37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 078
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| YUKON TERRITORY
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1405
| VENICE BIENNALE
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
| THYROID MONTH
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1410
| FÊTE NATIONALE DES QUÉBÉCOIS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| LAYLA ZANA
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| BILL C-15
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1415
| QUEBEC
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ELECTORAL REFORM
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1445
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1450
| NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Mark Eyking |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1500
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-390. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| VIA Rail
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1510
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Rights of Children
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Pesticides
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Research
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1515
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Third reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1545
1550
1555
1600
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1605
1610
1615
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. John Herron |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1655
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1700
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1705
1710
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1715
1740
(Division 136)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Third Reading
|
1750
(Division 137)
| Motion agreed to
|
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1800
(Division 138)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 078
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we
will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Halifax West.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
summer of 1896 three men, Skookum Jim, George Carmack and Tagish
Charlie, found large gold nuggets in the gravel bottom of Bonanza
Creek. Their cry of joy started the world's greatest gold rush.
[Translation]
Approximately 200,000 men and women from all over the world
converged on the Klondike in search of gold. More than 40,000
of them found it.
[English]
In 1898 Dawson City was the largest Canadian city west of
Winnipeg and Yukon, for so long the proud home of first nations
people, was created from the western area of the Northwest
Territories. On June 13, 1898, assent was given to the Yukon Act
and four years later in 1902 we sent our first member to
parliament, James H. Ross, a Liberal.
I stand to commemorate the 103rd anniversary of the founding of
Yukon Territory. I invite all members and their families to come
north this summer to see, as is described in the tourism brochure
that I gave to members, what is really meant by the true north
strong and free.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as someone who spends about
10 hours a week on an airplane flying from Vancouver to Ottawa, I
have confidence in the abilities of our skilled airline pilots to
take their precious cargo of passengers to Canada and to the
world.
However it alarms me to learn of our pilots perhaps sleeping in
the cockpit because they are so exhausted from long hours and
organizational stress.
1405
Sadly Canada's transportation operation hours are some of the
most liberal throughout the world. Our standards are low. This
not only affects pilots. It also affects train engineers, truck
and bus drivers. Public safety is at risk in the air and on the
ground, the consequence of operators perhaps making a fatigue
mistake.
We need to take immediate action to improve our operational
standards as a safeguard. The Liberal government must do what is
needed to address this urgent problem. May it also not be found
snoozing on the job.
* * *
VENICE BIENNALE
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Venice biennale is considered the most prestigious
international competition of contemporary visual art, indeed the
Olympics of visual art. As such, it brings me the greatest
honour to acknowledge the accomplishments of Canadians at this
competition.
Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller's production, The
Paradise Institute, was the recipient of the Venice biennale
special award, the most prestigious award offered at the
competition. It is the first time Canadians have been awarded
this honour.
The 15 minute audio-video production was commissioned by Wayne
Bearwaldt, the adjunct curator of the Plug In Gallery. I am very
proud that this gallery, nestled in the exchange district of
Winnipeg, played such a pivotal role in this accomplishment and
proved that it is capable of handling shows of the highest
international standard.
I look forward to Mr. Bearwaldt's planned exhibition of The
Paradise Institute at the Plug In Gallery and urge everyone to
come out and view this highly acclaimed piece.
* * *
VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was delighted to attend this past weekend the ninth annual
community festival at the Little Mountain and Riley Park. This
event brings together people of all ages for a day of games,
crafts and conversation to mark the beginning of the summer
program. I thank the organizers and volunteers of the Little
Mountain and Riley Park Community Centre for their contribution
to our community.
I also attended a unique concert of Chinese poetry, music, dance
and a display of calligraphy. It was a creative celebration of
Chinese art and culture that many enjoyed. My thanks to Mr.
Chai-man Cheng for organizing this event and to the many artists
and musicians who made it a success.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
delay of the Red Hill Creek expressway project is an ongoing
concern for me as the federal representative for Stoney Creek.
The project has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny and numerous
assessments over the last 35 years, yet remains at an impasse
currently due to the federal government's decision to appeal a
lower court ruling. This recent ruling confirmed that the Red
Hill Creek project was a unique situation.
It was started and irrevocable decisions had been taken prior to
the CEAA taking effect. I was disappointed by the government's
decision to appeal, as it was my belief that the ruling was
focused on the Red Hill project.
Therefore, given that Bill C-19 will be back before the House in
the fall, and taking into consideration the desire of both the
federal government and the city of Hamilton to expedite the
process, I will be proposing an amendment limiting the
application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and
specifically exempting the Red Hill Creek expressway project.
I ask all colleagues, and specifically my local colleagues, to
support this amendment when it comes before the House and to
ensure that this necessary project be completed without further
delay.
* * *
VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to some fine
Canadians today. The story involves the struggle of a young man
from Victoria named Andy Horn. Andy suffered much of his life
battling cystic fibrosis. He needed a new pair of lungs and it
became necessary for him to relocate to Toronto to improve his
chances of finding a donor.
The Victoria community really took Andy's case to heart. To
help with expenses, community and professional organizations
including several Lions Clubs and hundreds of caring Canadians
donated thousands of dollars.
When Andy made the difficult move to Toronto with his mother and
fiancée, his uncle called on his Canadian navy family for
assistance. Bob Dalgleish was quick to answer the call, going
above and beyond the call of duty in hosting Andy and his family.
I am saddened to report that although Andy survived the surgery,
he succumbed to related infections on June 2. Nonetheless the
surgery and the hope it offered were made possible by the
generosity of many. In this Year of the Volunteer we extend
special thanks to Bob Dalgleish and the many citizens of Victoria
for showing that they care.
