these major agri-businesses,
particularly when one thinks of their effects on the immediate
vicinity, I feel we should take a few more precautions. Why I
am opposed to this bill? Because, in my opinion, it means
opening things up too far without taking any basic precautions.
In the parliamentary committee, the Canadian Alliance and the
Bloc Quebecois suggested amendments aimed at trying to set some
conditions for the credit the bill proposes to offer to
agri-businesses. We are far from the family farm type of
operation. We have been told that the Farm Credit Corporation
has already lent $20 million to a single company.
We wanted the Farm Credit Corporation to be limited to $5
million, with our amendment.
We were told, and I can see the minister opposite saying he agrees
with this to some extent, it was what the government wanted.
However the problem with this government is that we have to trust its
intentions. If the government really intends this, why did it
not indicate it in the bill? It could have done so at least for
a period of time, the time needed to see whether the intent was
really there and whether the government would act.
To my way of thinking, this is an important matter. If we are
going to provide financing for megabusinesses, it means that the
family business is on the point of disappearing. That would be
a real shame.
Perhaps a way should be found to revive it at least, for example
in specialty farming. We should make an effort to keep this
type of business, which ensures a sort of food safety, security
for Quebecers and Canadians.
These businesses are therefore on the brink of extinction. With
almost unlimited financing, upstream or downstream, clearly the
end of family type farms is in sight.
Another point I want to raise is that we were told that,
just about everyone in Quebec approved the improvements to the
Farm Credit Corporation. We have learned that the UPA, the labour
organization representing all of Quebec's farmers, has serious
concerns along the lines I have just mentioned.
That means that we were misled, when we were told that the
government had checked with the UPA. It would also like
guidelines and parameters in the bill. I think that when the
UPA speaks, it speaks for Quebec's farmers. It is a highly
credible organization and regarded as such.
Quebec's caisses populaires are also concerned. The Canadian
Alliance member mentioned that the FCC is competing with big
financial corporations. What we must remember is that, when the
Farm Credit Corporation makes a loan, it includes a little of
our money. There is a bit of us in it, as we say.
This comes out of our taxes for the purpose of supporting
farming.
1035
However the idea is not to compete with a bank or a caisse
populaire, for example, because it would not make any sense to
use our tax dollars for that purpose. We would be competing
against the private sector, which makes no sense.
When loans of $5, $10, $15 or $20 million are made to a single
business, who are we competing with? The private sector. The
minister mentioned that the caisses were a bit dubious, but it
was more than a bit.
We do not want the Farm Credit Corporation using public funds to
compete with the private sector.
We are told that there is no risk, that that is not what they
want to do. If it is not what they intend to do, if there is no
risk, why not say so in the bill so that everyone will feel
safer?
It is with regret that I oppose this bill. As I said earlier,
the Farm Credit Corporation is a basic tool for farmers and for
the development of agriculture, but it should not become a risk.
It should not go too far and be too quick to rush into helping
out megafarms. Time should be taken to study what is being
produced.
With the concentrations of livestock and production, time should
be taken to consider the direction being taken. The regulation
also needs to be adjusted and more emphasis placed on research
into such areas as environmental protection.
For these reasons, I will be voting against the bill at third
reading. Since it is never too late to do the right thing, my
party is calling on the government to include in the bill the
safeguards we are requesting for everyone's sake.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
rising today to speak to third reading of Bill C-25, an act to
amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. I intend to be brief
because we dealt with this at report stage yesterday. I made an
intervention at that time and I have no intention of repeating
myself.
The major provisions of the bill would allow the Farm Credit
Corporation, soon to be called farm credit Canada, to lend money
to farm related businesses not owned by farmers, in other words
by agribusiness, and extend equity financing to producers and
farm related businesses.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as I mentioned
yesterday, supported the bill in committee. I failed to mention
at that time that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association also
supported the bill. Both groups indicated that more financing
and more equity financing was required and, in particular, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture was confident that the primary
producers would remain the primary focus for farm credit Canada.
Credit Union Central of Canada was not opposed to the bill so
long as it complemented its work in the community. We
endeavoured to have an amendment added to the bill to ensure that
this kind of complementary activity worked. We were not
successful but it was not for lack of effort.
In my legislative report, I said that the only farm group
opposed to the bill was the National Farmers Union. The Canadian
Bankers Association was also opposed. It indicated that a
broader mandate would allow farm credit Canada to compete
unfairly with private lenders.
We heard yesterday, and just now from Bloc Quebecois
representatives, that the UPA in Quebec, which represents Quebec
farmers, have said that it has serious reservations about the
bill. It is unfortunate that the UPA did not come before the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when we had the
debate so that it could have informed the committee of its
reservations.
1040
At least one group from Quebec was present, a group that
purported to deal with a number of co-operatives in that
province. Overall it was supportive of the change in the mandate
of Farm Credit Canada.
We heard this morning from both the Canadian Alliance and the
Bloc Quebecois in committee. The objections to the bill were
based on two major issues: first, to what extent a business has
to be involved in farming to be considered a business related to
farming and, second, with the changes to the mandate of Farm
Credit Canada, how much of the corporations lending activities
may be transferred from the primary producer to agribusiness.
In 1995 the FCC board of directors set the maximum loan size at
$20 million. We were advised that less than 2% of the current
loans in the portfolio of the corporation exceed $1 million.
Currently primary producers are about 94% of the FCC's overall
clientele. With the proposed changes FCC president, John Ryan,
anticipates that this would change to about 80%. There would be
a change over the next five years as it grows and moves out into
this emerging field. Some 20% of its lending would be to farm
related enterprises.
I listened with some care to points that were made this morning
by my colleague on the agriculture committee from the Canadian
Alliance as well as by the member from the Bloc Quebecois. The
Alliance member was concerned that the Farm Credit Corporation
was intruding into the marketplace. Whereas I believe in many
parts of rural Canada there is not an explosion of choice when it
comes to lending institutions. It is just the reverse. There is
less and less choice.
For example, in the province of Saskatchewan a number of small
banks have recently gone out of business. In most cases the local
credit union has taken over those operations. It is not that
there is too much choice among lending institutions. It is that
there is not enough choice. That was recognized by two
Saskatchewan members who sit in the Canadian Alliance who I noted
voted against their party's recommendation on the bill yesterday
at third reading.
There is no doubt the primary focus will continue to remain on
primary producers. There are times when Farm Credit Canada will
probably have more land than it would want to hold on to,
depending on the ups and downs and the cyclical nature of the
agricultural industry. We saw no evidence that it is interested
in getting into the landholding business in any serious way.
The Bloc Quebecois, which incidentally voted in favour of it at
second reading but appears to have changed its mind, indicates
that the gates are being opened too wide. However there is an
ongoing revolution in agriculture across the country. We are
trying to get more value added on the prairies and elsewhere. In
order to do that we will have to take some initiative, break some
new ground, get out there and encourage value added. Farm Credit
Canada is one of the tools in the kit that we could use.
The New Democratic Party supports the changes and will be voting
in favour of the bill at third reading.
1045
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and
pose a question to my hon. NDP colleague from Palliser.
I listened very carefully to the speeches of all hon. members. I
was a full time farmer for about 20 years on a family farm which
eventually grew, through good management and a lot of hard work
on the part of my family and myself, to the size of 3,000 acres
in the Peace River country of British Columbia. In fact, my
brother still farms the farm.
Having that background, one of the things that concerns me with
Bill C-25 is what I see as a return to equity financing. Farms
across Canada, particularly in western Canada, got into a lot of
trouble back in the eighties when I was actively farming. One
big problem was rather than base financing on cash flow, in other
words whether the farmer could actually service the debt that he
or she was carrying, the Farm Credit Corporation at that time and
banks pushed financing to the farmers based on an inflated value
for their land. When land values plummeted, farmers could not
maintain their loans and the land was eventually repossessed by
the lending institutions, including the Farm Credit Corporation,
which ended up owning vast amounts of land in western Canada.
If we return to equity financing, what concerns me is we could
see a similar situation develop in the future. The reality is
the value of the land is of no consequence to a farmer if he
stays in the business of farming. It is only what the land can
produce and the money that can be turned over in order to service
the farmer's debt on a yearly basis.
Is that concern echoed by the NDP and by the member for
Palliser? I know he has been the agricultural critic for his
party for quite some time and has a lot of background in this
industry. It certainly concerns me when I hear these things.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, yes it does concern me.
The member has raised a good point. However I feel that there
has been a significant change, not only within the Farm Credit
Corporation but also among lending institutions themselves.
There has been a dramatic shift since the late 1980s when equity
financing began, which was the reference point that the member
gave in his remarks.
I have talked with lending institutions in and around my riding.
A lot more attention is being paid now to files and loans, and
more managers are managing those files to make sure that people
are not in a great deal of difficulty. The 1980s was perhaps
more laissez-faire, and not as much attention was paid to the
files of farmers.
Even though we have a very steep downturn in the agricultural
economy, when I talk to FCC, the banks and credit unions I have
been told that the files of farmers who are in serious trouble
are remaining relatively stable and are being managed more
carefully than they were at the reference point that the member
indicated.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague's reply to the Alliance
question and the fact that the Alliance member referred to his
family farm. We all think the family farm is something which is
very important and one of the bases of the farming economy, in
part because it is the type of farming which produces farmers.
This is a very special thing.
We on this side are strong supporters of the Farm Credit
Corporation, and we look forward to it having strengthened roles
in the future.
Could my colleague explain to me why in the debate on this topic
yesterday the Alliance tried to take the family farm out of the
terms of reference of the legislation? What are his views on
that? Does he think, as the Alliance did yesterday, that the
family farm should be removed from explicit mention in the
legislation?
1050
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, there might be an
opportunity later to ask the Alliance why it did that. I will
simply restrict my comments to say that the family is an integral
part of the fabric of the country and hopefully will continue to
remain so for a long time. That is the assurance frankly that we
were given by Mr. Ryan and other representatives from Farm Credit
Corporation when it was before the committee to explain why it
was requesting the change in the mandate.
The NDP certainly has always been a strong proponent of the
family farm and will continue be so for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the deception that
is being laid out here today by Liberal members and the NDP
member who just spoke.
The Canadian Alliance amendments, as I said in my speech in the
House a mere 20 minutes ago, were designed to keep the focus of
Farm Credit Corporation squarely on primary producers and the
family farm.
The organic farmers of Canada came here from western Canada,
from his province of Saskatchewan and said they would value add,
that they had been value adding, to make their farms prosper
without subsidies. They said it was the Liberal government and
NDP people, especially the NDP parties, that were saying the
Canadian Wheat Board had to be a monopoly, that they were the
ones who were saying keep the wheat board and the thumb down on
farmers.
Would the member stand up right now and free up farmers so they
can market outside the Canadian Wheat Board? Would he stand up
and talk about it?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, I will not talk about
the Canadian Wheat Board today because we are talking about the
Farm Credit Corporation. There are other opportunities to deal
with the board. An effective member such as the member for
Selkirk—Interlake ought to know that.
It is interesting to a number of us that two rural members from
Saskatchewan chose to vote against the Canadian Alliance
yesterday on this issue. That speaks for itself.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to third reading of Bill
C-25 and to represent our PC agricultural critic, the member for
Brandon—Souris.
I talked to the member and he wanted to go through a chronology
of events on how it evolved in Canadian history from 1927 to the
present date. I think there were five or six pages, which I will
leave out of my speech today. However, a brief chronology is
certainly in line.
The FCC, Farm Credit Corporation, was created on October 5,
1959, by the Diefenbaker Conservative government when the Farm
Credit Act was proclaimed into law. It provided a consistent
source of lending services that farmers could rely on through all
the economic cycles, the ups and downs of the economic cycles. At
the time the corporation was mandated to provide one product at
one rate. First, it was mortgages to farmers to a maximum loan
of $20,000.
1055
During the first 34 years the Farm Credit Corporation and the
Farm Credit Act went through many evolutions to keep step with
the agriculture industry. In 1968 farming corporations became
eligible for farm credit loans and loan limits increased to
$150,000 in 1975. The 1982 amendments to the act led to the
introduction of more loan product and the FCC made its debut on
capital markets.
In 1993 the Farm Credit Act was replaced with the Farm Credit
Corporation Act, which expanded the mandate of the FCC to better
respond to the needs of the agriculture sector. Farm Credit
Corporation could now offer producers financing to purchase or
improve farmland and buildings, buy personal property for farming
purposes and consolidate debts. It enabled the corporation to
support value added production by providing financing for
diversified enterprises on and off the farm.
This act helped bring the FCC in sync with the changing
marketplace. The Farm Credit Corporation's loan portfolio has
grown since those days from $3.4 billion in 1993 when the act was
introduced to $6 billion today.
Today this crown corporation services 44,000 customers, has 900
employees and 100 offices across Canada.
It is important to understand that little chronology of events
because what that tells us is the Farm Credit Corporation, from
its introduction in 1959 by the Diefenbaker government,
recognizes the needs and wants of farmers, and the agriculture
community has responded and changed its situation, its portfolios
and the services that it offers to accommodate changing times.
From 1984 to 1993 specifically, the Progressive Conservative
government of the day improved the way the Farm Credit
Corporation was managed. We brought in the Farm Credit
Corporation equity building plan in 1990 to allow farmers to
extend their leases and buyback land once they were on firmer
financial ground. We moved the head office of Farm Credit
Corporation to Regina, so it could be closer to those who used it
the most. We passed a bill to expand the role of the Farm Credit
Corporation allowing it to make loans to farmers who wanted to
diversify their operations.
All these things were asked for by the agriculture community,
and the Conservative government of the day responded to the
wishes of the community.
There are a few major elements of Bill C-25. One, it would
change the name to Farm Credit Canada. The mandate of the FCC
would be expanded from financial services to farming operations
and businesses related to farming to also include business
services and products to such enterprises.
Farm Credit Corporation would have the authority to provide
loans to businesses relating to farming in both cases where the
business was majority owned by farmers and when it was not, quite
significantly changing the mandate of the Farm Credit
Corporation.
There is specific provision in the bill to emphasize the focus
of the Farm Credit Corporation activities on farming operations
including family farms. The FCC would be given authority to
incorporate, amalgamate and dissolve subsidiaries. It would also
provide lease financing for assets used or to be used in a
farming operation or a business related to farming.
The Farm Credit Corporation would be given the authority to
acquire and dispose of equity interests in farming operations or
in businesses related to farming. The president of the FCC would
be designated as its CEO and provision would be made for the
appointment of an acting president and an acting chairperson when
necessary.
The bill does not come to the House without some criticisms and
it is only fair to mention some of those criticisms here today.
First, the name change is unnecessary and costly. It is
certainly our belief that the minister is looking for a legacy
for years of failed federal leadership in supporting agriculture
from this government.
The bill has the potential to unnecessarily compete directly
with credit unions and banks. We are not sure that will happen
but the potential is there. The purpose of the FCC is to provide
lending to farmers specifically, not to equipment dealers, wheat
pools, for example the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or any other wheat
pool.
1100
Although the bill expands lending powers of the Farm Credit
Corporation, farmers do not need more debt at the present time.
While the federal budgets for agriculture have been cut since
1993 by 65%, the total farm debt in Canada has increased by 44%
since 1994. Statistics Canada and Revenue Canada statistics in
1999 report that the average farm debt in the country is
$135,000.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
presented petitions from thousands of people urging Canadian
participation in research to develop a bioartificial kidney.
This is a device for those who cannot be helped by kidney
transplants or dialysis.
In the United States, this research is reaching the human trial
stage. While kidney research in general is very active in Canada
and has received additional funds, the bioartificial work is not
active here.
Those who signed my petitions urge that organizations and
individual researchers in Canada move to rectify this and
consider co-operating with their U.S. counterparts.
I thank kidney researchers in Ottawa who responded to this by
meeting with U.S. scientists recently. We wish them luck in
their research. Ken Sharp of Peterborough, who initiated the
petitions, wishes to thank all those who helped him raise
awareness of this type of research. CPAC recently produced a
film highlighting Ken's crusade. He can be reached through my
office and I thank him.
* * *
SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors are supposed to be
living their golden years, yet for many seniors in our country
rising utility rates are posing a serious burden on their limited
and fixed incomes.
Back in my riding, many seniors have conveyed to me their
concerns about having fixed incomes yet having to deal with
constantly rising utility rates. This needs to be addressed. The
Canadian Alliance believes that not one senior in the country
should be in distress because of a lack of services or support.
We on this side of the House care about seniors.
The Prime Minister, being a senior himself, certainly cares
about his pension and demonstrated his uncanny ability to ensure
that his pension grows at a much faster rate by passing
legislation in record time.
It is time that the Prime Minister addressed the issues that
matter to other Canadian seniors. Perhaps he could do this with
as much zeal and haste as he has used in addressing his own pay
raise and pension.
* * *
ITALIAN RELAY TEAM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday the Italian Relay Team for Peace, Friendship and
Solidarity arrived in Ottawa as part of its relay run across
Canada. The team, which consists of 24 athletes and 16 support
staff, began its run in Vancouver on May 22 and ended on June 5
in Montreal.
Other runs have taken place in Piacenza, Italy; Moscow; Los
Angeles; New York; and most recently in Sydney, Australia in
1999.
Here in Ottawa the team was welcomed by the Association Emilia
Romagna which represents Italian Canadians from Parma, Piacenza,
Bologna and Modena.
From all of Canada to the Italian relay team I wish them
Tanti aguri.
June 10 through June 17 marks the celebration of Italian Week.
On behalf of all of the communities I want to say congratulations
on this great celebration and invite everyone to go to Preston
Street and enjoy the Italian hospitality.
* * *
[Translation]
VIETNAM
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently met
with the directors of Democracy for Vietnam, Drs. Lam Thu Van
and Truong Minh-Dung, who shared with me their concerns for three
recent cases of religious repression in Vietnam.
First, Tadeus Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest, was imprisoned
for calling for religious freedom for the people of Vietnam, and
there has been no news of him since.
Then there the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Patriarch of the
United Buddhist Church of Vietnam, who has been under house
arrest for the past 19 years. He is badly in need of medical
care, to which he is not allowed access.
Finally, ethnic minorities in the highlands of Vietnam are the
victims of religious persecution, property confiscation,
torture, arbitrary imprisonment and murder.
I call upon the Canadian government to protest this religious
persecution, to ask the Vietnamese authorities to inform them of
the whereabouts of Father Ly and allow the Venerable Thich Huyen
Quang to receive medical care, and to encourage the Cambodian
government to provide Vietnamese refugees with temporary asylum.
* * *
1105
[English]
MARK STAROWICZ
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute and congratulate one of my
constituents, Mr. Mark Starowicz, who will receive his honorary
doctor of letters degree from York University on Monday, June 11.
Mark Starowicz is recognized as one of the most respected
Canadian broadcasters of the last quarter century. With a
passion for history as a living creation that must be validated
by each generation, he recently succeeded in persuading CBC and
Radio-Canada to agree on an unprecedented national co-production,
“Canada: A People's History”, the largest documentary
production in Canadian history.
He has changed the face of radio and television current affairs
programming. He and his programs have won dozens of national and
international awards. Mark also has recently been honoured with
a prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award from the Canadian
Journalism Federation in June 2000.
I congratulate Mark. This honorary doctor of letters degree is
well deserved. I also congratulate him on his incredible vision,
dedication and commitment.
* * *
EDMONTON, ALBERTA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, from August 3 to 12, the city of
Champions, Edmonton, Alberta, will once again play host to the
world.
The city and the whole province has a phenomenal track record of
hosting successful international sporting events such as the
Winter Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the World University
Games and the World Figure Skating Championships.
The games in Edmonton will be the first time the IAAF World
Championships in Athletics have been held in North America. With
46 medal events and more than 200 countries participating, it is
the biggest track meet on the globe. In fact, it is the third
largest sporting event in the world with an anticipated TV
viewing audience of four billion.
One of the most anticipated highlights of the games will be
Canadian sprinter Donovan Bailey's last race.
On behalf of the city of Edmonton, the organizing committee and
hundreds of volunteers, I would like to invite all Canadians to
come to Edmonton in August for the world track and field
championships.
* * *
[Translation]
INFRASTRUCTURES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, trade exchanges between Canada and the United States
have doubled in the past six years, and 70% of them involve
shipping by road. No new infrastructures, however, have been
constructed for crossing the St. Lawrence River in the greater
Montreal region.
For this reason, the Federal Bridge Corporation has proposed the
construction of two new bridges and 14 kilometres of highway.
Completion of Highway 30 and the erection of two bridges over
the St. Lawrence would enhance access to intermodal
infrastructures, revitalize interregional exchanges, reduce
maintenance costs of other infrastructures, and better
distribute traffic over the various Montreal area bridges.
For all these reasons, among others, action must be taken
urgently.
* * *
KABYLIA
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of Kabylia
has erupted into conflict as a result of the death of a Kabyle
college student at the hands of Algerian police on April 18.
Since that date, demonstrations have been on the increase in
this region of Algeria where most of the inhabitants are
Berbers, a people which makes up 17% of the Algerian population.
Berbers' rights, culture and language are not recognized in the
Algerian constitution and their reaction shows how exasperated
they are.
These peaceful demonstrators are opposed to the arbitrary
actions, exclusion and injustice to which they are subject. But
the government is turning a deaf ear and is coming down hard on
demonstrators: 60 have died and 1,300 have been injured since
the demonstrations first began.
In the last century, Kabyle poet Ismaïl Azikkiou wrote:
The hate they sowed in the villages,
We reaped;
and still it grows;
Tomorrow, a march organized by the pan-Canadian committee to show
solidarity with and support for Kabylia will be held in the
streets of Montreal. The Bloc Quebecois will not be able to
attend, but we will be with the marchers in spirit.
* * *
[English]
HIV-AIDS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year marks the 20th year that the first HIV-AIDS
was recorded. That one case has multiplied into a global
pandemic.
A glance at the facts tell us that 95% of the 36 million people
with AIDS live in developing countries. The epidemic is more
acute in sub-Saharan Africa, where two-thirds of the HIV-AIDS
cases are found with 0.1% receiving anti-AIDS treatment.
Drug cocktails have reduced AIDS deaths in the west by 75%. In
contrast, AIDS sufferers in poor countries die in six months or
less.
1110
High drug prices and trade related aspects of intellectual
property rights are making it extremely difficult for the
populations of the developing world to have access to affordable
HIV medication.
Arresting the HIV-AIDS pandemic cannot be done without strong
leadership resolve.
I call on the Government of Canada to take that leadership role
and work with like-minded countries to make drug pricing for
HIV-AIDS a priority at the upcoming WTO session on TRIPS, the
United Nations special session on HIV-AIDS and the upcoming
meeting of the G-8. We must do this.
* * *
LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for the moment there is labour peace at west coast
ports, but the probability of future work disruptions continue to
haunt companies whose livelihoods depend on a secure, reliable
export route.
There have been four work stoppages at west coast ports in the
last 10 years. This is an unacceptable record and the infamous
weak link in the supply chain between Canadian exporters and
their customers.
The government failed to put a dispute settlement mechanism in
place that would ensure that Canadian exports are not held
hostage to labour disputes. The process must be changed so that
there is a predetermined dispute settlement mechanism in place
that will be used for issues that cannot be resolved at the
bargaining table.
The government partially protects grain exports, and that is
good, but grain only represents 8% of the value of products
moving through those ports. Shippers and manufacturers are
worried about the loss of markets, reputations and revenues when
the present collective agreement expires. They need and deserve
protection now.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRE DE LA NATURE DE LAVAL
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 11,
the Centre de la nature de Laval received the Kéroul award.
This Prix du tourisme award is given to a tourist or cultural
establishment which excels in its efforts to welcome or serve
clients with limited physical ability.
In its desire to provide equitable service to all visitors, the
centre has designed a unique play area accessible to all
children, with or without a physical handicap.
This initiative makes the Centre de la nature de Laval a model
of accessibility and gives persons with limited physical ability
equitable access to the services offered.
* * *
[English]
BEVERLEE BELL
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
mark the passing of Beverlee Bell last Sunday, June 3. Bev spent
the last 16 years working with the NDP across Canada and was most
recently director of administration for my leader in this place.
While she was incredible at her job, she was more amazing as a
person. Beverlee's compassionate nature and commitment to
humanitarianism touched everyone she knew. Throughout her life
and even during her illness she approached things with optimism,
tenacity and spirit. She loved holidays with her family,
cooking, reading, sitting by the ocean, British sitcoms,
gardening, music and talking about her children, her life and her
politics. She believed in sharing the simple joys of life with
everyone she met.
On behalf of my colleagues in the House and in my party, I send
my deepest condolences to Marc, Jason, Erin and Sandra, and her
countless friends from coast to coast to coast. She will be
missed deeply by all. We are all richer for knowing her.
Beverlee Bell was and will always remain a glory to the world.
* * *
[Translation]
ORPHAN CLAUSES
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, orphan clauses
affect the quality of life of new employees, this on a daily
basis. These employees live in uncertainty, which makes it more
difficult to plan life projects or even day to day activities.
In the public, parapublic and private sectors, various
collective agreements that come under federal jurisdiction use
orphan clauses as if this was the obvious thing to do.
Through its stubbornness in refusing to end discriminatory
practices, the federal government is telling society that
intergenerational solidarity is not important.
The hard won gains made by workers must also benefit the young.
This is why I will be introducing in the House today a bill to
end discriminatory practices toward young workers.
The Liberal government must stop being cold hearted and admit
that it is inconceivable to prevent employees in one age group
from enjoying the same salaries and benefits as other employees.
* * *
1115
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend,
the Bloc Quebecois is organizing a big party to celebrate its
tenth anniversary.
The Bloc Quebecois is ten years old. Ten years is a long time
for a party that was supposed to be there for just a short time.
I clearly remember Lucien Bouchard, the founder of the Bloc
Quebecois, saying that the success of his party would be
measured by the shortness of its mandate.
Ten years later, the Bloc Quebecois must admit defeat and
recognize that it has failed.
The fact that the great sovereignist leaders Lucien Bouchard and
Jacques Parizeau will not attend the anniversary evening clearly
shows that the movement is running out of steam.
By being so bent on destroying Canada, the Bloc Quebecois is
weakening Quebecers. By refusing to listen to Quebecers and to
comply with their wishes, it only blocks the development of our
society.
* * *
[English]
MUSEUMS
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
employees of the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian
Museum of Contemporary Photography are on strike. The requests
being made by these dedicated workers are reasonable and
unselfish. Yet, despite the fact that an agreement is within
reach, no one has taken the initiative to finalize the deal.
Where is the leadership? Where is the minister?
She who pays the piper calls the tune. The minister of culture
and heritage pays the piper but she is slow to pay the employees.
It is time she called the tune by making sure these frontline
people are back doing the work they love and do best, making our
national sites pleasant and rewarding places to visit.
The peak tourism season is here. Is this the best we can offer
our visitors? I ask the minister to do her job.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: Before we begin oral questions, I draw
the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of
the hon. Gordon Campbell, premier of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on that note, I understand the
premier of British Columbia will be meeting with the Prime
Minister today. Already Premier Campbell has taken bold steps to
reinvigorate the economy of his province through tax relief and
through eliminating the barriers to growth and productivity, and
that is commendable.
We know that there is a productivity and competitive gap between
Canada and the United States, to the extent that last year we saw
a record year for Canadian investment out of Canada into the
United States because of the greater incentive there.
Will the Prime Minister be seeking advice from Premier Campbell
on how to invigorate the national economy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that the discussions will be very fruitful and
constructive. I am also sure that advice will flow in both
directions.
After all, we have already introduced and put in place the
largest tax cuts in Canadian history of $100 billion over five
years. This is a signal to Canada and this is a signal to our
provincial partners.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the mini cuts that they performed
before the last election do not quite match the 25% cut that we
are hearing about.
It is not just in western Canada but in Atlantic Canada also.
The Canadian Alliance has consistently supported renegotiating
the equalization formula, especially with a view to doing
something about the clawback provision that keeps provinces like
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland from truly moving to economic
independence and moving away from dependence on federal aid
programs.
The minister for Nova Scotia has also called for changes. The
Minister of Industry when he was premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador called for changes. When will the federal government
announce that it will sit down and meet with our Atlantic
Canadian partners to look at renegotiating the equalization
formula in a way that will invigorate Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly
welcome a debate on this issue, but one must recognize that if we
exclude resource revenues then we are being unfair to those
provinces which do not have them and would be getting
equalization.
Clearly the objective of our equalization program is to provide
an equal level of public services in every part of the country
regardless of means or income.
1120
Is the hon. member suggesting that Alberta's resource revenue
should not be included when calculating provincial entitlements?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he talks about having a debate. We
are talking about having a discussion with Atlantic Canadians.
The debate, however, lies within their own government because we
have the Minister of Finance who has one position, we read today,
on equalization. I can hear them still debating among themselves
on this issue. The Minister of Finance has one position but his
leadership rival, the Minister of Industry, former premier of
Newfoundland, has another position.
Could the government indicate whose position represents the
government? Is it the Minister of Finance's or is it the
Minister of Industry's?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may find this hard to
believe because he and his party cannot achieve this, but this
party, this government, can speak and work in one voice for all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a tradition existed in this country before the
present Minister of Finance appeared on the scene.
Historically, democracy required that a budget be tabled every
year. Now the Minister of Finance thumbs his nose at this
tradition and at taxpayers' right to know the government's
financial priorities.
Since parliament will soon adjourn for the summer, will the
Minister of Finance tell us whether he will table a budget when
we return in the fall?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is considering this important question.
However, perhaps the hon. member can explain why he told the
National Post, a few days ago, and I quote:
[English]
“I voted against the tax cut last year for a whole lot of
reasons”. Why does he not explain why he voted against the tax
cut and is going in the opposite direction today?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this party proudly stands for real tax relief for
working families, not the kind of token tax relief which
continues, by the way, to discriminate against single income
families and which continues to see Canada fall behind the United
States in terms of productivity.
This week we learned that Canada had lost 30% against the United
States in terms of personal disposable income. How can the
government continue to carry us through two years without a
federal budget when Canadians have a disposable income 30% lower
than the United States? While Canadians are getting poorer the
government does not act. Why does it not bring in—
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we brought in
record tax cuts of $100 billion over five years. Those tax cuts
on the personal income tax level were 27% on average, 35% for
families with children.
This means that many of our low income families, 800,000 of
which have been removed from the tax roles, are better off than
they would be in the United States.
However it is not just about taxes. It is about a balanced
approach, tax cuts, paying down the debt and making those
strategic investments in our future which are critical for all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning we
read in Le Devoir that the Council for Canadian Unity had, just
by accident, neglected to identify itself as the promoter of a
new Internet site “The New Federalists”. This has a certain
déjà vu feeling to it, and even if the Council has remedied
this and identified itself by now, once again it took
disclosure in the House to find out who was behind this
initiative.
How can the government explain that, once again, after secretly
being the power behind Robert-Guy Scully's Heritage Minutes, it
is now up to the same old tricks, funding an unidentified Web
site?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to err is human. A mistake was made and it has
been corrected.
I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois members for giving this site
some publicity. I hope they are going to consult it. It
may give them some food for thought this weekend, when they are
celebrating their tenth anniversary as a party.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I on the other hand
would like to inform the minister that we have visited the site and
find it particularly interesting for our reflections to see that
the federal government was launching, in keeping with last
week's secret document, into the most odious of propaganda
against Quebec sovereignists.
1125
What is the objective of this second site, when the council
already has one of its own? What is the objective of this
second site if not to render their propaganda more underhanded
and therefore more effective?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we would not use such harsh language to describe the
Bloc Quebecois' strategy for advancing its option.
What I would suggest is that it finally call itself what it is,
the Separatist Bloc, because Quebecois is a word that applies to
all Quebecers, regardless of their affiliation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: It should take advantage of this weekend to
change its name, to include secessionist or independentist
instead of Quebecois. We are already sovereign. We are part of
a democracy based on the sovereignty of its citizens.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
not change our name, we will change our country. This is what is
important to us.
The Council for Canadian Unity, which spends millions of dollars
without being accountable to anyone, now has an Internet site
where the tone is very clear. The CCU continues to spread
despicable propaganda.