* * *
THYROID MONTH
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that June is
Thyroid Month.
Over one million Canadians of all ages have some form of thyroid
disease. When left untreated, this disease often results in
serious physical and/or emotional problems. Thyroid disease
strikes five to ten times more women than men.
1410
The Thyroid Foundation of Canada is a voluntary health
organization that has 23 chapters across Canada offering
information and support to thyroid patients and their families.
The Thyroid Foundation also raises funds for thyroid research
and awards yearly fellowships in partnership with the Canadian
Institute for Health Research.
I would like to wish the Thyroid Foundation and its many
volunteers a very successful Thyroid Month.
* * *
[Translation]
FÊTE NATIONALE DES QUÉBÉCOIS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this coming June 24, Quebecers will be celebrating their Fête
nationale. For the second straight year, the theme will be “Et
si on se lançait des fleurs...”
This celebration will be an opportunity to take time out to
spend time together, to take the measure of our accomplishments
to date and to pay tribute to those who showed their confidence
in the future by building this Quebec we love so much.
This popular event is a time of rejoicing, an opportunity for us
to show our great attachment to and pride in our land, our
visceral attachment to this rich and fertile land in which our
increasingly diverse roots go so deep. Our people have set
themselves the goal of making sure that our land flourishes in
the world like some great flower pointing into the firmament.
In this spirit of celebration and friendship, I wish all
Quebecers a wonderful Fête nationale on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois.
* * *
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 28, 2000, the Governor General of Canada announced the
creation of the well deserved Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
for members of the armed forces, RCMP and local police who have
served abroad as United Nations peacekeepers.
Almost 125,000 Canadians have served in peacekeeping missions
over the past 53 years, a record unsurpassed by any other nation.
I personally wish to congratulate the more than 130 Prince Edward
Islanders who were awarded this medal as well as the 44,000 other
Canadians who have been honoured for their past service at
ceremonies across the country.
Sadly, our valiant efforts to inspire peace around the world has
not been without loss. The red stripping in the medal's ribbon
is symbolic of the blood shed by Canada's 113 peacekeepers who
have lost their lives in service to this country while on
peacekeeping and observer missions.
On behalf of all residents of Prince Edward Island—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to discuss the serious shortcomings of the Liberal
government in the clean-up of contaminated sites.
More information has come forward indicating that the federal
government has known of serious health threats to the people of
Sydney, Nova Scotia and yet the only action taken was dumping
millions of dollars into short term solutions. Sydney is only
one glaring example of thousands of known and unknown
contaminated sites across Canada.
The government is also currently faced with the clean-up of the
Giant Gold Mine near Yellowknife. It is again leaning toward the
cheapest, short term solution that will almost certainly cost
Canadians their health, the health of their environment and the
health of communities over the long term.
The government cannot boast about Canada's environmental
superiority until it cleans up its act and takes responsibility
for its own actions. Canada's own house must be put in order and
critical contaminated sites across the country must be cleaned up
now.
* * *
LAYLA ZANA
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
are few cases of the right to self-determination that are more
compelling than that of the Kurdish people. However, there are
few peoples whose right to self-determination has been more
persistently and pervasively repressed, yet whose tragedy remains
engulfed in a deafening silence.
Kurdish political prisoner and Nobel prize nominee, Layla Zana,
has come to symbolize a case and cause that should commend itself
to parliamentary democracies everywhere and to parliamentarians
in this place.
Elected to the Turkish parliament in 1991 as the only Kurdish
woman ever to serve in the Turkish parliament with over 80% of
the vote of her Turkish constituents, she was arrested,
prosecuted, convicted and sentenced in 1994 to 15 years in prison
for nothing other than simply expressing support for the idea of
self-determination. This criminalization of freedom of
expression and association invites universal condemnation.
The Turkish government should undertake all necessary measures
to secure the release of all prisoners held for the expression of
non-violent opinion, including Layla Zana and three other
imprisoned former Kurdish deputies, and put an end to this
criminalization of Kurdish identity.
* * *
BILL C-15
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in recent days there have been charges and countercharges of
people playing politics with Bill C-15.
1415
I just wanted to put on the record that as far as we are
concerned here in the NDP, it is the Minister of Justice who is
playing politics with Bill C-15. She did not have to put the
omnibus bill together the way she did in the first place. She
could have dealt with a number of items separately.
The government was made an offer by the opposition to deal with
five elements of Bill C-15: child pornography, luring on the
Internet, home invasions, disarming a police officer and
improving the stalking laws. We could have passed all that and
still had fully dealt with what was a single bill in the last
parliament, but the Minister of Justice refused. She is the one
who is playing politics with Bill C-15. She is the one who must
answer to the Canadian public for what has not been accomplished
on those files.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the session
ending today has allowed us to see once again that Quebec is
boxed in in a system hostile to it. Ottawa is consistently
rejecting Quebec's legitimate aspirations.
Quebec was denied access to the international discussions held
within its own borders at the summit of the Americas.
Ottawa arrogantly refused to act on Quebec's desire to set up a
parental leave plan, thus penalizing Quebec parents.
Ottawa refused to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction, imposing the
social union agreement on it against its will.
Ottawa's strongest rejection came in the case of young
offenders, in which it imposed a wall to wall law that will
penalize young Quebecers.
This latest session illustrates the urgency of Quebec's deciding
its own future alone to put an end to the federal government's
underhanded measures opposing our deepest aspirations.
In other words: vive le Québec libre very soon.