Is the tone used on the anonymous site of the Council for
Canadian Unity, a tone that promotes confrontation between the
federalist friends and the sovereignist enemies, not strangely
similar to the federal government's secret communication
strategy that was exposed by the Bloc Quebecois last Friday?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it will be very gratifying to hear the Bloc Quebecois
member use a different tone and avoid terms such as enemies and
others we hear yelled out in the House every day.
So, if he wants to lead by example, I will be very pleased. I
personally have no enemies. However, some of my fellow citizens
want Quebec out of Canada. It would be nice if separatist
leaders said so clearly, like the member just did. They no
longer want to be part of Canada. They want to have an
independent country.
Let them say so clearly, instead of coming up with complicated
formulas about a European type of confederation, something that
does not fool anyone.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should take a look at the Internet site, he should read
the study that we exposed last week. The separatist enemies,
this is the tone used by federalists, not by us.
I am asking the minister how many such anonymous propaganda
initiatives are being taken by the Council for Canadian Unity
against Quebec, with the sponsor remaining anonymous?
Is this not a good illustration of what the secret communication
strategy identified as the marketing war against Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what a sudden shift. We are not talking about a war
against Quebec. Who is at war against Quebec? We have a
disagreement. The member wishes for Quebec no longer to be a
part of Canada. He would like to be a Quebecer without being a
Canadian. No one is attacking Quebec.
However there is a semantic shift here. It is not the government, it
is the CCU. It is not the government, it is a study made by an
academic.
Why always malign the adversary? If the member were so sure
about what he is saying, he would tone down his remarks.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
all week the government has been patting itself on the back and
claiming that it is environmentally friendly and a good
ecomanager.
In fact it is the poorest funded department in the government.
There is evidence all across the country, whether it is
Walkerton, North Battleford, the smog crisis in Ontario or the
disgrace of the Sydney tar ponds, that it has failed Canadians.
When will the government put its money where its mouth is and do
something about protecting the environment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have a contradiction here. On the one hand, he
does not like the statements that are made, where we specify one
by one the very large number of things that are being undertaken
by the government on the environmental front. On the other hand
he does not like it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. David Anderson: I am sorry, there seems to be some
disorder down there in the splitting ranks of the NDP. One of
their major political splits seems to be occurring at this time.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand
complain when we list what we do and on the other hand complain
we have not done anything.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in fact they have not done very much. The Mulroney government 10
years ago was spending more money than they are right now, both
in actual terms and in percentage terms.
Again, when will they make the commitment to protect the
environment and really put their money where their mouths are?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are once again bragging about the
$42 billion deficit of the Conservative government, the one that
we had to inherit and do something about.
1130
They never pay any attention to the fact that it is quite easy
to spend more money if we ignore that the taxpayer has to produce
it and that if we continue to run deficits ultimately the country
will go broke and there will be no environmental programs
whatsoever. That is their approach.
I only suggest that the hon. member listen to the many
statements that come up day after day from myself and other
members of the government and which list what we are doing on the
environment.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, real
incomes in Canada are 30% lower than those of Americans because
of a growing productivity gap. The HRDC-Industry Canada white
paper on productivity will reportedly focus on government
spending initiatives alone to reverse this trend.
Will the Prime Minister expand the terms of reference for the
white paper to include tax reform, which all leading economists
and business leaders agree is absolutely necessary to improving
productivity?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been missing in action somewhere,
because we have taken those kinds of steps with $100 billion in
tax cuts, the biggest in history, over five years, average tax
cuts for Canadians at 27% and much higher for families with
children. We are already moving in this area. We are ahead of
the curve.
Where has my hon. friend been the last couple of years?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Thomas
d'Aquino, head of the BCNI, has said:
How can you have a paper on innovation without anything on taxes?
You can't. It's a contradiction in terms.
Yet the ministers of HRDC and industry, the big spenders of the
Liberal cabinet, believe they can improve productivity with big
spending alone.
Why is the finance minister being shut out of a productivity
plan that desperately needs leadership on tax reform? Is the
Liberal leadership race more important than improving
productivity for all Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this may come as a surprise to the Conservative Party,
but we are able to work together as a team. That is what we are
doing. We will all have our input into the development of this
paper.
In fact I would even be willing to take my hon. friend's
comments as a representation, no matter how poorly informed or
founded they may be.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has categorically stated in the House that the
handwritten bill of sale for the shares in his numbered company
was written on November 1, 1993. We decided to test this claim
and took the bill of sale to a forensic specialist for analysis.
She came back with the following opinion: “There is a high
degree of probability that the numerals 1-9-9-3 have been
altered”.
We need the original document to send for further study. Will
it be provided?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the new secret agent man. Was that not the
theme song of a 1960s sitcom? Here is the secret agent man with
another set of phony allegations.
If he has some charges to make, let him get up and prove them
and repeat them outside the House. He does not know what he is
talking about.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister might make light of it, but I
do not think Canadians will.
This analyst is a careful, qualified professional. I continue
to quote from her letter: “This opinion is qualified subject to
the examination of the original bill of sale”.
The Prime Minister could clear this up right away. The original
bill of sale needs to be presented so that a forensic analysis of
the ink can prove that it was in fact written in 1993. Will that
be provided?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, who is this fabled analyst? What are her
qualifications? What do other analysts say?
He is not asking a valid question. As I say, his fooling around
playing at secret agent brings embarrassment on him and his
party. They are not willing to ask questions about real issues
because they do not have anything to say. They are too busy
trying to hide their own disintegration.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a former privacy and access to information commissioner,
Mr. Grace, testified yesterday before the committee of members,
which took on the task of reviewing the current Access to
Information Act.
What does the government have to say to the former
commissioner's unequivocal criticism, which echoes the
conclusions of the damning report tabled last October by the
current commissioner to the effect that the government is not
complying with the provisions of the Access to Information Act?
1135
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is well aware that there is a task force currently
holding round table public consultations. The recently announced
external advisory committee includes individuals from academia,
the legal profession, business and the media.
This will ensure that external perspectives are included in the
examination of these issues. It is a matter of concern and we
are addressing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Grace wonders about the poor example set by the
government when it comes to enforcing its own Access to
Information Act.
Does the Prime Minister's idea of complying with the Access to
Information Act not play a large role in sending out a very
negative signal to all public servants, and is it not
inconsistent with what an open and civilized society such as
ours should be all about?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the access to information law is a good law supporting Canadian
democracy. The federal government is committed to the principles
of transparency and openness and ensures accountability to
Canadians.
As I said, we are currently undergoing a review. This review
will consider and build on previous consultations and
recommendations.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to continue to quote from the letter of opinion
of the handwriting examiner who, by the way, was not familiar
with the details of the Prime Minister's involvement.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Charlie Penson: They might want to listen. There
might be something here that want to listen to.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has not seen
anything but I understand there are some props perhaps being
used. I caution hon. members that it is quite improper. We will
not have that. The hon. member for Peace River has the floor.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, allow me to continue to
quote from the letter of opinion of the handwriting examiner who,
by the way, was not familiar with the details of the Prime
Minister's involvement.
She states “The thirteen lines of writing on the questioned
document were written with speed, rhythm and consistency with
the”—
The Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister said to the House that what
was tabled was a copy of a real document. I think the Prime
Minister is entitled to be taken at his word.
Perhaps the Alliance should unleash its alleged expert on the
membership lists of the Alliance Party in Quebec.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the examiner states “The thirteen lines of writing on
the questioned document were written with speed, rhythm and
consistency with the exception of the numerals 1-9-9-3 appearing
on line 6”.
She also states “From the tremor and retouching on the strokes
of the four digits 1-9-9-3, it appears that extensions have been
added to the first two digits 1 and 9...it appears that the
second 9 was changed...the number 3 also appears to have been
retouched” and the entry changed”. When will they table the
original document?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that the Prime Minister has said that the copy
tabled in the House is that of the original document. I think
that the Prime Minister is entitled to be taken at his word.
If the hon. member does not agree let him go outside the House
with that so-called document. Also, as I said, let him unleash
his examiner on the membership lists of the Alliance Party,
starting with Quebec and going across the country.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, all week, the Minister of Human Resources
Development refused to give us an encouraging answer for the
unemployed on improvement to the employment insurance plan.
When we speak of the unemployed, we are not talking statistics.
They are real people.
By way of example, what has the government to say to the 200
casual employees of the House of Commons, who will be going home
next week without having accumulated enough hours to qualify for
benefits because of government cuts to the employment insurance
plan?
1140
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the employment
insurance reform, the system has covered all workers from their
first hour of work and first dollar earned.
This is the legislation that allowed us to deliver programs more
easily to Canadians. However, there are always situations in
which workers cannot accumulate sufficient hours to be entitled
to employment insurance, and we are looking at this problem now.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true they start paying premiums from
their first hour of work, but the House employees this year are
not entitled to employment insurance benefits because of the
elections, which deprived them of work for several weeks.
Does the government not understand that, when seasonal workers
do not have the hours to qualify for employment insurance, it is
not because of a lack of effort, it is because they are the
victims of external forces?
Does it not understand that there are thousands of cases like
that of the employees of the House of Commons, and we want them
corrected?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc does not
understand is that it is not the fault of the members on this
side of the House if the bill that helps all workers was
delayed. The decision was purely political.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is your fault.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Second, on this side of the House, we
believe in a balanced approach.
An hon. member: Table legislation.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: We established an annual report, which the
commission will table. This annual report will ensure that the
law will continue to evolve. We believe in regional economic
development.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Tell us, while the member for Charlevoix
was saying that seasonal work adjustment measures were possible,
when the people on this side of the House work to increase work—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Albert.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for Multiculturalism is off on another
witch hunt. She funded a theatre group to hold a three day
workshop to sensitize the people of Merritt, B.C., on diversity
issues because, and I quote from the grant application “rumours
of a cross burning in the area several years ago seem to be well
founded”.
What evidence did the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
have of cross burning in Merritt, B.C., before she blew $5,000 of
taxpayer money up in smoke?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism has apologized
in the House for her comments. I would urge other members, as is
the tradition in the House, to accept her apology.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was an apology for Prince George. This is Merritt,
British Columbia.
Let me quote from a letter from the RCMP in Merritt, British
Columbia: “inquiries with long term staff and a search of our
records fail to indicate any complaints relative to cross
burnings within this detachment area within the past several
years”.
Another community has been smeared by this minister's innuendo,
hearsay and prejudice. My question is for the Prime Minister.
Will he fire this minister?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us set the record
straight again.
What the hon. member on the opposite side alleges are comments
made not by the minister but by others. I would ask the hon.
member to not please provide us with the comments made by the
minister.
* * *
1145
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
It has now been about two months since the FTAA conference in
Quebec City. I recall the Minister for International Trade
saying on a number of occasions that he wanted to release the
text of the FTAA.
Where is that text? When will he release it to the Canadian
people? The people of this country have a right to know what is
in the agreement.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting
question this morning. Indeed we can be very proud that for the
first time in history we will have the drafting agreements of the
negotiations on trade. This is extraordinary progress, and I am
extremely proud that we could secure that at the Buenos Aires
ministerial meeting.
The secretariat of the free trade area of the Americas will have
the responsibility of releasing them. I understand it is a
matter of days, now that it has the four versions in the four
official languages of the free trade zone. It should be any day
now.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Revenue will be aware of an ongoing
disagreement between his department and the Saskatchewan
government which affects about 100 widows whose husbands were
killed on the job before 1985.
Two years ago Saskatchewan paid out $80,000 tax free, but it ran
afoul quickly of federal income tested programs like old age
security, so the widows had their allowance clawed back by about
$5,000.
While the federal and provincial officials continue to point
fingers at each other, the only people out of pocket are the
widows themselves. How long will it take for the two levels of
government to sort this out and make restitution to the
Saskatchewan widows?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I to thank the
hon. member for giving me advance notice of that question.
Of course I cannot comment on the specifics of that file because
of subsection 24(1), but generally speaking I would like to say
that those benefits obtained through WCB are indeed non-taxable.
However that could affect as well other benefits like the income
tested benefits.
We are responsible for the management of the Income Tax Act.
Therefore, based on those conditions, we have to move ahead and
apply the legislation. Those people have received an answer from
the department.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa. On June 2 Colombian indigenous leader, Kimy
Pernia Domico, was kidnapped by unknown forces.
Mr. Pernia is well known in Canada. He was a keynote speaker on
indigenous rights at the people's summit in Quebec City and has
appeared as a key witness before the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade. What action is Canada
taking in response to the kidnapping of this prominent Colombian
indigenous leader?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Kimy Pernia Domico is a highly
respected indigenous leader among Colombians and is a highly
respected person, as we heard, among Canadians.
At the recently completed OAS assembly in Costa Rica I raised
the matter personally with the foreign minister of Colombia. He
indicated he would get back to me very quickly with the results
of his investigation.
I thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale and the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for bringing public attention to
this issue.
* * *
HARBOURS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has sold most of Canada's harbour infrastructure and
now it is actually selling harbour bottoms. Some of those
harbour bottoms include large tracts of ocean bottom and channels
that are several kilometres long.
Why would the government even consider such a thing? Where is
the Minister of the Environment, where is the Minister of
Transport, where is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
where is the minister responsible for ACOA who represents much of
Atlantic Canada, on this issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is right here and
the Minister of Transport is right there. Other ministers who
are responsible are present. I think the question is perhaps a
little badly based in terms of who is where and where is where.
However, in terms of the harbour bottoms, if the hon. member is
concerned over harbour bottoms, he has not given a single example
of which harbour bottom he is talking about. Until he does, we
will have to take the question on notice.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is this another
way of escaping the responsibility of cleaning up harbours such
as St. John's and Halifax?
The government has divested itself of ports and now it is trying
to divest itself of harbour bottoms. Is this another way to
sneak out of your responsibility of cleaning up those harbours?
The Speaker: The hon. member will of course address the
Chair.
1150
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in no way is it the policy of the government to
sneak out of any responsibilities whatsoever.
What I would like to know is what is the policy of the hon.
member's party. Does he or does he not agree that we should have
local control where people locally manage things, or does he
think that Ottawa always knows best?
* * *
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy has developed a
long range plan to maintain Canada's position as a world leader
in this field. To remain viable the plan requires further
funding from the federal government of $164 million over 10
years. However rather than fund the plan, the government has
decided to spend money in other areas such as $750 million to the
Canada Foundation for Innovation.
Would the Minister of Industry explain why he has decided to
fund the CFI and other programs instead of the long range plan
for astronomy?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the member uses the word
spend, he is wrong. The government is investing in Canada. We
heard from the astronomers and listened when they brought forward
their points.
Let me tell the member, who is a very active participant on the
industry committee, that if he thinks investing in Genome Canada
is wrong, then let him say so. If he is thinks investing in and
connecting our country is wrong, then let him say so. If he is
talking about investing in research and development in our
universities, then let him say so. That is where our investments
are going.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary wants
critiques of CFI funding, he should talk to Liberal members on
the committee. The CFI operates outside of normal government
accounting procedures and thus is restricted in funding big
science projects such as the neutron facility and the long range
plan for astronomy.
Will the minister consider altering the structure and
regulations of the CFI so its funds can be used by the National
Research Council for projects such as the long range plan for
astronomy?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the recommendations that
will come forward, good points have been made by the hon. member
and every member on the committee.
Right now we are going to continue with this agenda. We are
reviewing it. The committee is summarizing it. He and every
Canadian can be assured that we will continue to make Canada the
most connected and innovative country in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president of
the Dairy Farmers of Canada has written a letter indicating that
the statements made by the Minister for International Trade on
cheese stick imports are misleading to the House.
The letter is clear. The points made are clear and confirm the
Bloc Quebecois position.
Is the Minister for International Trade going to at last
understand that he must show some backbone, stop issuing any
more import permits, and stop saying just about anything in the
House to cover up his errors and incompetence?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would point out, if I may, once more here in this
House that there have been no restrictions on cheese sticks
under free trade for the past 20 years. That is the reality, no
matter what the Bloc Quebecois says.
I have been asked to follow the Bloc Quebecois position, but it
has changed two or three times this week, between the hon.
member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis and the hon. member who has
just asked the question.
We are going to continue to promote our interests in the United
States. We want to reopen the border to the United States, to
whom we have sold cheese sticks for years. That is the
objective of our government, in the best interest of our
producers.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
really does not know what he is talking about, when he addresses
this issue.