* * *
[English]
CRTC
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
CRTC, the federal broadcast regulator, is expected to tell CTV
Newsnet that it can no longer broadcast live news coverage of
routine events or regularly scheduled news shows, such as the
very popular one now hosted by the veteran political reporter,
Mike Duffy.
Will the culture and heritage minister just sit by while a
handful of faceless regulators limit news competition among
television networks, or will she allow the marketplace to make
that decision, as it should?
Does it not bother her that CRTC is funded by her department, as
is the complainant, the CBC? If so, what will she do about it?
What will she do to ensure objectivity and to make sure that
private sector jobs are not jeopardized for nonsensical action,
or will we see just another cop out?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned from the
information commissioner that this government's secretive panel
of bureaucrats may be poised to actually gut the Access to
Information Act.
Openness and transparency in government are key ingredients in a
vital democracy. It is simply wrong that an unelected panel of
bureaucrats working behind closed doors would be in charge of
reforming the laws that govern public access to public
information.
Will the government call off the secret panel, follow the advice
of the information commissioner and turn over any changes to the
access law to a committee of the House of Commons so that elected
officials can debate these things openly for all Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the House that
there is nothing secret about the government's review of our
access legislation.
In fact, we have appointed a task force and that task force is
hard at work. We have also appointed an advisory council made up
of representatives of key stakeholders who use our access
legislation and seek information on a regular basis from the
government. The general public, including members of the House,
are encouraged to participate in this review process.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister is ignoring the words of
the information commissioner when he talked about the secretive
panel.
The information commissioner said, and I quote, “It will
terribly undermine the public's right to know”.
We know what lengthy delays are like. We know what it is like
to have these requests for information unfilled. We want to hear
what specific steps are being taken relating to what the
information commissioner said about this terrible undermining of
the public's right to know. What specific steps will we see
taken to overcome the information commissioner's concern?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there are changes to be considered to the act, the
changes will need to be brought before the House by the
government. The changes will be brought before the House in the
form of legislation. They will be debated in the House and
studied by a parliamentary committee. What is more open and
democratic than that?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about requests
related to the HRDC scandal, the mishandling of the helicopter
file or how taxpayer dollars are being spent, that reflects on
the auditor general's question, “Who is minding the store?”.
Whatever it is, the commissioner has named a list of departments.
He has an actual list of departments that he says are seriously
impeding the public's right to know.
Will somebody in the government stand and take responsibility
for the specific list of habitual, serious offenders that the
information commissioner has listed in terms of them continuing
to undermine the public's right to know?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will certainly study seriously and carefully the
information commissioner's report. However I think we also want
to take responsibility for the conclusion of the information
commissioner that overall the act, and I quote, “is working
remarkably well”.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the information commissioner has been pretty specific when he
talks about secrecy in the government. He talks about secrecy in
ministers' offices. He talks about secrecy in the PMO, and the
Prime Minister, quite frankly, is the leader when it comes to
secrecy.
We have asked for his bill of sale on the golf course to be
released for independent study. Will he now release that and
shed this culture of secrecy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very open. He tabled a copy
of the document in the House. He stood in this place and said
that the copy was a copy of the real document, and did so even
though this related to a time when he was not Prime Minister and
related to a private business transaction, not to his work or
responsibility as Prime Minister. That is openness, true
openness.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for days now we have been asking for the original of
that bill of sale to be released to an independent forensic
analyst.
Why has that not been done? They want to keep it secret. Big
surprise.
We wrote to the ethics counsellor, since the ethics counsellor
said that he had seen the document, asking him to verify the date
with an independent analyst. Is that not a perfect job for the
ethics counsellor?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that will be up to the ethics counsellor.
However, now that the Alliance has misspent its research budget
on this opinion about this document, I presume it will next be
turning to other issues of importance to it, like whether the
sasquatch exists, the Loch Ness monster exists or where exactly
the Bermuda Triangle is located.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
annual report, the information commissioner condemns the
slowness of the ministers to change the culture of secrecy that
guides the government in its processing of the access to
information requests.
John Reid is even concerned that the government will take
advantage of the review of the legislation to systematize the
secrecy and make all documents relating to Canadian unity
inaccessible.
Will the President of the Queen's Privy Council, the advocate of
clarity, recognize that the commissioner's concerns are valid
since the government is already secretive when it comes to
Canadian unity?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting
that the opposition quotes only certain comments from the
commissioner's report and does not quote, for example, the
following:
Hundreds of thousands of records are disclosed each year. For
every complaint made to the Information Commissioner at least ten
other individuals obtained good service from government under the
Access to Information Act.
The commissioner went on to say “This is a good law, a very good
law”. He continued by saying “There is, happily, a growing
recognition of the importance of good information management—”
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
commissioner says this is not the problem. The problem is not
the act, but those who implement it, who behave exactly like the
minister just did by not answering questions. This is the
problem.
1425
For instance, Option Canada received close to $5 million from
Canadian heritage during the 1995 referendum campaign. In spite
of the requests made under the Access to Information Act, it is
impossible to know what Option Canada, which was on the no side,
did with the taxpayers' money.
Will the minister admit that the culture of secrecy exists and
that it guides the government in its review of the access to
information requests, particularly when they deal with—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this
government is committed to openness. One of the reasons we are
reviewing the access to information legislation is that we want
to ensure we have the best legislation possible. We want to
ensure we build upon the culture of openness in which this
government has taken a leadership role.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for two years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been
asking for legal analyses of the supreme court ruling, but the
government is defying its own Access to Information Act and
depriving our members of documents of interest.
Is this not a very conclusive illustration of the unacceptable
behaviour of the federal government, which has been criticized
by the information commissioner?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate again that
which the information commissioner himself has said. He said the
act “is working remarkably well”. He went on to say:
Hundreds of thousands of records are disclosed each year.
There is...a growing recognition of the importance of good
information management to the achievement of the government's
business strategies and goals.
I think those statements say it all.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, documents the Bloc Quebecois tries to obtain under
the Access to Information Act are censored so heavily by the
government that the ones we have received more often resemble
some sort of game of guess the word than complete texts.
How can the government disregard its own Access to Information
Act and hand over to the Liberal Party of Quebec documents it
refuses to make available to parliamentarians in this
parliament?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the
government is committed to openness. That is why the government
has decided to commence a review of the access to information
legislation.
If there are ways we can improve on the legislative framework or
on the administration and management of access requests, we are
committed to doing that.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
It is plain for all to see that the Americans are intent on
barrelling ahead with the national missile defence program.
George Bush in Brussels yesterday dismissed the antiballistic
missile treaty as a mere relic from the past.
Has the Canadian government decided as well to dismiss the ABM
treaty as a relic from the past and no longer a cornerstone of
global stability?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the United States did decide, through legislation in
1999, that it would in fact develop a ballistic missile defence,
but it has not said what exactly that will be. It has put several
options on the table. It has not determined which option or
options it will actually deploy. It has said it would consult
very meaningfully with Canada and with all of the different
allies, plus Russia and China, and it is in the midst of doing
that. We are nowhere near a decision on this matter because the
United States is nowhere near a decision on this matter.
I will say one other thing. Global security, whether through
the ABM treaty or any replacement thereof, is still just as vital
to this country—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is
what Canadian officials are saying in the media today:
There is a right way and a wrong way that you can go about doing
this and we want to make sure they go about it in a right way.
This government's idea of the right way to deal with the NMD is
to find a way to support it, no matter how dire the consequences,
and help the Americans sell it to the world.
What will it take for the government to come to its senses and
realize that the only responsible way to respond to the madness
of the star wars 2—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of National
Defence.
1430
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
That is not correct at all, Mr. Speaker. We have made no
decision on this matter. Before a decision is made we want to
look at all the facts. We want to know exactly what the
Americans want to do, what the cost will be and what the
parameters will be. Equally important is what will they do to
make sure this world is just as secure in terms of arms
non-proliferation as it was before. We want to make sure that it
is better.
Until those answers are clear, the government will not make a
decision. Until those answers are clear, we will not ask
parliament to participate in it as well. When that happens we
will have full debate here in the House.
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the information commissioner reports that “access requests made
by journalists and opposition members get slower service, closer
scrutiny” to protect ministers.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister issue an order today to stop this
deliberate attempt to hide the truth from journalists and
parliament and therefore from the public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of my hon. friend's question
that there is some deliberate attempt not to respond to the act.
The report said that the government received 20,000 access
requests last year. Out of some 1,300 complaints investigated by
the commissioner, only two were not resolved to his satisfaction
and are now before the courts. I think that is a pretty good
record.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
the commissioner's opinion, not mine.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the RCMP
has been in touch with the Prime Minister or with his solicitor
or his representative, or any other member of his staff or of
the Privy Council Office, for the purpose of discussing
falsified documents originating with or involving the Business
Development Bank?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
assure the hon. member and the House that the Prime Minister and
his advisers are following the law to the letter.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry
threw out a red herring when he said he did not have the right to
look at the Prime Minister's bill of sale to make sure it was an
accurate document according to the Business Corporations Act.
According to the act, his director of corporations does have the
authority to verify its accuracy.
Will the minister instruct his director of corporations to
submit the bill of sale to an independent forensic analyst to
determine its accuracy?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the Alliance
Party to submit its membership for an independent audit.
More to the point, it has been requested and is being looked at,
and that is it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not it because the minister is
shirking his legal obligation. His officials already went to
Shawinigan. They found that the corporate records were
inaccurate and they asked that they be updated. However they did
not look at the bill of sale.
Part IV of the Business Corporations Act states “a corporation
shall prepare and maintain adequate accounting records...for a
period of six years”.
There is obvious doubt about when that bill of sale was
handwritten.
Will the minister ensure the accuracy of this most important
record, the Prime Minister's bill of sale?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister
clearly pointed out earlier that a copy of the bill was
submitted. What the member is saying is totally false.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we find
ourselves in a situation where the access to information
commissioner has stated clearly in a report, for the second time
in a year, that the government is in violation of the Access to
Information Act. The report is very clear on this.
I am asking the Minister of Justice, whose responsibility it is
to see that legislation is complied with, how she can explain
her behaviour in putting herself at the service of the
government without deigning to show any concern for these
extremely serious accusations by the information commissioner.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the
government is committed to access and openness. Let me say again
that the information commissioner had some very positive things
to say, not only about the access act itself but about the
actions of the government.
1435
As the Deputy Prime Minister already pointed out, the
information commissioner said that out of 1,337 complaints he
received in the year 2000-01 against the government, only two
could not be resolved to his satisfaction. I think that speaks
to the openness of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout this
session, the opposition has complained about non-compliance with
the Access to Information Act.
Today, for the second time, the commissioner's report comes down
very hard on the government. In any parliament anywhere in the
world, people would be astonished that a government did not
respect the law. Here we have to accept that the minister
responsible for seeing that the laws are enforced is going along
with the government.
I am asking her—and there is still time—to stand up and, in
compliance with her oath of office, ensure that the government
is respecting the law.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the
government is committed to openness and to its obligations under
the existing access legislation.