On the cheese sticks issue, I am asking him, will he comply with
the dairy producers request for a meeting with him in order to
discuss the issue and come up, finally, with a logical and
consistent position?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to meet
with them, and it will be a pleasure to meet with them again.
However, I find the reference to cheese sticks very risky.
We have for years stressed the fact that these are breaded
cheese sticks, because the product contains less than 50%
cheese. Great care must be taken with classifications.
Regardless of what the Bloc Quebecois has just said, we have the
true interest of the dairy producers at heart and we will
continue to work in their interests in order to get the U.S.
border reopened.
* * *
1155
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said yesterday that the decisions on access to
information requests were made at arm's length from her office.
However we have been told on a number of occasions by access to
information officials that the final release was made by the
corporate sector, which is not arm's length from her department
or her office.
Is the minister asserting that her department or her office has
no part in approving the release of access to information
requests?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
department is committed to transparency and to providing
information contained in departmental records to Canadians in a
timely manner.
I remind the hon. member that in 1999-2000, HRDC received an
excellent rating from the Office of the Information Commissioner.
During the 2000-01 fiscal year, HRDC responded to 1,442 ATI
requests, representing a release of over 130,000 pages.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, requests regarding Placeteco and
Auberge Grand-Mère in the Prime Minister's riding have gone
unanswered for months.
The minister's department has taken on a culture of secrecy
since last year's disastrous billion dollar mess. It is
completely disregarding the spirit and letter of the access law
passed by the House.
Will the minister immediately direct her officials to clean up
their act and start providing the information Canadians are
demanding?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
before, during the year 2000-01, HRDC replied to over 1,442
requests, representing a release of 130,000 pages. I add that
this represents a 106% increase over the previous year.
I think the member of parliament opposite is using vastly
overblown language because the ever increasing number and
complexity of ATI requests over the past few years have often
required the department to compile files from many places, both
inside and outside the department.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past few weeks Canadians have watched with dismay as the
situation in Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse. Millions of
people are hungry and in refugee camps. The death rate of
children in the north is soaring and the situation for women in
particular is dismal.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation tell the House
what Canada is doing to signal our displeasure with the
situation?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Afghanistan is
horrendous. The Government of Canada would call on the Taliban
to stop immediately the policies that are very destructive to its
people, especially women and children.
However, in order to assist in the situation, I recently
announced an additional $2 million of spending in Afghanistan.
The money will go to improving medical facilities, providing
fresh water and sanitation, and assisting women and children
especially with medical assistance.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, certain interests in the United
States are becoming more and more protectionist in their trade
relations.
P.E.I. potatoes were targeted for months. Canada's greenhouse
tomatoes were attacked in March. The softwood lumber countervail
and dumping actions continue. This month it is wheat and now
steel. Meanwhile the federal Liberals are glowing about growth
in energy exports.
What action will the minister take to stop this accelerated
targeting of Canadian industries?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Alliance has raised every individual
file. I think every one of them deserves an answer.
If we talk about steel, I said very clearly that we are trying
to exempt Canadian steel from the U.S. measures. I am confident
that we will do that.
On softwood lumber, we are working with industry and the
provinces. I am very proud that the Canadian softwood industry
is holding together in solidarity and is facing the U.S.
challenges very well.
We are working very hard on the wheat board. I salute my
colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board,
for standing up for western farmers. We are trying—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
1200
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the recent 201 action by the U.S.
to protect its steel industry against dumping by foreign
countries, we understand that Canada is technically exempt
because of NAFTA rules.
The concern is that with the closure of the U.S. market Canada
will be highly vulnerable to foreign dumping. What measures will
the minister introduce to ensure that the Canadian steel industry
is protected from this new threat?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government, the Minister of National
Revenue and myself will stand up for our Canadian interests. We
will of course closely monitor the situation and the impact of
the 201 action the United States is taking.
We have a problem globally on steel. While we want Canada to be
exempt from the 201 action by the United States, our industry is
working with American industry to address the global problem that
we are having. We will make sure that we monitor the situation
very closely in Canada on our market.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for export
purposes, the Unibroue brewery in Quebec obtained GMO free
certification from the CFIA. After publicizing this
certification in Quebec, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
decided, without warning, to take back its certification. This
case shows us that agricultural and agrifood producers are at
the mercy of the agency.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food not realize that
the agency's inability to establish reliable standards for
labelling GMOs will harm farm producers—
The Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Unibroue Inc.,
the company in question, is certainly free and welcome to
advertise its product as being GMO free. It certainly used the
CFIA authorization for the export in the wrong way, but it is
most capable and most welcome to advertise its product as GMO
free as long as it is certain about the source of its product. It
must also make sure its labelling is very clear and meaningful
for the health of all Canadians.
* * *
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, critics of
the government's proposed cruelty to animals legislation say that
it will jeopardize the agriculturalized stock industries. Some
have even suggested that farmers may no longer be able to brand
their cattle.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
clarify the intent of these provisions with respect to animals
and farming in particular?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
among other things, Bill C-15 enhances maximum penalties for
cruelty to animals. This sends a clear message that abusing
animals is a form of violence that cannot be tolerated and that
must be treated seriously.
Nothing in the bill puts at risk lawful and humane activities
involving animals for such purposes as agriculture. It does not
affect the way that cattle branding takes place. The justice
minister made changes to the bill requested by farmers to make
the intent of the law clearer. The law unmistakably focuses on
intentional and negligent acts against animals.
* * *
CANADIAN AIRLINES
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the president of Air
Canada, Robert Milton, was in New York bragging to his peers that
as Canada's flag carrier it has virtually unrestricted access to
international routes, but this only came about because of the
Canadian Airlines merger.
While Mr. Milton boasts of grabbing the routes and the aircraft,
the pilots who fly them have been left on the tarmac. Instead of
being recognized for their years of experience, most have been
sent to the bottom of the seniority list.
Will the Minister of Transport concede that the Mitchnick Award
is punitive, keep his word and ensure that the former Canadian
Airlines pilots receive fair treatment?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that this is a matter that
is between parties. The two unions in question agreed to an
arbitrator. They agreed to accept the arbitration award. As
such, the Minister of Labour and myself as Minister of Transport
have no direct jurisdiction. If there is dissatisfaction with
the result of the arbitration award, then there is recourse for
the parties to the courts.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, during my question
earlier today I made reference to a letter from the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police in Merritt, British Columbia. I ask that
you seek unanimous consent that I table this letter in the House.
The Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent that
the hon. member table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to the 14th report
on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by some
members to clarify the business statement, given the time of
year, and perhaps I could take a moment to give an updated
business statement, particularly for the benefit of all House
leaders.
Assuming that the debate on Bill C-25 is completed at third
reading and Bill C-24 is completed at report stage later today,
the business for Monday would be as follows: Bill S-11,
respecting business corporations; Bill S-3, respecting motor
vehicles; Bill S-16, respecting money laundering. I understand
those three bills are perhaps briefer than others. We would
follow this with the third reading stage of Bill C-24, regarding
organized crime, which I know is of considerable interest to many
members. If any time is left it would be taken up on Bill C-11,
respecting immigration, and Bill C-6, respecting bulk water.
On Tuesday, of course, it will be a supply day. It is my
intention at the present time to call any unfinished business for
Wednesday and the debate on the modernization committee report.
* * *
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 five
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the 1999 report on Canada's participation in
regional development banks.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee considered the
issue of the third summit of the Americas held in Quebec City in
April 2001 and is pleased to table this report, which we believe
will make a contribution to improving future summits and
understanding this important process.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[Translation]
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade.
[English]
In accordance with its order of reference from the House of May
30, 2001, the committee has considered votes 20 and 25 under
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian International
Development Agency, and reports the same.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-375, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a
collective agreement).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today
to introduce once again a bill aimed at banning orphan clauses
from any collective agreement which might be covered by one of
the following three pieces of legislation: the Canada Labour
Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and
the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
1210
The purpose of the bill is to eliminate any discriminatory
provision affecting new labour market entrants and to ensure
that they receive the same wages as their elders.
Let me conclude with a quote that should give all my colleagues
in the House some food for thought “Collective problems do not
vanish because we have talked too much about them: they persist
because we did not solve them”.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-376, an act to establish national literacy
standards across Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the enactment of the bill
is to require a minister to consult with provincial and
territorial governments, education and literacy experts,
industry, labour, the media and literacy students to report on
illiteracy and national literacy goals and standards, and to
propose a policy by which the goals and standards might be
achieved.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-377, an act respecting the National Conference
on Guaranteed Annual Income.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment provides that a designated
minister shall convene a conference for the purpose of making
recommendations on creating and implementing a national program
to guarantee a minimum annual income to each Canadian.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-378, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Public Service
Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act (dependent beneficiaries).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to eliminate the
expression “illegitimate child” where it appears in all federal
legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-379, an act to establish national standards
across Canada for education provided by the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to establish a
process of consultation between different levels of government,
industry, labour, parent groups, volunteer organizations and
other sectors in order to facilitate the establishment of
national education standards across Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-380, an act to amend the National Archives of
Canada Act and the Statistics Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow the National
Archives of Canada to make information available to the public
for statistical and research purposes provided that 92 years have
lapsed since the collection of that information.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MAXIMUM SPEED CONTROL DEVICE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-381, an act to provide for the use of a maximum
speed control device for use on motor vehicles and to prohibit
the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles that are not equipped
with a maximum speed control device.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to lower the
maximum speed that might be reached by a motor vehicle by
providing that devices be installed with a maximum speed control
device and also to prohibit any person from removing the device
rendering it inoperative or reducing its operating capacities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-382, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act (school-leaving age).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that
there is a standard school leaving age of 18 across Canada by
making provisions for a deduction from the Canada health and
social transfer to the province if the school leaving age is not
18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-383, an act to amend the Divorce Act (right of
spouses' parents to access to or custody of child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would make it easier for
grandparents to have access to their grandchildren in the event
of the death of a parent. Rather than having to go to court
every time, the bill would make it a lot easier for grandparents
to have the opportunity to meet with their grandchildren.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CHILDREN IN LAW ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-384, an act to amend certain statutes to
standardize the definition of “child” in conformity with the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to recognize
in law the basic rights of the child, as set out in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that are not
already covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In other words, this would be a bill of rights for children in
Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CUSTOMS ACT
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.) moved that Bill S-23, an act to
amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other
acts, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present to the House
a petition signed by over 500 Canadians, including constituents
in my riding of Nepean—Carleton.
They call on the federal government to work with the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights to stop Algerian assaults on
the Amazigh people and to end its programs of discrimination and
repression.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present three more petitions to add to the thousands of
signatures I have already presented from citizens of the
Peterborough area who want VIA Rail service re-established
between Peterborough and Toronto.
The petitioners point out the great environmental advantages,
the reduction in greenhouse emissions, the reduction in accidents
and wear and tear on the highways. It would also strengthen
Peterborough as a business, educational and tourist centre and
also, I would say, strengthen all the communities along the line.
The petition has support in federal ridings such as
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Markham, Scarborough—Rouge River and
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
I am pleased to say that the petition has already resulted in
most constructive meetings between the Minister of Transport and
the people of Peterborough, the hon. member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock and citizens of the Lindsay area.
1220
CANADA POST
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition which
states that rural route mail couriers often earn less than the
minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another
era. They have not been allowed to bargain collectively to
improve their wages and working conditions. They therefore call
on the House to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 35, 47, 52 and 53.
.[Text]
Question No. 35—Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With regard to the Canadian firearms program: (a) what is the
proposed budget allocation for the fiscal year 2001-02; (b)
what is the cost breakdown in detail for the fiscal year 2001-02;
and (c) what was total cost since its inception in 1995?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): With regard to
the Canadian firearms Program: (a) The budget allocation for
fiscal year 2001-02 is $34,866,292.
(b) The cost breakdown for fiscal year 2001-02 is as follows:
(c) The total net program cost since its inception in 1995 is
$489.3 million.
Question No. 47—Mr. Roy Bailey:
With regard to the proposed move of the Canadian War Museum from
the location in Rockcliffe to LeBreton Flats, can the government:
(a) provide a list of the consultations it had with members of
the Canadian War Museum's advisory committee prior to its
announcing the move; (b) the reasons for the move; (c)
indicate if the land in Rockcliffe will be sold for private
development; and (d) indicate if the $15 million the Friends of
the Canadian War Museum raised toward the construction of the
museum in Rockcliffe: i) will still be used for LeBreton Flats
and if so, how and ii) is consistent with the government's
practice and policy of constructing museums?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): (a) Following the end of Mr. Barney
Danson's term as chair in June 2000, the Canadian War Museum
advisory committee evolved into two committees, the Canadian War
Museum committee, a committee of the Canadian Museum of
Civilization Corporation, CMCC, Board of Trustees, and the
Canadian War Museum advisory council, a committee established to
provide advice to the director of the Canadian War Museum. On
March 11, 2001, at a meeting of the board's Canadian War Museum
committee, all options for the location of the new museum were
discussed.
The Canadian War Museum advisory council's membership was
confirmed in April 2001 and a meeting of this council was held on
April 28, during which site options were discussed.
(b) The choice of LeBreton Flats as the location of the new
Canadian War Museum was made because the LeBreton site, close to
Parliament Hill and in the heart of the National Capital, will
make the museum more accessible to the Canadian public and to the
many tourists that visit the National Capital Region. It is
anticipated that construction of the Canadian War Museum on
LeBreton Flats will result in a substantial increase in
attendance and visibility.
(c) The land at Rockcliffe originally identified for
construction of the Canadian War Museum will be transferred to
the Canada Lands Company.
(d) (i) Funds generated through the Friends of the Canadian War
Museum campaign will be directed to exhibitions and programming
on the LeBreton Flats site. Construction costs for the new museum
will be funded by the federal government.
(ii) The raising of private sector funds by volunteer
organizations for the development of museological exhibitions and
programming is common practice in federal, provincial, municipal
and international sectors and is completely consistent with
federal government policies.
Question No. 52—Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
For each trip abroad by the president of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation between 1991 and the present: (a) what
was the destination; (b) what was the itinerary; (c) what was
the reason for the trip; (d) what was the total cost of the
trip; and (e) what was the number of accompanying persons?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: The
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to provide a
significant level of detail on its finances and operations to the public
through parliament. Its books are audited by the Auditor General
for Canada. The information requested would have formed part of
the information examined by the auditor general in any given
year. All of the budgets and plans of the corporation are
approved and reviewed by the board of directors of the
corporation.
Question No. 53—Mr. Andy Burton:
For each trip abroad by the chairman of the National Capital
Commission between 1991 and the present: (a) what was the
destination; (b) what was the itinerary; (c) what was the
reason for the trip; (d) what was the total cost of the trip;
and (e) what was the number of the accompanying persons?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): National Capital Commission: one trip
only by the chairman of the NCC, Mrs. Jean Pigott, on April
27-28-29, 1992 to:
(a) Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
(b) April 27: Ottawa to Washington
April 29; Washington to Ottawa
(c) To accompany members of the Canadiana Fund and the Official
Residences Collection Advisory Committee and meet with the
curator of the U.S. state department and tour U.S. official
residences.
(d) $1,500 per NCC traveller
(e) Four from the NCC. There were also 8 to 10 Canadiana Fund
members, costs not covered by the NCC.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the
government when it plans to answer Question No. 25 which was
submitted last March?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will see if I can get an answer for the hon. member.
As the House knows, the government makes every effort to answer
these questions on a timely basis. Some of the questions
unfortunately are necessarily referred because of the nature of
the question to all or many government departments. That makes
the exercise quite an exhaustive and complex one as all members
know.
I do have the hon. member's question noted as an environment
ministry question and that it deals with departmental contracts.
The review of the data is continuing and the answer is being
prepared. I acknowledge that the question has been unanswered
for over 45 days. The member is of course aware that he has an
option to move the question to adjournment proceedings if he
wishes to debate the matter further. If he is not going to do
that then I assure the member that the pursuit of the answer to
his question is ongoing and I will make a special inquiry into it
to ensure an early reply.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
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.
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): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45 the division stands deferred until Monday, June 11 at
the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): There are six
motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report
stage of Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized
crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
1225
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on as
follows: a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.