However, because we acknowledge that there might be room for
improvement, in terms of the legislative regime or in terms of
the administration and management of access requests, we have
undertaken a review. We hope to report back to the House in the
fall in relation to the review.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, economists are expressing growing concern that
federal spending is running out of control at levels unseen since
the current Prime Minister drove Canada into debt in the late
1970s. However it has not stopped the government from proposing
a new $4 billion mega project.
When working families need tax relief and the health care system
needs more resources, why is the government planning to spend
billions of dollars on its Internet mega project when the private
sector could take care of that situation perfectly well?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the spending in this
area will be within our projections and will be well controlled.
It is amazing to hear the dinosaur party opposing all those
things that are modern, all those thing that will enable the
Canadian government to better serve their people and all those
things that will make the Canadian economy the most modern in the
world.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here is a news flash for the finance minister: The
government did not invent the Internet. The private sector knows
best how to deliver services like that.
Modern values are not about government intervening in this
critical new area of the economy and spending billions of tax
dollars. Instead of doing that, why does the finance minister
not cut taxes further so that Canadians can procure their own
Internet services and so that the private sector will have the
resources to invest in it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a news flash for the finance critic: The
Internet is in fact a product of the Pentagon. The last time I
looked at the Pentagon, it was part of the U.S. government. It
is a fact.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport acknowledged the promises that were made to the unemployed
during the election. However, he is hiding behind the minister
in order to justify the government's refusal to honour his
promises, when his own colleagues have signed a unanimous report
calling for these changes.
Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intend to stand up
and honour his commitments to the unemployed or will he admit
that he does not have enough political clout to influence his
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two things should be clear to the House
by now.
First, the government is prepared to monitor and assess the
impact of employment insurance and to make changes when changes
are necessary.
Second, Bloc members have finally realized their serious error
in voting with the Alliance against the government on the
amendments to Bill C-2, which now supports their constituents,
seasonal workers and parents.
It will be a long hot summer for Bloc members who go back to
their ridings and try to explain to their constituents why they
did not support the government.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, everything is in place to have this question
settled quickly.
The unanimous report was made public on May 31. The money is
available, and there would have been ample time to act before
the House adjourns.
In conclusion, are we to understand that the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services and the Secretary of State for
Amateur Sport made their promises to get votes, without the
political weight to deliver the goods?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. members sit there and say that
they want to vote today. They had a chance to vote on amendments
last fall and they chose not to take it. They had a chance to
vote on amendments to the Employment Insurance Act this spring
and they voted against it.
There is nothing clearer than the fact that the members of the
Bloc Party now know they were wrong in blocking this government.
Thankfully we were able to pass the legislation, but with no help
from them.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in 1961 the average family paid $1,675 in taxes from an income of
$5,000. Today the average family earns $51,174 and pays $24,309
in taxes. That is 47.5% of their entire income. That is more
than is needed for food, clothing and shelter combined.
How can the finance minister justify this gross overtaxation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member would see us go beyond what is the
largest tax cut in Canadian history.
The fact is that throughout this whole session virtually every
spending measure that has been recommended has come from the
Alliance. The Alliance has essentially said that it wants the
government to spend massively and yet it wants us to cut taxes.
That would put us into deficit. Is that the Alliance's official
position?
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian families are being taxed to death and they
resent the wasting of their money on foolish things, like sending
heating rebates to prisoners.
On behalf of Canadian families I ask: Why is their tax bill
relative to their income 50% higher now than in 1961?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians' real disposable income this year has achieved
a record level. That is the real fact.
Is the hon. member calling for further reductions in taxes?
There is only one of two things that will happen: Either we will
go back into deficit or, if we were to accomplish the Alliance
plan, the government would have to cut back in health care and
old age pensions. Which is it?
What is the Alliance recommending? When will the Alliance
members lay their real agenda in front of the Canadian people?
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The government made significant changes to the employment
insurance program with Bill C-2. Yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois
said that the minister did not want to make any changes beyond
Bill C-2.
Can the minister assure the members of this House and all
Canadians that she firmly intends to monitor and assess the
employment insurance program and will continue to make whatever
changes are necessary?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, the
Government of Canada monitors and assesses the impact of the
Employment Insurance Act on Canadians and we make changes as
changes are necessary. That is why we doubled parental benefits.
That is why we introduced and passed the amendments in Bill C-2.
That is why just last Sunday we published in the Canada
Gazette a proposal to change EI regulations that would guide
the treatment of undeclared earnings.
Those changes were proposed so that the EI program would be more
reflective of the work patterns of claimants. It is an idea that
was presented to us by the FTQ, as well as other stakeholders.
Again I point out that we make changes as warranted.
* * *
ELECTORAL REFORM
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A recent poll done by the Canada West Foundation showed that
some 70% of western Canadians are interested in the idea of
proportional representation. Also, the Liberal Party itself will
use proportional representation on a riding by riding basis to
select delegates for the next leadership convention.
If PR is good enough to select Liberal delegates, why is PR not
good enough to elect some members of parliament? To that end,
will the Deputy Prime Minister strike a special all party
committee to study the various models of PR that might be mixed
or blended into our electoral system so that people's votes are
reflected in the House of Commons?
1445
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious from the way the House is shaped that the
people's votes are reflected in the House of Commons. This is
confirmed by public opinion polls.
I noticed that when my hon. friend's party was in power in
provincial governments it would not touch proportional
representation with a 10 foot pole.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
Earlier this year the secretary of state stated that Vector
Aerospace had no military involvement whatsoever in Colombia. Yet
yesterday the chief executive officer of Vector Aerospace stated
“We are working on both civilian and military aircraft”. Said
another Vector official “We are repairing engines and components
and other items for the Colombian military”.
What actions will the government take to put a stop to this
Canadian corporate complicity in the Colombian military, one of
the most brutal and repressive militaries in the hemisphere?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the member has
just said, I learned about it today. If it is a civilian
aircraft no export permit is required. If it is a military
aircraft one is, but if the work is being done outside Canada by
Vector or one of its subsidiaries no permit is required.
I am concerned about what the member is saying and I will look
into it to see where this work is being done.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal
inaction is harming the environment and human health. We know
that Canada's pesticides act is over 30 years old. A year and a
half ago I asked the health minister when Canadians could expect
to see a new act, and the minister said legislation was
forthcoming.
A new act must test all ingredients including their formulants.
It must also test the toxicity of pesticides in regard to the
health of our most vulnerable populations such as children and
elderly. When will we have a new pesticides act that does just
that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what has happened in the interim is that the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development of the House of
Commons has looked thoroughly into the question of how Canadians
are best served by pesticides legislation. Recently the
government filed its response to that committee's report.
I can tell the member and the House that we will soon be tabling
legislation which will reflect those recommendations and protect
the health of Canadians.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
further on the pesticides act, over a year ago I complained to
the Minister of Health about two electronic devices known as the
phoenix squawker and the phoenix wailer which make noises to
scare birds away from oil spills and airports.
The Department of Health has designated these electronic devices
as pesticides so that it can charge a tax. They are not
pesticides and should not be subject to tax. Will the minister
reverse this designation so that I can stop wailing and
squawking?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are quite used to wailing and squawking from that corner of
the House. It is something we would miss if it were not there.
Speaking of pests, I can tell the member that I am quite
concerned about his wailing and squawking. I want the House to
know that this is something we take very seriously.
The member has been kind enough to raise this issue directly. He
knows I am working on it. I think together over time we can
solve the problem of wailing and squawking in the country.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, livestock producers and their
representative organizations have written my office setting out
their concerns over Bill C-15. They have raised concerns that
livestock and poultry producers will face criminal charges for
simply following ordinary farming practices.
Why does the justice minister refuse to specify in legislation
that normally accepted animal husbandry practices will not be
subject to criminal prosecution?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, we have consulted widely in relation to this legislation.
In fact we made changes to the legislation to accommodate all
the reasonable needs and concerns of those involved, be they
hunters, trappers, those involved in the agricultural sector or
whomever.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, all I can suggest to the minister is
that she get out there and listen again because that is not what
the farming community is telling us.
The farming community is telling us that this legislation cannot
go through as it is presently set up without a specific reference
to farming practices as normal practices that are not subject to
prosecution. That is what is required.
I am asking the minister to stand and say that. Farmers want
that legislation. Can she do that today?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than quote
the Globe and Mail today, which says the following—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1450
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair heard the
question and would like to hear the answer.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me quote:
* * *
[Translation]
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, chapter 11 of
NAFTA on investments is to be discussed by the three countries
in July.
The Prime Minister has already stated that chapter 11 of NAFTA
does not pose a problem, while the Minister for International
Trade is concerned about it. As we know, transnational
corporations are making all kinds of representations to have
this chapter maintained.
Does the minister realize that the interpretation given to
chapter 11 jeopardizes the governments' ability to act, which
means that it is urgent to limit its scope?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member for Joliette exaggerates the scope
that we are trying to give to chapter 11.
We have always felt that chapter 11 works well. There are
Canadian investments around the world that deserve to be
protected; they must be protected, and we will continue to
protect them.
As for chapter 11 of NAFTA, our government never wanted to
change it or renegotiate it but rather to clarify certain
aspects, to improve its transparency. I believe and I firmly
hope that improvements will be made.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
met with his Mexican and American counterparts on May 8, and
chapter 11 was to be discussed. Moreover, the NAFTA commission
will meet at the end of July and this item is on the agenda.
Could the minister tell us which changes he will propose to
settle this issue once and for all?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I note the hon. member's tone when he talks about
settling issues “once and for all”.
But as we know, there are agreements in place; these must
continually be adjusted to reflect the new reality, and so do
the institutions that have developed. So, on this issue as on
many others, we do not settle issues “once and for all”, as the
Bloc Quebecois claims.
I will say that I am very pleased that my colleagues from Mexico
and the United States have agreed to have the commission look at
chapter 11 to improve its transparency and clarify certain
aspects, but it works—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Yellowhead.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, 20,000 Canadians are on the waiting list for knee and
hip replacements. The average waiting time for this surgery, for
the lucky, is six months. Some Canadians have to put their lives
on hold for a whole year. Luck should have nothing to do with
health care.
Does the health minister believe that the waiting times are
acceptable standards for health care in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is the very reason we have been encouraging provincial
governments to increase enrolment in medical schools. It is the
very reason we have been encouraging provincial governments and
the professions to open the door to those with training in
medicine and in nursing who come to the country.
I can tell the member one thing. One way not to deal with
waiting lists is to do what the Alliance contends and have an
American style two tier system, because that would make matters
far worse.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure the minister understands quite where we
are at on this side, but I think he should understand exactly
that as recently reported we need 150 orthopedic surgeons just to
meet existing demand. However, it takes 10 years to train one.
An aging population will only make this problem worse. Surely we
will not wait for the Romanow report before we address this
problem. The minister is good at smooth talk and no action. How
many new positions will be opened up this fall?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three years ago total enrolment in first year medical schools was
about 1,570. This fall it will be over 2,000. That is progress.