[English]
Motions Nos. 3 to 6 will be grouped for debate and voted on as
follows: a vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6;
an affirmative vote on Motion No. 3 obliterates the necessity of
the question being put on Motion No. 5; a negative vote on Motion
No. 3 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 5.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page
4 the following:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 4
with the following:
He said: Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that
the PC Party views this as a very positive bill. As members
know, it is legislation that comes about as a result of the
Supreme Court of Canada decision, Regina v Campbell and Shirose.
Bill C-24 is meant to remedy an anomaly that resulted from that
decision. It left law enforcement officers throughout Canada in
the unenviable position of confusion about their ability to, on
occasion, act outside the bounds of the criminal code in an
effort to infiltrate or to apprehend those engaged in unlawful
activity.
Specifically, the legislation is aimed at organized crime, hence
the title of the bill itself. It focuses on the neverending
efforts of our brave men and women in law enforcement who are
faced with the tremendous task of trying to curtail organized
crime in Canada. This problem has been exaggerated and
exacerbated over the past number of years to the point where many
people in communities throughout Canada, but particularly in the
province of Quebec, are feeling threatened in their communities
and very ill at ease in their homes and in their towns.
The legislation is meant to address the fallout from the
Campbell and Shirose decision. It is meant to provide police a
level of immunity from prosecution for acting in their capacity
as law enforcement officers, but allowing them to, on occasion,
transgress the law. There are certain limitations that have been
placed upon that, such as serious crimes involving sexual
assault, bodily harm and murder. These are obviously the types
of offences that would be completely out of bounds when it comes
to police officers acting in the line of duty.
There are certainly exceptional cases. The case can be made
where police officers must demonstrate to potential gang activity
and those engaged in unlawful gang activity that they are part of
that gang. They must demonstrate that they are prepared, given
certain circumstances, to break the law in order to ingratiate
themselves or get into the club so they might infiltrate and gain
information by attaining the trust of those who are involved in
this nefarious activity in the hope of bringing them to justice.
The police, by doing this, hope to collect evidence that will
eventually lead to prosecution.
The bill in its current form grants police officers this special
designation that allows them to transgress the law.
That discretion or authority is now vested in the police, albeit
through superior officers, and in some instances attorneys
general. In some instances there is reference to the solicitor
general being the top minister in the department.
1230
That is fine and dandy. However, in terms of direct
accountability, knowledge and discretion over who should be
immune from prosecution and who should receive this special
designation, it is my submission and earnest suggestion that the
competent authority be a judicial authority. Simply put, it
should be a judge. Judges understand the law and could make
learned and competent decisions as to who should be granted these
very special powers.
I have worked in the justice system and have a great deal of
respect and admiration for our police. However we all know that
there have been instances, sadly, where police officers have gone
outside their duties and have in some instances undermined public
confidence.
I strenuously suggest that for the new system and the new law to
take effect, win public confidence and operate in a smooth and
satisfactory way, judges should be granted the discretion to make
decisions as to who is granted immunity. That would be a much
more practical and professional way to go about it and would be
very much in keeping with current practice as it pertains to
wiretaps and to warrants for search and seizure.
Once the designation is made there would be a greater level of
accountability and review. As contemplated in the legislation,
the designation would be for an indeterminate period. However,
that is not to say that no supervision or checks and balances
would be in place or that reports would not be made to those in
authority.
I again strongly suggest that it would make greater sense and be
more consistent with our current legal practices to have the
judiciary make the designations. Judges in Canada practise
criminal law daily and are aware of recent developments in the
law and of the practices that take place in courtrooms across the
land. They should have the power vested in them. That is the
direction in which we should be going with the legislation. That
is the sole purpose behind the amendment.
There have been quite animated discussions along this line at
committee level. I would go so far as to say it was one of the
most productive committee hearings I have had the pleasure to
take part in during my short tenure here in Ottawa. There was a
full and open exchange of ideas. Members of parliament were
fully engaged in the debate as to where this very special,
extraordinary power should rest.
The special designation granting this form of immunity would not
apply only to organized crime. That may come as a surprise to
many, given the title of the bill and the intent of the
legislation as it was presented and sold to the general public.
The designated special power would apply to police officers
deemed immune from prosecution in their efforts to infiltrate
organized crime. It would apply to their general practice of law
enforcement; that is to say, they would be given powers that used
to exist under common law. There was, after the fact obviously,
a judicial examination of those acts and those actions on the
part of police.
Once the designation is made, subject to the amendment being
accepted by a judge for a police officer or superior officer, or
a provincial attorney general in the case of municipal or
provincial police forces, it would not be for the sole purpose of
dealing with organized crime. That must fully be understood by
the Canadian public. Police officers would return, subject to
the legislation passing, to having discretion in the field to act
in emergency situations.
1235
That is what the legislation is intended to do. It is intended
to correct the fallout and the upshot from the supreme court
decision which threw into disarray the understanding of police
officers as to what they could do in a given circumstance.
It goes without saying that police often find themselves in
dangerous situations where they must make split second decisions
as to their actions. They must apply force but within reason.
They must on occasion enter premises. The practice has always
been to use reason and a certain discretion as to how much force
they should apply and how much of a transgression of the law they
should embark upon.
However, given the size, scope and breadth of Canada and the
many rural communities that exist, it is virtually impossible for
police officers on every occasion and in every instance to
receive prior judicial authorization when contemplating whether
to enter a premise or take a vehicle or other property that may
not belong to them.
All of this is aimed at allowing police officers to carry out
their very important role of protecting the public. The
amendment is aimed at putting a balance in place so that checks
will exist to allow judges the opportunity to intervene and make
a proper designation and thereby allow police to act
appropriately.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code
in relation to organized crime and law enforcement and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
The standing committee has completed its consideration of the
bill. I am pleased to say that the committee endorsed the bill
with only a few amendments. Bill C-24 has been reported back to
the House of Commons with those amendments.
I want to first thank my colleagues on the committee for their
work with respect to the bill. In particular, I would point out
that there were members on the standing committee who had
participated in the subcommittee on organized crime during the
last parliament. It was their report and the recommendations
contained therein that are reflected in the government's
legislation before us.
As we all know, it is a matter of utmost importance that we
expand and enhance the tools available to law enforcement
authorities and the criminal justice system to address the
serious problem of organized crime. The committee members
examining Bill C-24 understood this and recognized the need to
move forward quickly with the bill.
At the same time, they recognized that we must ensure that the
tools provided are the correct tools. Bill C-24 includes
provisions of some complexity that would make important additions
to the law of Canada. The committee members considered the
provisions of the bill very carefully and with a clear
understanding of its objectives. We can be confident in their
work.
I must also highlight the assistance provided to the committee
by the numerous witnesses who appeared before it. These
witnesses provided substantial, thought provoking testimony and
often did so on very short notice. Their efforts in preparing
and presenting testimony were vital to the committee's
proceedings.
The House will recall that Bill C-24, as approved at second
reading, included proposals that fall under four main categories.
First, it would improve protection from intimidation for persons
who play a role in the justice system.
Second, it would create an accountable process to protect law
enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain
otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an
investigation.
Third, it would broaden the powers of law enforcement officers
to seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime and property used in
crimes.
Fourth, it would create important new offences targeting
involvement in criminal organizations.
While endorsing all four main elements of the bill, the
committee made a number of amendments in its report to the House.
The amendments would not alter the main thrust of the bill but
rather make improvements upon it. The amendments would reinforce
the effectiveness of the bill and refine the application of
certain law enforcement tools.
I will briefly discuss the principal amendments.
With respect to protection from intimidation, the definition of
a participant in the criminal justice system has been expanded to
include members of provincial legislative assemblies and
municipal councils.
The definition already included members of the Senate and of this
House as well as persons playing a role in the administration of
justice. Expanding it to include members of legislative
assemblies and municipal councils would recognize that other
legislators have been called upon to play a role in the fight
against organized crime and could be vulnerable as a result.
1240
A further amendment was adopted which would extend the
intimidation offence to include situations where journalists are
threatened. Committee members felt that journalists play a vital
public role by reporting on organized crime. Groundbreaking
investigative journalism has assisted Canadians in understanding
the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada. However, as
we are aware, reporting on organized crime can come at a price.
That is why the committee decided to amend the new intimidation
offence to include journalists.
The government accepted the change to include journalists.
However, upon further examination, it recognized that
improvements to the amendment accepted by the committee were
necessary to achieve the intended objective.
We are therefore presenting an amendment on behalf of the
government that would add references to journalists to the intent
provisions in subsection 423.1(1) and the description of
prohibited conduct in subsection 423.1(2). The change to those
provisions would add the specific intent of impeding journalists
in the fulfilment of their role in reporting on criminal
organizations.
There is no definition in the criminal code of what organized
crime means. There has never been an agreement, either
domestically or internationally, as to exactly what such a term
may comprise. However a definition of criminal organization was
added to the criminal code in 1997. Bill C-24 would refine and
sharpen that definition.
A new paragraph in the bill, 423.1(1)(c), would thus make it an
offence to intimidate a journalist:
The motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would address the same
issue but in far too broad a manner. The motion from the member
for Berthier—Montcalm would make it an offence to intimidate a
journalist with the intent of impeding the performance of his or
her duties. That would mean journalists would be covered by this
serious offence regardless of whether their work involved
organized crime or any part of the criminal justice system.
The government agrees that journalists who report on criminal
organizations are in danger and should be protected by the new
offence. We should not underestimate the implications of such a
broad amendment. It is a very serious offence indeed, punishable
by up to 14 years imprisonment.
As a result of another provision in Bill C-24, a murder which
occurs as a result of this offence would be first degree murder.
The application of the offence to journalists must be limited to
those whose work puts them in danger from criminal organizations.
The government's motion would do exactly that.
Under the amendment made by the government's motion, it would
also be an offence to intimidate a journalist when the intent,
under paragraph 423.1(1)(a), is:
There were technical problems in the amendment adopted by the
committee. To address these problems, the amendment I have
presented would add references to journalists to subsection
423.1(2). Such references are necessary to ensure that the
definition of prohibited conduct includes conduct aimed both at
journalists and at persons known to them. This would ensure that
acts which seek to intimidate journalists through their family
and friends are caught by the offence, as I am sure the committee
would have wished.
We are proposing in the same motion limited amendments that
would: first, add the word “criminal” in regard to the
administration of justice in paragraph 423.1(1)(a) in order to be
consistent with the definition of justice system participant in
clause 1 of the bill; and second, add the words “provoke a state
of fear” in the opening words of subsection 423.1(1) so that it
describes the intent involved in all the paragraphs of that
subsection rather than just paragraph (a) as is now the case.
This would better express the bill's original intent to penalize
conduct which seeks to intimidate by causing fear. It would also
address concerns expressed by witnesses before the committee that
the new offence might be interpreted to apply to peaceful
lobbying or protest activity aimed at legislators.
1245
In connection with the amendments to section 423.1, we are also
presenting two other consequential amendments. These involve the
reference to the new offence in section 423.1 in the list of
offences under section 183 of the criminal code, both in the main
part of the bill and in a co-ordinating clause. The change
simply reflects the addition of the application to journalists in
the description of the offence.
I return now to the other amendments that were endorsed by the
committee and that have been reported back to this House. With
respect to the limited protection for law enforcement officers
and agents who work under their direction and control, an
amendment was added to provide specific examples of the
conditions that ministers may impose on the designations that
bring officers under these provisions. The protection from
criminal liability is subject to important controls and
limitations, and this amendment helps to clarify the nature of
one of these controls.
Another amendment to the provisions on protection from criminal
liability clarifies the requirements for the application of the
protection to agents acting under the direction of law
enforcement officers. This refinement adds a further safeguard
to ensure the proper operation of these provisions.
A further amendment provides for a parliamentary review of these
provisions within three years of their coming into force. This
review will examine the sections dealing with protection from
criminal liability. Parliament will then have an opportunity to
consider whether improvements are needed. The supreme court has
indicated that parliament has a responsibility for providing for
protection from criminal liability for law enforcement officers.
The three year review provision emphasizes this parliamentary
authority and responsibility.
With respect to the provisions defining a criminal organization,
an amendment was made to clarify that a criminal group will fall
under this definition whether its members are situated inside or
outside Canada.
This amendment recognizes the international nature of organized
crime and ensures that the new offences of participating in,
benefiting and directing a criminal organization will have the
corresponding adequate scope. The criminal activity affected
will still have to have a substantial connection with Canada and
the amendment thus does not involve any extraterritorial
application of Canadian law.
The committee also made a number of other technical amendments
to improve Bill C-24. These are included in the amended text of
the bill that has been reported.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its work on
all these amendments, substantive and technical, and for its work
in examining the bill as a whole. The result is an effective and
balanced bill that would substantively improve our ability to
fight organized crime in this country as well as improve law
enforcement generally.
We look forward to the debate at third reading.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments to the bill.
First I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc, the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, for originally bringing forth the
amendments to extend additional protection from intimidation to
journalists. I think journalists play a very special and
important role in our society. They are fundamental to free
speech and in covering organized crime. The case of the
journalist in Quebec being shot in the way he was last year
demonstrated that fact.
As a number of recent cases demonstrate, journalists who serve
the public interest by reporting on organized crime are very much
in need of and deserve enhanced protection under our criminal
law. Again I thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing that
forward originally in committee.
I thought it was interesting, too, that in the course of our
committee certain government members appeared to only vote in
favour of this amendment brought forward by the Bloc once it was
implied that their names would get out to the media if they did
not.
This is somewhat amusing, but in fact is kind of sad at the same
time. When a member has to be persuaded—I do not like to use
the word coerced—to extending protection to journalists by the
threat of his or her name being published in the media, it is
quite an interesting state of affairs.
I think it demonstrates the power of the media and indeed
reveals the exact importance of the role of the media in
uncovering matters of interest. Indeed, it is crucial to our
democratic process.
1250
Even that small situation confirmed to me the importance of this
amendment because of the significant role that journalists play.
I will, however, be supporting the government amendments as
opposed to the Bloc amendments. The Bloc raised the matter,
however, a government member denied unanimous consent for the
matter to be placed in the correct positioning and therefore the
amendment proceeded as it did in committee. However, in
listening to the government's explanation, I think the
appropriate amendment would be as proposed by the government.
In respect of the amendment brought forward by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I cannot support it. I would
indicate that under Bill C-24 only the Solicitor General of
Canada for the RCMP or provincial ministers responsible for the
police are given the authority to designate police officers who
may commit offences during the course of a legitimate criminal
investigation. The amendment says that public officials will
have the authority to designate these police officers only after
acquiring authorization from a competent judicial authority, in
other words, a judge. I cannot support that amendment. I do not
believe that this is a process that constitutionally or otherwise
requires the supervision of a judge.
We have heard from police evidence and other evidence that such
a requirement which this amendment would impose would
unnecessarily encumber police investigations without a real
enhancement of the quality of justice or the quality of the
police investigation. I think it is unnecessary to have judicial
intervention at this time. There are unique circumstances that
apply to undercover and other police investigations in this
context, which I would think would grind to a halt if this
process were adopted.
One has to remember that police officers regularly exercise this
authority without legislative sanction. It was as a requirement
or as a consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada that this
amendment became necessary. It is a good amendment because it
does set out clearly the legislated extent to which police
officers may embark upon this course of action. I think it takes
a lot of the guesswork and discretion out of it. It becomes a
transparent process. Canadians and those enforcing the law will
understand exactly what is required. I think most police forces
would agree that the Liberal bill as it stands on that issue is a
reasonable compromise.
I think the amendment brought forward by the member does not
enhance the ability of police to get the job done in an
appropriate and timely fashion. The bill already outlines quite
clearly what police officers may or may not do and in which
circumstances they may do it. It takes away that hidden
discretion, the discretion that is unencumbered by legislation. I
think this is a very good step.
In general I support the amendments being brought forward by the
government. I again commend the member for the Bloc for bringing
forward the matters related to the journalists. I also want to
point out that there is a review process which was proposed in
committee, that is, that this legislation would be reviewed
within three years. That is important when we are adopting this
kind of legislation.