1455
I will say something else. The way we deal with waiting lists
is to act on the agreements that all governments came to last
September: more doctors and nurses; better equipment, for which
we have given the money; better information technology to
modernize the system; and making this a country where doctors
want to stay and practise. That is the agenda we are working on
on this side of the House.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services if he is ready to order Canada Post to keep the North
Sydney postal terminal, not to sell it but to use it for other
postal operations.
Cape Breton badly needs employment. Surely Canada Post should
be creating more jobs in our region, not unemployment.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the
hard work of the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria on this file.
He has been speaking with Canada Post authorities, with the
president, and he has been speaking with me, the minister
responsible.
I can assure him today that Canada Post in the near future will
find a new vocation for the Sydney postal terminal.
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week we appealed to the
information commissioner for help in getting 31 access requests
from HRDC. This week the commissioner is talking about excessive
secrecy and delays.
HRDC had the second highest number of complaints in the entire
government. The commissioner said that cases arise where the
minister's own office disrupts the process. Will the minister
assure the House that her office is not holding up our access to
information requests?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I absolutely will assure the hon. member
that is the case. We will not be holding up their requests.
Her question gives me a chance to explain to the House what the
information commissioner did say. He agreed, as I have said
before, that the department did experience a large increase in
the volume of requests due to the issues raised last year, but
with specific reference to the number of complaints, he said
“The matter is well in hand and not indicative of a systemic
problem”.
My department has had an extraordinary record in providing
information through the access to information process. We hope
very soon to be back with an A grade and certainly will ensure
that the information is conveyed as quickly as possible.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have asked for information about
grants to the Prime Minister's riding, grants to the minister's
riding, and about the way access to information requests are
processed in her department.
Correspondence from her office all have one thing in common.
They are all matters about which she has taken political heat. Is
that why we are not getting anything from her department, that
she cannot take the political heat?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I am still here in
the same place I started when I was taking political heat from
that party.
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, La
Presse featured a report that Radio Canada International would
no longer be producing weekend newscasts.
Three months ago, however, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
signed a one year memorandum of understanding with the CBC in
which the corporation guaranteed the services of Radio Canada
International, without any cuts.
Will the minister explain why the current memorandum of
understanding is not being respected, and will she assure the
House that the services of Radio Canada International will be
able to continue, as provided for in last month's memorandum of
understanding?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that it was this government
which saved Radio Canada International. It is also true that
there will be a very good partnership with Radio Canada
International in the future.
We are pleased that the CBC is in partnership with Radio Canada
International in this memorandum of understanding because, with
the power of the CBC and the strength of Radio Canada
International, we will accomplish wonderful things together.
* * *
1500
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it has been over a year since the government has
promised a more commercial grain handling and transportation
system. The plan required the Canadian Wheat Board to negotiate
commercial agreements with the rest of the grain industry, but
this has not happened.
Could the Minister of Transport tell the House why these
commercial agreements have not been signed? What is he doing to
end this impasse that is negatively affecting Canadian
agriculture?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows, since he is from Alberta, that
this is a very complex issue, a complex problem. The reason we
have had no results in the last little while is that the parties
have been seriously negotiating.
We believe they are close to an agreement on the contracting
provisions. Once that occurs I think the hon. member will be
satisfied that the changes we brought in last year in Bill C-34
will indeed work.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a strike
by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada employed by
the National Gallery of Canada has gone on for too long. This
morning, gallery management confirmed that it would be going
ahead with the Gustav Klimt exhibit.
However, many visitors will choose, as will I, not to cross the
picket line. If this situation drags on, everyone will lose:
gallery employees and art lovers.
If this dispute is to be resolved, the parties must talk to each
other, which they do not seem to be doing right now.
What does the minister intend to do in the coming days to get
the parties back to the bargaining table?
[English]
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
expressions of concern. I know he understands that a collective
agreement works well when it is negotiated.
The Minister of Labour has appointed two negotiators to work
with the parties. I urge both parties to take advantage of the
resources available to them.
If there is a genuine will to resolve this it can be done today
if they use the resources available. I urge them to get back to
the table.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, mercury in fish, the threat of mad cow disease and
concerns about genetically engineered foods are all serious
issues for Canadians that have not been effectively addressed by
the government.
Now we have carbadox, a growth hormone given to pigs which is a
cancer causing agent. Even the agriculture minister has written
to the health minister in support of a ban.
As we enter the summer season and Canadians fire up the
barbecues, will the Minister of Health give assurances to
everyone that all pork products are safe, and will he ensure that
carbadox is taken off the market immediately?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the member that Health Canada is looking very
carefully at the letter received from the minister of
agriculture. Scientists are examining the evidence and in this,
as in all other matters, Health Canada will act in the public
interest to protect the health of Canadians.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Jozef
Stank, Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders I am pleased to submit, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 27th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference of Tuesday, April 24, 2001, in relation to Bill S-10,
an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet
Laureate).
The committee has considered Bill S-10 and reports the bill with
amendment.
* * *
TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to confirm the rights
of taxpayers and establish the Office for Taxpayer Protection.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this taxpayer
bill of rights in the House today. The bill creates an office
for taxpayer protection, headed by a chief advocate who will
ensure fairness and protection of the rights of taxpayers.
The bill would protect the taxpaying public from abuses of the
Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. Ensuring this protection in
law would make our tax collection system fair for all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following exhaustive consultations, I have three motions to
present.