1255
We have listened to the police forces. We have listened to the
public. We have listened to journalists. I think this bill as
proposed by the Liberals, together with the amendments suggested
by the government and the Bloc, is appropriate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to pay tribute to my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, not only for his work in
committee, as the Canadian Alliance member pointed out, but also
for his continuous work, since 1994, in the fight against
organized crime.
Since 1994, the Bloc Quebecois has always put forward
initiatives to improve the criminal code, so that criminals,
particularly those who belong to biker gangs and to organized
crime in general, will be given meaningful sentences that
reflect their crimes and the terrorism they institutionalized in
today's society.
Back in 1997, when it decided to amend the criminal code, the
government used several of the Bloc Quebecois' ideas. We were
very pleased with that but, at the time, we were also aware that
the criminal code had to be strengthened even further. At the
time, we had pointed to certain flaws, about 80% of which are
being corrected in the new bill.
We still wonder, and the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm,
often about this: since we were able to identify the problems
with the criminal code, the flaws relating to the tools
available to police officers to combat organized crime, why did
the government take so long to recognize the need to strengthen
the criminal code and to have specific provisions to lead a
continuous, constant and determined fight against organized
crime?
I am not saying that we would have avoided all that has
happened, but some of the 151 murders committed between 1994 and
now in the biker gang war, particularly to control the drug
market, might have been avoided.
Some of the 170 attempted murders, including the recent one
against reporter Michel Auger, might also have been avoided.
With a tightened criminal code, as we have before us today, we
might have avoided some of these attempted murders, 13
disappearances, 334 violent crimes, 129 cases of arson, 82
bombings and the murder of one young boy in 1995. Young Daniel
Desrochers lost his life as a result of a bombing in the
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve area. The bomb was placed by the Hell's
Angels, who were involved with the Rock Machine, now known as
the Bandidos, in a war to control the drug traffic.
Let us not forget that, if we open the door to these criminal
gangs, if we provide them with some kind of haven where they can
grow and prosper, they can only become more arrogant and more
powerful. With power comes their willingness to commit more
crime to show their supremacy.
That is exactly what happened when two prison guards were killed
in 1997, if I am not mistaken.
We might have avoided these tragedies.
Members might remember that four years ago I talked about
institutionalized terrorism in Quebec and southeastern Ontario,
in the countryside. Members of criminal gangs grow marijuana in
those fields every year. To ensure the growth of their business
operations, they terrorize farm families. Maybe this is
something else we could have avoided.
I am pleased with what I see in this bill. I even support the
amendment put forward by my Conservative colleague allowing a
judge to designate a member of a police force who can be
protected from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal
acts committed in the course of an investigation.
1300
It is also a way to protect the solicitor general. We should not
forget that, when politics interfere with the judiciary, it
always turns into a disaster, as we have seen in the past. It
has always put us, willy-nilly, in terrible situations.
It is especially true since the practice of having illegal acts
committed by police officers applies not only to investigations
into organized crime. We often asked this question to the
solicitor general and the justice minister. They have said that
this practice is not restricted to organized crime.
This thing could go quite far.
The solicitor general could have to make a political decision
when what we need is a judicial decision. This could lead to
abuse.
We have seen a lot of abuse in the past. We all know what
happened in the 1970s. We would not like to see this happen
again. Two royal commissions investigated police actions during
the October 1970 events. The powers of were have been
restricted, and at the same time, the roles of the RCMP and of
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service were divided so that
these roles would be clearly defined.
Did we forget about all these discussions? Did we forget what
happened a few decades ago, so that we are now about to make
the same mistakes again today?
We support the introduction of the judicial order, therefore of
a judge, in the fact that the police are given authority or
tools to work with, including the ability to commit offences not
murder or rape, as part of their undercover operations.
I met a lot of policemen during the three months my family had
24 hour a day protection seven days a week because of death
threats. I had reported gangsters who had taken over farmland
in my riding, elsewhere in Quebec and in southeastern Ontario.
I therefore had a taste of that sort of terrorism. I also
learned a lot by talking to the police who often came from drug
raids and who had had to go undercover.
They are often required to commit offences, because, if they do
not, they risk their skins. They risk being killed on the spot.
So, they need these tools in order to become more effective and
to protect themselves as well.
They have to be careful. The job of policemen is not a cushy
one. They need these tools. We support the fact that the
government is giving them the tools to enable them to
effectively combat organized crime and do not get discouraged.
I also met police from the RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec, who,
in the absence of legal instruments, were back at square one
after months and months of investigations costing hundreds of
millions of dollars and unable to lay charges.
I am very anxious to see, following the recent operation
springtime 2001, with its 160 arrests, including the heads of
biker gangs, how far we will be able to proceed with charges
under the provisions of the Criminal Code as it now stands, and
this will need to be discussed with the minister at some point.
The weaknesses that have been pointed out since 1997 are still
there, until the new legislation is enacted. If they remain,
this means that charges are not being laid and evidence is not
being gathered against these 160 bandits who have committed
criminal offences ranging from drug trafficking to corruption,
intimidation of judges, politicians, journalists, and even
murder or attempted murder.
If the tools available to us at the present time, which have been
criticized since 1997 by the Bloc Quebecois and by my colleague for
Berthier—Montcalm, stand in the way of laying any meaningful
charges against this band of criminals, that will be the fault
of the Minister of Justice, no more and no less.
She had no justification for waiting this long before
introducing her bill. She had all the tools, all the analyses,
at her disposal. We had provided them. She had everything she
needed to make a decision to strengthen the criminal code well
before today.
During the committee hearings, the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm told me that, as regards the amendment to
include journalists in the clause about people to be protected
against intimidation through sentences of up to 14 years, we had
to intimidate the Liberals to have them agree to include
journalists in the list of people to be protected against
intimidation. This is incredible.
We all know about Mr. Auger's experience. We know that, like
politicians, as I learned from personal experience, journalists do a
risky and dangerous job. They examine issues. They target
criminals. They report on their activities. It is quite
normal to include them.
1305
However we had to threaten the Liberals with releasing the names of
those who were opposed to including journalists in the list of
the people to be protected from intimidation, before they would
finally agree to this amendment. They got scared that their
names would be released and that journalists would say “Listen,
this does not make sense”.
For all these reasons, we will support the amendment proposed by
the Progressive Conservative member. We will also support the
other group of amendments, which consists in including
journalists in the new clause on intimidation.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendments proposed by my
friend from Pictou—Antigonish from the Progressive Conservative
Party. I would like to indicate on behalf of our party that we
support these amendments.
Before I go to the specific amendments, I would like to
acknowledge the work that the committee did and the fact that the
Liberal government saw its way through to add that provision to
protect journalists. Work that has been done by journalists
specifically on organized crime has been exemplary. They do that
profession proud. The fact that the government has recognized
their work and their need for that protection by the expansion of
the provisions to prevent intimidation is an excellent one. I
congratulate them on it.
The two amendments proposed relate to the necessity of having a
judicial review of police officers who commit crimes in the
pursuit of the provisions of these amendments to the code. I
believe it is really important to take a bit of an historical
perspective on the necessity of having this type of protection
built into the legislation.
As my friend from the Bloc indicated, no one here has any
misgivings about what we are doing with the rest of the bill. We
recognize the seriousness of organized crime in the country,
particularly in Ontario and even more so in Quebec over the last
number of years. It has become a prominent issue. No one is
downplaying the significance of the need for this legislation.
No one is downplaying the significance of the need to protect
police officers in their duties, especially in this area. They
are at constant risk for their own safety and at times their
lives. So there is no issue with regard to that among anyone in
the House or in the government.
However that does not say that we ignore the reality of the
structure that we have built in our legal system over the
centuries. There has been any number of times in the past where
we have gone to excess in dealing with a criminal problem. I am
afraid this could be one of those occasions, if we pass this
these amendments to the code without the provision of a judicial
review for police officers who commit crimes or breach other
parts of the criminal code because of the necessity to do their
work.
We have had a long history of balancing our responsibility to
provide protection in a safe environment for our citizens with
the recognition that there are civil liberties in the country.
We have to recognize those. We always hear that we are just
worried about the criminals. Police officers are human. They
can make errors. The whole idea behind our system is that we
provide someone else, in the form of judges, to protect us from
those errors.
Again, I am not going to suggest judges are perfect. I have
appeared before too many of them in my career to suggest that.
However it is an additional measure, and a very important one, to
provide all citizens with that type of protection.
1310
As a result of questions from I think at least three of the four
opposition parties, we have heard the Solicitor General of Canada
and the Minister of Justice repeatedly say the that it is just too
cumbersome, or synonyms of that word.
That is just plain nonsense. We have used this system in
providing warrants, sometimes very complicated warrants, and our
judges have been able to deal with that. There is no reason,
given the skills they bring to their positions, that they cannot
do the same thing in this area.
I know a number of groups appeared before the committee when the
bill was being reviewed. The Civil Liberties Association and a
number of the bar associations made representations. All pushed
strongly for this extra protection. Quite frankly, all indicated
their understanding of the need for the legislation, but wanted
the safety net built in to provide all citizens with this
protection. It is our responsibility. We should fulfil our
responsibility by accepting the amendments of Progressive
Conservative Party and by supporting them.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, I will be very brief. I congratulate and thank the
other members who spoke on this topic, especially the member for
St-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He gave a very important perspective on the
subject, of which he obviously has first-hand knowledge.
I hope all members will vote for this amendment.
[English]
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. 1. 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare Motion No.
1 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 lost.
[Translation]
Before putting the motions in Group No. 2 to the House, I wish
to make it clear that the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm no
longer wishes to proceed with Motion No. 5 in Group No. 2.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Justice) moved:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line
4 on page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing
lines 7 to 36 on page 18 with the following:
“423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority,
engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) with the
intent to provoke a state of fear in
(a) a group of persons or the general public in order to
impede the administration of criminal justice;
(b) a justice system participant in order to impede him or
her in the performance of his or her duties; or
(c) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the
transmission to the public of information in relation to a
criminal organization.
(2) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) consists
of
(a) using violence against a justice system participant or
a journalist or anyone known to either of them or destroying
or causing damage to the property of any of those persons;
(b) threatening to engage in conduct described in paragraph
(a) in Canada or elsewhere;
(c) persistently or repeatedly following a justice system
participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of
them, including following that person in a disorderly manner
on a highway;
(d) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or
indirectly, a justice system participant or a journalist or
anyone known to either of them; and
(e) besetting or watching the place where a justice system
participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of
them resides, works, attends school, carries on business or
happens to be.
That Bill C-24, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line
22 on page 68 with the following:
1315
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to this since I did not
touch upon it in my earlier remarks on my own amendment.
I would again reiterate that it is not the position of the
Progressive Conservative Party, and I think I am safe in saying
it is not the position of any party in the House, to impede or in
any way hold back the police in their very important duty to
protect citizens and the country from this growing threat of
organized crime.
This amendment was proposed by the Bloc. I again wish to
congratulate the members of the Bloc who contributed a great deal
to this particular piece of legislation, who brought forward
amendments, who proposed supply day motions that I would suggest
very much pushed the government toward the point we see today
where legislation has been brought forward.
As I indicated, members, particularly the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, know first hand the means by which
organized crime can invade a person's life and very much affect
day to day existence through threats to family. Often it is very
much implied. It is very subtle. It is very nefarious in its
means. This is something that can be most disturbing. It is a
cancer, a plague on our justice system, when it occurs.
It stands to reason that we would extend this practice of
protection beyond our own means, beyond the members of parliament
and the Senate, and extend it to provincial and municipal
politicians and to journalists as well, because we have seen the
extremely important role that journalists play in public
awareness, in the reporting of the activities of organized crime
and, I would suggest as well, in the disclosure and the pulling
back of the cloak of secrecy that is very often part of the
threat that organized crime can pose.
In many instances revealing who these individuals are strips
them bare of their ability to intimidate. If the bright light of
day shines upon them, they are no longer able to work from the
shadows and cause fear in the hearts of those who are seeking
justice. Whether it be through disclosing information, whether
it be a journalist, jury members or participants in the justice
system in any way, intimidation can very clearly take the
underpinnings and shake the cornerstone of the justice system.
To that end is the government adoption of this amendment that
originated from the Bloc. I must congratulate the member for
Berthier—Montcalm as well. I know that he has worked extremely
hard and has made significant contributions to the bill as well.
The government in its wisdom has seen its way clear to including
journalists in this envelope, in this protection from
intimidation.
1320
Expanding this so that journalists are included means that they
too can go about their tasks and their reporting without the fear
of reprisal. If it does happen, the justice system is now
mandated to intervene. We do not have to look any further than a
very recent example involving Michel Auger in Montreal. What is
quite timely is that we are informed that members of the Sûreté
du Québec and the Montreal city police, I believe, have
apprehended individuals connected with his shooting.
He was a very courageous man indeed, Madam Speaker, as you would
know. Not only has he recovered, he continues to write on the
subject of organized crime. He continues to provide the public
in the province of Quebec with information about this story of
organized crime and with other stories he has taken on in his
passion as a journalist.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party are supporting this
amendment as well. We encourage other members to do likewise. We
look forward to seeing the legislation come into being upon
passing through the other place.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank the Progressive Conservative member for his kind words
with respect to the Bloc Quebecois members, particularly the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, who led the battle for this
amendment to the criminal code.
We are going to vote in favour of this amendment: first, because
we feel it is very fair and, second, because it was our
colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who suggested it to
the Standing Committee on Justice.
As I mentioned earlier, it is a bit much that the Liberal
members must always be practically intimidated before they will
come around to a point of view or an analysis which has always
been right. The Bloc Quebecois has always put its finger on the
problems and the shortcomings of the criminal code, and the
tools the police are given to conduct their investigations.
During the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice,
the Liberal members were completely opposed to journalists being
protected. Even in the case of Mr. Auger, it was something they
would not do. It took the Bloc Quebecois moving a motion
calling for a recorded division and threatening to release the
names of those Liberal members present to convince them.
It is a bit much to have to operate in this way to bring about
improvements.
This government does not readily understand the importance of
what it includes in a bill, in terms of actions and wording.
This amendment deals with intimidation. This is a very important
issue; with money, it is the key element in the war being
wagered by all criminal groups. If, with the wealth derived from
drugs, car thefts and prostitution, one is unable to buy another
person, he will use intimidation. It is the one or the other.
We welcome this amendment. For about three months, I lived
through this hell. It was as if I had been in some kind of jail
24 hours a day, seven days a week, while I could see on
television criminals clowning around, smiling and acting like
movie stars; they are incredibly arrogant when they become
powerful.
Their arrogance is directly proportional to their power. For an
honest citizens, particularly a three year old girl, to be deprived
of their freedom even for an hour, is the most horrible
experience they can go through. Freedom is important,
particularly when one has nothing to reproach oneself with.
Why should we be shy when comes the time to fight organized
crime, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
supposedly to respect the rights of these people who have
absolutely no respect for others? They destroy families, they
kill, even 11 year old children.
Why should we not include clauses such as the one proposed by my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm to protect journalists? In a
democracy, these people have an incredible job to do, that is,
to dig up the truth and denounce criminals. In this democracy,
they often complement our work. Without them, democracy would be
incredibly flawed.
So it was quite normal that we should include journalists in
this new clause on intimidation.
1325
I am also pleased with the new provision that will protect the
general public from certain acts of intimidation. Other
provisions provide for the prosecution of those who help out
organized criminals or have close ties with them. I am also very
happy that, under this bill, the thugs who take over farmland in
my riding and elsewhere in Quebec will be prosecuted.
By linking those two provisions to the crimes they commit, we
will be able to put them behind bars. First, they use
intimidation.
For about four years now, they have been intimidating farm
families. That is unacceptable. They terrorize them for six
months every year, from the moment they sow and transplant to
the moment they harvest. They intimidate farmers, their families
and their children.
We now have the extra tools we need to prosecute them. After
catching these criminals right there in the fields, and I am
talking directly to them now, we will have the tools to prosecute
them for contributing to organized crime, the operations of
biker gangs in particular, and to ensure they get real tough
sentences. We will put an end to institutionalized terrorism in
the rural areas of Quebec and particular in my riding of
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We will let those farming families alone, undisturbed, to enjoy
the use of their land and make the economy roll.
I am particularly proud of the new provisions. However, we would
have liked the minister to show even more openness. We will have
to wait another two, three or maybe four years to find out that
there are still flaws.
I do not know what is happening, but on our side, we work, we
analyse and we plan. We have a problem with a number of things
in this bill, irrespective of the good in it, and the bill satisfies
about 80% of our expectations, for example, the whole issue of the
solicitor general approving of the commission of crimes by
policemen.
Why is a judge not involved as is the case for search warrants,
so that the political power does not interfere with the
judiciary, with all the abuses that this may entail? There will
be abuses. It is easy to foresee that. Why not also limit police
immunity with respect to the organized crime?
We have asked the Minister of Justice why she was not referring
to criminal organizations, to organized crime. It is becoming
disturbing to see that we can extend immunity to the police for
any reason, basically for any group. It is just like an open
bar. Once again, we want to give the police all the tools they
need to fight organized crime and to help them do their work.
That is obvious. However, we have to put restrictions and we
need to be very careful.
We also asked the minister to reverse the burden of proof for
the proceeds of crime. Let the criminals explain how, when they
do not have a regular job and do not file income tax returns
with Revenue Canada or Revenu Québec, they can afford a
Mercedes, a boat and a mansion.
It would have been nice if the government had avoided a
situation where it will have to spend thousands and millions of
dollars investigating the assets of criminals to prove that they
are the proceeds of crime. We will have to wait once more, maybe
for three, four or five years.
It would have been so easy to pass this bill before operation
Spring 2001. It was possible. These problems have been
pointed out since 1997. I would have liked to see the 160
criminals who were arrested in Quebec charged under the
principles of the new bill. It was possible.
We knew what was missing in the criminal code. We knew how
difficult it was to prove gangsterism with the so-called rule of
the three fives: a group of five people having committed in the
last five years a crime punishable by imprisonment for five
years.
We will have to continue our education efforts, and the next
time around the bill will be better and will give us 100% of
what we need to fight organized crime effectively.
1330
[English]
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. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare Motion No. 3 carried.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 and 6 carried.
Hon. David Collenette (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with
further amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.32 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That, in the
opinion of this House, the government should develop a
precise and workable definition of the terms “affordable
housing”, “poverty' and “homeless” to guide government
policy and to establish legislative parameters for related
government spending.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from
Prince George—Peace River for seconding the motion. I am
pleased to rise today to speak on my motion, Motion No. 245, and
I would like to repeat it for the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
develop a precise and workable definition of the terms
“affordable housing”, “poverty”, and “homeless” to guide
government policy and to establish legislative parameters for
related government spending.
The reason for this is very simple, that is, the most basic of
terms, these three, affordable housing, poverty and homeless,
have so many different meanings across the country that it makes
it rather impossible to legislate for the needs of the citizens
of Canada with so much variety in interpretation.
The term homeless, for example, has so many different
definitions that it has the number of homeless people in Canada
varying from some three million people at the high end to a low
end of some three thousand if we are talking about people who
simply do not have shelter or a home.
With this in mind, I will first refer to the dictionary
definition of homeless. Three dictionaries, American
Heritage, Canadian Oxford and Webster's, simply
say it means having no home or lacking a home. That is very
simple.
1335
One would think it would be very simple for various
organizations across Canada to be able to use those simple terms,
but what appears simple is not necessarily so. Out of 10
homeless reports I reviewed from across Canada there were 38
different definitions of homeless.
With that in mind, and because it is important, I will read into
the record the different definitions so that we can examine the
problem to see if we cannot come up with a solution, something
simple and basic that we are able to legislate and follow.
I will start with the different definitions of homeless and
homelessness. The definitions describe homeless people as:
having no housing alternatives; being absolutely homeless; being
sheltered homeless; living in emergency accommodations; living in
condemned housing; living in transitional accommodation and ready
to be discharged but having no permanent residence to go to.
The definitions continue, describing homeless people as those
who: are expected to be on the street at the end of a stay; are
expected to be on the street in the immediate future; have an
extremely low income; have no fixed address; have no permanent
place to reside; have no housing at all or are staying in a
temporary form of a situation. They also include people who:
sleep on the street; sleep in a stairwell; end up staying with
friends; live in housing that is extremely expensive; live in
overcrowded or inadequate housing; live in places not meant for
human habitation; live in parks and on beaches; live in vehicles;
squat in vacant buildings; live in hostels; and live in
substandard hotels and rooming houses.
More definitions include: being absolutely, periodically or
temporarily without shelter; living in housing not within easy
reach of employment and costing more than 50% of income; lacking
privacy, security and tenant document rights; having mental
health or social disorganization; not being a member of a stable
group; being in extreme cases of failure to provide the
conditions needed to ensure quality of life; paying more than 30%
of income for rent; having no home or haven; lacking a home;
having no home or permanent place of residence; having the
quality or state of being homeless; being chronically homeless;
being cyclically homeless; being temporarily homeless; and
suffering from the homeless disease.
It rather defies belief that in 10 reports we can have 38
different definitions. How on earth can we develop policy when
we have such misunderstandings and misinterpretations across the
country in 10 simple reports, let alone practically every city
having its own individual reports?
If that is not enough of a problem in regard to the definition
of the term homeless, we follow through with the problem of
defining poverty. The problem with poverty, and why it impacts
and varies so much, is that the largest single group in the
homeless category across the country is single people.
If we try to understand what the poverty level is for a single
person, we will see that it varies from the $450 a month in
Edmonton, which is provided by social services for a single
person to live on, to the low income cutoff of $1,757. It varies
from social assistance of $450 to $1,750. Once again, how do we
rationalize it? Those numbers are for one city, the city of
Edmonton. Let us look at Alberta assisted living wages in
Edmonton. That is $855 a month. Minimum wages are $5.90 an
hour, which means that full time employment of 170 hours is worth
$1,000 a month.
1340
Surely we have to come up with some opinion of what we consider
to be a rational level for a single person who is living in
poverty. In other words, what is the poverty level for a single
person? Certainly I do not believe that it should be $1,700 a
month, which is approximately 80% more than a person living on
minimum wage. On the low end, $450 a month does not provide
sustenance of life either. Therefore we have a problem defining
poverty.
The third area we have a problem with is affordable housing.
What is affordable? How do we characterize and provide for
affordable housing across this country when there are such wide
discrepancies in our understanding of what is affordable? For
example, a brand new six-plex row housing unit was built in
Edmonton at $117,000 per unit. In the city of Edmonton that is
simply not affordable. That is high end housing. A builder can
build the same housing for $55 a square foot in Edmonton, for a
cost of approximately $60,000 to $70,000 a unit. If the builder
can build units to code, to regulations, to all standards
including health standards, and build these units for $55 a
square foot, why are we considering affordable housing in the
range of $100 to $110 a square foot?
How can that be provided on a national basis if we are looking
at providing assistance with funding for 1.7 million households
across the country? The difference between those two I mentioned
is a factor of 2 to 1. Surely we have to come up with some
legislation and terminology so that we can examine what we mean
by affordable and what is proper for us to provide. We need to
have that before we look at funding.
In this case, we simply could not afford to provide a six unit
row house complex at a cost of $117,000 per unit to all those
across the country who do need it.
The other issue with affordable housing is how we make it
affordable. There are great concerns with that as well, because
100% of the funding for this same six unit affordable housing
project in Edmonton came from Alberta lottery funds or from
taxpayers. By the same token, now that the complex has been
opened taxpayers are paying subsidized rents up to market value.
We have to address not only the problem of affordability but the
problem of how we appropriate grants and loans for new
construction. In this case the taxpayers paid to build the
building and are also paying to subsidize the rents. That
obviously cannot be done across the country.
There are various issues that must be addressed and considered.
We absolutely must have working definitions for the terms
affordable housing, poverty and homeless in order to be able to
go on to the other issues, which would be to develop regional
housing shelter ladders and affordable housing standards and to
address deinstitutionalization concerns and charter of rights and
freedoms concerns. All of these will have to be addressed before
we can start to look at properly addressing the concerns of the
homeless and of those across the country who need affordable
housing.
I ask all members to agree that the first step in providing
affordable housing and addressing shelter needs and concerns is
to understand the terminology so that we can define it in terms
of where our needs are before we proceed to other areas.
As I indicated, one of the largest concerns in the country, one
of the largest needs, is that of providing housing for singles.
Whether we are talking about Toronto or Edmonton, our shelters
across the country are filled with single people, a large number
who have the means to pay at least some rent.
Whether it is in Toronto or Edmonton, one-third of the people in
the emergency shelters need clean affordable rooming house rooms.
For example, in Edmonton that would be a rooming house room that
would rent for $250 a month and in Toronto it would probably be
$300 to $350 a month.
1345
The problem is that we have not built any new rooming house
rooms in Canada in 20 years. More than that, we have closed
two-thirds of the rooming house rooms. Affordable housing is one
of the most critical areas that must be defined and defined soon.
Ninety per cent of funding that has been going into RRAP repair
programs has been going into upscale apartment projects, not into
the most needed area, rooming house rooms. Part of the reason
for that is the explanation and definition of what a rooming
house room is and what an apartment is. That underlines the
concerns and the need to develop national understandings and
definitions for the terminology that we are using.
With the affordable housing definitions and terminology it is
very important to define whether it is a rooming house room for
singles or whether it is the shelters themselves, so that we know
what we will provide for basic shelter and for affordable housing
units.
It is estimated that some 7,000 rooming house rooms in the
Toronto area have been closed down. When I visit the shelters in
Toronto and Edmonton I am told time and again that the men and
women staying in those shelters want rooming house rooms. They
could afford to move into something but they just do not have
enough money to move into upscale apartments.
Due to the importance of my motion and the need for affordable
housing on a national basis, I ask for unanimous consent to make
it votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak
to Motion No. 245. I will start by addressing the part of the
motion that asks the government to develop a precise and workable
definition of the term homeless.
What might appear to be a fairly straightforward request is not
nearly so straightforward. The member opposite gave a very
lengthy and accurate accounting of valid definitions used by
government and agencies throughout our country. I would argue
that we should concern ourselves with definitions of the problem.
I believe it is more appropriate for us to focus our attention on
meeting the challenges of homelessness.
We know, for example, there is no single cause of homelessness.
Therefore we cannot simply assume that any definition we come up
with will adequately address the situation of Canadians who find
themselves in need of housing, mental health care, rehabilitation
or employment training.
People who are without shelter are on the streets for many
reasons: some because of alcohol or substance abuse, some because
of spousal abuse, and others are chronically unemployed or have
mental health problems. There are many reasons people are on the
streets and they should all be defined differently.
A community worker dealing with a single mother looking for
shelter, a discharge worker trying to help a psychiatric patient
reintegrate into the community, or any other type of homeless
causes that community workers in Canada deal with every day could
all produce a very different definition.
Similarly different communities also define the problem in
different ways. Finding affordable housing in Toronto is very
different from finding affordable housing in rural Saskatchewan.
Living in poverty in Edmonton is different from living in poverty
in rural New Brunswick. While these problems may both be equally
acute, they are different. I feel that it would be almost
impossible to develop a definition that would suit these
situations which are equally unique.
The issue of homelessness is quantitatively different in large
urban centres than it is in smaller towns and rural areas. For
example, when the Minister of Labour and the federal co-ordinator
for homelessness went across the country to discuss the homeless
issues with mayors and community workers she heard many different
definitions of the problem.
1350
Some community groups were concerned with street youth, others
with women who needed refuge from a difficult family situation.
Others thought the priority should be unemployed men who needed
food and temporary accommodation. These people did not have a
common definition of homelessness but they did see a common
problem.
They were not so much interested in defining the problem as they
were in solving it. These community leaders told us that they
wanted support from the Government of Canada that would meet the
needs that they saw. They wanted the flexibility to develop
local solutions that would meet the needs of the homeless in
their individual communities.
Successive federal, provincial, territorial and municipal
governments have responded by bringing in countless different
measures over the years that are designed to help those who are
in need; measures such as the federal government's national
homelessness initiative, which is attempting to co-ordinate an
adequate response to this growing crisis on the federal side
while working together with provincial, territorial and municipal
governments, as well as community organizations and the private
sector to address the issue.
The goal of this initiative is to prevent and alleviate
homelessness. Its objectives are as follows: to facilitate
community capacity development to address the local needs of the
homeless by co-ordinating Government of Canada efforts and
resources and enhancing the diversity of tools and resources
available; to foster effective partnerships and investments that
contribute to addressing the immediate and multifaceted needs of
the homeless and to reducing homelessness in Canada; and to
increase the awareness and understanding of homelessness in
Canada.
There is also the supporting communities partnerships initiative
that the government introduced last year to support communities
across Canada in meeting the unique needs of the homeless in
their communities as they see them.
The federal government is a partner, often along with
provincial, territorial and municipal levels of government,
community organizations and the private sector. However the
needs are locally defined.
Of course there are some criteria. For example, one of the
federal government's key objectives is to ensure that no
individual is involuntarily on the street by ensuring that
sufficient shelters and adequate support systems are available.
Another is to reduce the number of individuals requiring
emergency shelters and traditional and supportive housing through
preventative initiatives, early intervention, health services,
low cost housing and discharge planning. These are all based on
a continuum that leads to independence and self-reliance.
A wide variety of organizations, including public health and
educational institutions, not for profit organizations, and even
individuals, are eligible to receive funding. The private sector
also has an important role to play. We have encouraged them to
contribute and in some cases participate in joint initiatives.
The Government of Canada has included the following 10 cities in
the initiative: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax. They are
designated as large urban centres where homelessness is most
acute. Smaller communities or groups of communities working
together in a region that can demonstrate a homeless problem are
also eligible.
Recently, for example, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General of Canada, on behalf of the federal co-ordinator for
homelessness, announced federal funding of $19 million to assist
the homeless in Edmonton and other parts of north and central
Alberta as defined by these communities. Some $17 million will
go to the Edmonton housing trust fund to work with the city
agencies and private sector to meet the needs of the homeless in
that city.
Edmonton mayor, Bill Smith, expressed his support for this
approach. He said that his city was pleased to be working with
the federal and provincial governments to address the issue of
homelessness in Edmonton. Similarly, the provincial minister of
seniors responsible for housing in the government of Alberta is
also in favour of the partnership approach. However he reminds
us that every community has different housing needs and
circumstances that are best resolved by local planning and
decision making.
From the federal government's perspective, we see homelessness
as an issue that goes right to the heart of the kind of country
we want to live in. Do we want a society that is generous and
fair, that includes everyone and that is willing to provide
support to those in need? Clearly, the vast majority of
Canadians have already answered yes. They want a society that is
generous, progressive and inclusive. Our experience to date
tells us that our partners in the provincial and municipal
governments and the community organizations that are working
directly with the homeless, however they are defined, share this
perspective.
1355
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very happy to have an opportunity today to try to help
clarify the terms affordable housing, poverty and homeless.
This is a topic of great interest to me, all the more so as I am
a woman. When one talks about poverty, the homeless and
affordable housing, the majority of those affected are women.
I am also the Bloc Quebecois critic for the status of women.
I will begin right away by saying how very disappointed I am in
the answer given by the member opposite.
I thought that we were here this afternoon to clarify, as set
out in the motion, the terms affordable housing, poverty and
homeless, and not to list off what the government is doing with
respect to affordable housing, poverty and the homeless.
Since the beginning of this parliamentary session, the Bloc
Quebecois has repeatedly asked questions on these topics. We
have tried in various ways to find out whether the government is
on the same wavelength as we are, if its understanding of the
concepts of affordable housing, poverty and homeless is the same
as ours.
As the House knows, the federal government stopped funding
social housing in 1994, and perhaps that is why we have been
asking so many questions.
It is no longer providing any funding for this. It chose instead
to put in place an affordable housing program, which is totally
unacceptable for Quebecers and Canadians.
The federal government is about to invest $680 million in
housing that does not meet the needs of the poor and the
homeless.
The motion brought forward today will give me the opportunity to
explain the difference between social and affordable housing and
to give a clear definition of the words poverty and homeless,
and I thank the member for Edmonton Centre East for that.
As the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women, I will
cannot claim that I live in what would qualify as poverty. I am
one of those women who, through their work, were able to make a
decent living.
However, I went to meet people, to meet groups in Quebec as well
as in the rest of Canada. I went to see if these groups had a
definition of social housing. I went to see what they thought of
affordable housing. I went to see what the words poverty and
homeless meant to them.
The idea of affordable housing is directly related to the issue
of social housing. Social housing means housing designed
exclusively for unattached individuals, elderly people, men,
women, families and households with a very low income. It means
that these people pay at least 30% of their gross income, and
maybe more, to have a decent place to live, including heat and
electricity.
We are talking about more 1,670,700 households, the majority of
which are single parent families headed by women.
I believe it is important to define what social housing is
because it is not affordable housing.
1400
During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised
affordable housing. Today we can state that they have not yet
begun to fulfil those promises, because negotiations between the
federal government and the provinces are at a standstill.
Promises were made about the construction of housing by
independent building contractors, with a minimum investment of
$12,500. We know that decent housing requires an investment of
at least $25,000 investment. I am referring here to four-room
accommodation.
This is housing that will then rent for between $600 and $800 a
month in Quebec. My colleague from Edmonton Centre East has
said that the rent would probably be far higher in a certain
other region.
During the election campaign, the minister responsible for
social housing stated on a radio program that this type of
housing would be made available for families. Thus, the
affordable housing would be reserved for families able to afford
this amount of rent. That is not what social housing is all
about.
Obviously, the Liberal government does not have the same
definition of poverty as we do, or perhaps it does not even
realize what poverty is, or it just does not want to acknowledge
its existence.
People need social housing because they poor. When one is
poor, one cannot pay $600 a month for housing. When one is poor,
one often depends on food banks or soup kitchens. When one is
poor, one often faces a dilemma: pay the rent or buy food, pay
the rent or pay for drugs. A growing minority is no longer able
to pay the rent and services like electricity or gas at the same
time.
Poverty amplifies another problem, that is the discrimination
one faces when looking for housing. Owners of rental housing are
increasingly invoking the presumed insolvency of poor people as
a reason to reject them as tenants. These people are often
forced to accept inferior housing.
As for the homeless, what I earlier called the problem of
homelessness, and I would only like to say to my colleague of
Edmonton Centre East that that it is not an illness, it is only
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to housing problems.
It was said earlier, more than one million tenant families are
inadequately housed, a record number of people are condemned to
live on the street in every big city and people living in the
street are there for a number of reasons, many of them having to
do with housing.
Community groups that have this expertise on homelessness agree
on the following definition of homeless: people who are of no
fixed address and who do not have the assurance of a stable and
safe dwelling for the next 60 days; people with very little
income who do not belong to any group on a stable basis; and people
who have mental health problems or problems with alcohol or
social disorganization.
These people are often too poor to have access to a dwelling or
a room, and when they do, it is often in slums. Social housing
units for the homeless are too rare. We know that there are
other reasons for homelessness, but we can say that the housing
problem is one of its structural causes.
As we can see, the three themes in this motion all relate to
poverty.
Based on what we saw, it was obvious that the concept of
affordable housing did not at all reflect the needs expressed
by the public.
It is my hope that today's debate will develop an awareness
among members and make them more vigilant regarding the
affordable housing policy to which this government is committed.
In our opinion, the government is headed in the wrong direction
in this area.
1405
If, as my colleague from the party opposite said, there are as
many definitions of housing as there are regions in Canada, why
does the government not give the money to the provinces so that
they may meet the needs of their citizens?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
first, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Centre-East
for bringing forward this important motion today. It gives us an
opportunity to debate the issue of definitions around affordable
housing, poverty and homelessness.
I will begin by saying I represent the riding of Vancouver East
which includes very low income areas, in particular the downtown
east side.
One constituent I visit fairly frequently lives at Main and
Hastings in an old building that was probably built 80 years ago.
She lives in what the member referred to as a single room
occupancy, the room being barely 8 feet by 10 feet. She has a
sink but shares a toilet and a shower with probably 25 other
people. It is an eight storey building where the elevator does
not really function, so people climb up and down the stairs.
That young woman is only 30 and in very poor health. She lives
in poverty and is on social assistance. Luckily the housing is
managed by a very good non-profit housing society, but the
housing conditions she endures are something that no one in this
room could endure. It is something I think most Canadians would
describe as appalling in a country as wealthy as Canada. To me
she could be characterized as someone who is homeless.
A young man came to see me a few weeks ago. He had a shopping
cart that he pushed around on Terminal Avenue. The cart was
filled with clothes that he tried to sell. However it was
confiscated by the city engineering department because it was
getting tough on panhandlers and people who lived on the street.
That man, who lives in poverty, was literally trying to sell the
clothes off his back in order to make a few bucks so he could buy
a cup of coffee.
I met another man a few days later who could not get a
prescription filled for pain killers. His teeth were so rotten
they were falling out and he was in incredible pain. Although he
was covered by pharmacare, he could not get his prescription
filled because of the way he looked. It was a clear example of
what we call poor bashing, which is discrimination against poor
people.
When he went to the pharmacy and handed in his prescription to
get some painkillers. The pharmacists looked at him and said
they thought he would sell the drugs on the street or do
something wrong. Therefore they did not fill the prescription.
He continued to try to find a pharmacy that would fill his
prescription, all the while in pain because he was so poor that
he could not get his teeth fixed.
I use these examples because the real issue before us today is
not so much the definition of poverty and affordable housing and
homelessness. It is what the heck we are going to do about it. I
have met people all across the country, beginning in my own
community in east Vancouver, who are suffering under the
oppression of poverty, homelessness and lack of housing every
single day. This is as a result of government policy.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary, someone who I respect
very much. However it drives me crazy when I hear people ascribe
homelessness to mental health, alcoholism and somehow being all
about individual problems. Never once do we talk about the fact
that homelessness is as a result of not building housing. The
reality is homelessness exists in the country because the
government abandoned its housing policies in 1993. It makes me
feel pretty damn mad when we get into the whole policy speak of
blaming individual people.
1410
I have a very good friend in Vancouver, Jean Swanson, a leading
anti-poverty activist in this country. She just wrote a book
called “Poor-Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion”. She details
very clearly how government policy, not just from this government
but over the years, has really been a policy of bashing poor
people by excluding them and deliberately designing policies that
keep people where they are in terms of economic disparity and
economic inequality.
I could tell the member for Edmonton Centre-East very quickly
what definitions are used by groups, and indeed the government
every single day. Basically, CMHC says that people who are
paying more than 30% of their income for housing are living in
housing that is not affordable. That is the rule that CMHC lives
by. It used to be 25% in the 1970s.
For the definition of homelessness, just to talk to the United
Nations or to any group in Canada that deals on the frontline in
trying to cope with an increasing number of people who are facing
homelessness. They will tell us that the UN definition of
homelessness is anyone whose housing is insecure, threatened,
unsafe or unstable. In fact all the things the member listed.
There does not have to be just five words about it. It really
describes the situation.
People who live in slum housing, or housing that is substandard,
or where they are paying exorbitant rents of 50% or more of their
income are homeless because they are threatened. People who live
in housing where they face conversion or demolition are homeless.
It is very important that we understand that there are people
who are literally on the streets and have no a place to go. There
are people who rely on shelters. It is awful to see how that has
risen and has now become a crisis. Millions of Canadians are one
step away from that. They are so insecure in terms of their
income or housing support that they are also characterized as
being homeless.
When it comes to the issue of poverty, if we talk to any
organization in Canada, whether it is the National Anti-Poverty
Organization, NAPO, whether it is FRAPRU in Quebec or whether it
is the Canadian Council on Social Development, they will tell us
that the standard definition used for poverty is the low income
cutoffs established by Statistics Canada.
What is really worrying is the Liberals are likely poised to
change that definition to a so-called basket approach. By the
very fact of doing that, they will with the stroke of a pen say
that poverty in Canada is not as bad as they thought, that they
just changed it and that now a couple of hundred thousand or
maybe half a million people no longer living below the poverty
line.
I come back to the point that the issue here today is not so
much the definition. The issue is that there are glaring
examples of income inequality. Report after report shows us that
income inequality in this country is growing. A recent report
from Statistics Canada, the so-called wealth study, measured
income inequality. We know it exists. The evidence is there.
The issue is what will we do about it?
I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc that one of the
greatest failings of the government is its lack of responsibility
to provide the necessary funds and support to the provincial
governments to create a housing strategy to ensure that social
housing is built. It is a crime that the program was ended.
Canada used to have really excellent housing programs. The
co-operative housing movement began in Canada. It was a huge
success story. That has been abandoned at the federal level.
Only two provinces still maintain their commitment provincially
to social housing, Quebec and British Columbia. Although who
knows what will happen in British Columbia with the new
government. Again, the finger comes back and points to the
federal government that basically abandoned that responsibility
in 1993.
1415
The New Democrats welcome the opportunity to talk about
definitions but we must get down to the important matter here,
which is to determine the priorities. What are the priorities
for members as legislators? What is the priority of government
in terms of dealing with an $18 billion surplus and where it will
go?
If we truly want to eliminate poverty and homelessness in the
country, it could easily be done because we have the resources to
do it. It comes down to a matter of political will, leadership
and what the priorities are. That is what the debate should be
about.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I
also rise in support of the motion. I must say that I am a
little disappointed that members opposite did not see it right
and proper to support the motion as votable because it is
certainly one that should receive a lot more strength than an
hour's homage through the words that we utter and then to be
forgotten. This is an extremely important issue all across the
country.
Three words are highlighted in the motion: homelessness,
poverty and affordable housing. I would suggest that if the
affordable housing issue were addressed, the other two words
would not be of such significance. A lot of the poverty in
Canada is caused by the fact that people have to spend the little
money they have on the real necessities of life, and what is more
important than housing? Housing is so expensive for many people
that they are in what we call a state of poverty.
Many people wander around homeless. Some admittedly are
homeless because that is the style of life they want but many of
them are not. It is a style of life that is imposed upon them by
the restrictions of society.
What is happening in the country when we see people who are
destitute, homeless, living in a state of poverty and cannot
afford a place to live? All of us here in this Chamber are in
the position to leave here in the evening and go home to a nice,
comfortable home. Even if it is an apartment somewhere here in
the city, at least it is warm and comfortable. As we walk to our
homes, we pass people who are without homes. They cannot always
afford shelter because we have uncaring governments that do not
consider it a priority to look after those who need help most.
I had two experiences that will always remain with me. The
first one was because of the impact it made on me and the other
was because of the red tape and bureaucracy that governments
create and the walls they put up.
The first experience I had was when I visited London, England,
several years ago. I had just walked past Buckingham Palace and
everyone was in awe of the tremendous building, the richness of
the area and the riches displayed. About five minutes down the
street from Buckingham Palace is Westminster Station. As I
passed through the station to catch the train at about 11 o'clock
at night, there were a number of homeless people starting to
gather. It was an open shelter which was just a covered bridge
operation or a large building with no ends. The heat from the
trains underneath apparently warmed the pavement which made it a
good place to sleep during the cold nights.
1420
People say that Newfoundland is in a state of poverty. I
challenge them to drive around our province. We might not be
making a lot of money on average, but it depends on what we do
with what we have. We are very fortunate. Even though incomes
might not be as high as the national average, many people own
their own homes, which they built on their own land, and provide
a lot of their own food and materials. They are doing very well.
Seeing people lying around on pavement in London was something I
had never seen before. What made it more heart rending was the
fact that some of them were very old. I will always picture one
lady who appeared to me to be in her seventies. That might have
been because of the hardships she endured. Maybe she looked
older than she actually was. To see a person the age of our
mothers trying to lie on concrete and pull a newspaper around her
to keep her warm is a sight I will never ever forget,
particularly when we were within a stone's throw of Buckingham
Palace.
Another experience I had will perhaps show why we have these
problems. Some years ago when I was a provincial member serving
a rural area I was approached by a gentleman who wanted to move
from an old, dilapidated home in which he lived with a couple of
daughters to a home that would be much more comfortable and
reasonable and close to his relatives. The price of the new
building was $24,000, which was very reasonable. It had been
completely renovated and modernized with new wiring, new plumbing
and whatever.
We went to the department of housing and arranged for the loan
program provided to those looking for affordable housing. The
gentleman was extremely pleased he was to get this new,
comfortable home, which would solve a lot of his problems.
A couple of days later the department said that it could not
provide funding to buy the home because its inspectors indicated
that the upstairs ceilings were not eight feet high. They were
only six and a half feet high. Its regulations stated that they
must be eight feet high to meet its standards, or otherwise it
could not provide funding. However, there was another house for
sale in the community. It was a very modern bungalow that was
selling for $50,000. As its maximum was $55,000, it could buy
that house for him.
I approached the gentleman and he asked why he should buy that
house, even though it was much better, more modern and whatever.
He was quite satisfied with the other one, but if the department
would not give him money for that house he was willing to accept
the bungalow. The request went in to provide funding for him to
buy the $50,000 home, which was a very good, modern home.
However the request was rejected because the appraisers stated
that the day after he bought the house the resale value would be
only $30,000 because of its location. Even though it was selling
for $50,000 and worth a lot more, they could not provide it
because the quick sale value would only be $30,000 the next day.
The department indicated that it could build him a house. It
would not be as good as the one for sale, but it would be worth
around $50,000. Because it was building the house, it could
provide the $50,000. I asked what would be the resale value of
that house the following day and the answer was $30,000.
I do not lose my temper very often but I did on that occasion.
Within a couple of days the gentleman had his $24,000 original
house. It was nothing but red tape and bureaucracy.
1425
This is what we face. Within a stone's throw of Ottawa, and I
am sure within the town, a number of housing units could be
provided for people who are homeless. There is a base just
outside Ottawa with all kinds of beautiful houses that are closed
up because some department or other had to divest of it in a
certain way.
It is about time we used some common sense and did what must be
done for the people who are so much in need.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I will reply to the comments of the
member opposite who said it was not necessary to provide
definitions for homelessness, poverty and affordable housing.
I disagree. The amount of money recently put into the city of
Edmonton housing trust fund by the ministry for the homeless, $17
million in federal funding for a total value of some $50 million,
has not resulted in even one new home. The funding is going into
existing shelters, additions on shelters or assisted living. It
has not gone into even one designated new private home.
The funding going into Edmonton and being transposed across the
country from coast to coast is a phenomenal amount. The problem
is that it is not creating any new housing. The problem with
creating no new housing is that it forces people to stay in
emergency shelters.
In the city of Edmonton another federal government program,
RRAP, for persons with disabilities has also been an abysmal
failure. Ninety-five per cent of the program's funding is not
going toward the greatest single need in the city of Edmonton:
the need for rooming houses.
The funding for RRAP is going into upscale housing. That is a
problem because the men and women who live in the Herb Jamieson
Centre and other shelters in Edmonton are locked into that
condition on a perpetual basis. They cannot move to new housing.
The long and the short of it is that not one new rooming house
has been built in Edmonton in three to five years. The result is
that shelters in Edmonton are as full as they are in Toronto. The
$17 million that the member opposite mentioned has been put into
the city of Edmonton will simply build more shelters.
It is time to start building homes, not shelters. That is the
main direction we should go in. I feel very strongly that this
is happening because there is a misunderstanding about where the
funding is going. The misunderstanding exists because there is a
lack of common terminology or definition for the basics.
The basic questions are: What is affordable housing? What is
poverty? Those terminologies must be defined. That is why there
is such a discrepancy and why shelters across the country are
filled.
I agree with the Progressive Conservative member that, yes, if
we had affordable housing the majority of the population in
shelters would be gone. They are there simply because they need
affordable housing.
The need for affordable housing is strong. However first and
foremost we must come up with common identifiable determinations
on what are the basics. We must then look at a national plan to
build affordable housing for the country again. For too many
years the federal government has been out of it. It is time the
government developed national standards to help builders re-enter
the affordable housing market.
It is absolutely essential that be done. It has been far too
long now. Simply putting more and more money into more and more
shelters across the country is not the solution.
The $17 million which has gone to the city of Edmonton, combined
with the provincial funds and city funds, provides a total fund
of $50 million. The identifiable homeless population is 1,000.
Simple mathematics would indicate that is $50,000 for every
homeless person.
We could build them a home and give them a home. It would be
far better to spend the money there than to continuously build on
the shelter system and keep our people locked up in a shelter
system when what they want and need is affordable housing.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[English]
It being after 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)