I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
FINANCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel
from place to place within Canada during its proceedings pursuant
to Standing Order 83(1) and that the necessary staff accompany
the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding what is known as the 100 signature rule, I move that
the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House earlier, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
VIA RAIL
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition. To paraphrase, the petition argues
that the VIA Rail Atlantic train linking Halifax and Montreal
through southwestern New Brunswick was successful prior to its
discontinuance in 1994.
Given the increasing scarcity and price of fossil fuels, along
with concerns over health related to air quality and global
warming, and that air and private auto options for travel are
becoming less attractive, the undersigned citizens of
southwestern New Brunswick request that the House of Commons ask
Transport Canada and federal crown corporation VIA Rail to
restore passenger train service linking Saint John and
Fredericton westward through Sherbrooke to Montreal and eastward
through Montreal to Halifax.
1510
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the petitioners from Alberta and B.C. who have signed this
petition request that parliament process the landed immigrant
status for Cris Pusztay's wife and son so that they will be
permitted to return to Canada without delay.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition with over 70
signatures reflecting the concern of citizens over the protection
of children from violent sexual predators. The Carrie's guardian
angel initiative is what attracted the petitioners to sign.
To ensure the protection of children from sexual predators they
ask that parliament pass legislation which would incarcerate
indefinitely those offenders designated as dangerous sexual child
predators and child rapists who have committed more than one
violent offence against a child or children.
They ask that those who attack children receive a sentence of a
minimum of 20 years to life with no chance of parole where
aggravating factors are involved such as protracted forcible
confinement, repeated assaults or other acts of degradation,
several offenders acting together, multiple victims and/or the
use of weapons to further sexual aims.
CANADA POST
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am presenting a petition from petitioners all across the
provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. They bring attention to
the disparity of rural route mail carriers.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of citizens of Burlington and Hamilton.
They call upon parliament to protect the health of seniors and
children and save our environment by banning the disputed gas
additive MMT, as it creates smog and enhances global warming.
PESTICIDES
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition from 75 citizens of the great riding
of Halton.
The undersigned residents of Canada call upon parliament to
enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical
pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically
proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their
application are known.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present two more petitions from citizens of the Peterborough
area who would like to see VIA service re-established between
Peterborough and Toronto.
These citizens believe that this would be good for the
environment. It would reduce accidents and gridlock on the
highways. It would increase recognition of Peterborough as a
business, tourism and educational centre.
This petition has already been productive. There have been two
meetings with the Minister of Transport and an announcement by
the minister, which has given the community great hope. I have
to say we are on the right track with this one.
KIDNEY RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is from citizens of Peterborough and other areas
who support kidney research toward the development of a
bioartificial kidney. The bioartificial kidney is an
experimental implant which will help all those with kidney
disease.
The petition was developed by Ken Sharp. It has been signed by
tens of thousands of people. It has raised national awareness.
It has raised awareness in the medical profession and it resulted
in a meeting between U.S. and Canadian kidney researchers.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to support
research toward the bioartificial kidney.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on
behalf of dozens of my constituents, largely from Prince George
and Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia.
They are concerned about health care workers and students in
various health care disciplines in Canada who have been denied
training, employment, continued employment and advancement in
their careers due to what they feel is unjust discrimination
based on the dictates of their conscience.
They urge the Government of Canada to enact legislation to
explicitly recognize the freedom of conscience of health care
workers and to prohibit this type of coercion.
* * *
1515
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 32 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 32—Mr. Pat Martin:
With regards to efforts by the federal government to improve the
literacy of Canadians over the last five years: (a) what
investments and expenditures were made on literacy and numeracy
initiatives; (b) what is the breakdown of these expenditures
and investments for each federal department, and specifically for
agencies such as the Literacy Secretariat (NLS) at Human
Resources Development Canada and Correctional Service Canada;
(c) what is the amount of funding which has been directed to
each of the provinces and territories; (d) what is the amount
of funding which went to each province or territory through
Labour Market Training for literacy and education initiatives
before the government devolved responsibilities; (e) have any
efforts been made to direct such programs for the benefit of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada and if so: (i) in what manner; (ii)
what amounts have been so dedicated; and (iii) what specific
financial programs have been put in place to attain such an
objective; and (f) what level of literacy and numeracy is
considered necessary to function in today's economy, and
similarly, what is the base level needed to obtain and maintain a
job?
Return tabled
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During question period I may have unintentionally implied that
the corporations director of Industry Canada was reviewing the
original bill of sale referred to by the Alliance member.
I want to take this opportunity to lay to rest that was not the
case. As members are aware, the Canada Corporations Act is
administered by the Corporations Directorate. I want to put on
record that it reviewed the company's records earlier this year
in response to a letter by the ethics counsellor. Once the
review was completed it replied to the letter. It is my
understanding that the company agreed to fully comply with the
request of the act.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to
Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are
displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the third time and
passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand
before the House today to introduce third reading of Bill C-11,
the immigration and refugee protection act.
We have all worked hard and fruitfully to bring the bill to this
stage. As members know, Bill C-11 is the product of extensive
consultation and dialogue. For the past four years we have
spoken and exchanged views with the provinces, the territories,
non-governmental groups, the legal profession, law enforcement
agencies and interested Canadians.
Before we crafted the bill we consulted with committee, not once
but twice, and have made many adjustments along the way. A
number of ideas and clarifications suggested by the standing
committee have been incorporated into the bill and I thank the
members of the standing committee for their efforts.
The extensive period of consultation to clarify the policy
intent of Bill C-11 has improved the bill and has provided us
with new legislation for which we can all be proud.
My goal as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is and has
always been to ensure we have legislation for the new millennium
that will give us the tools we need to curb abuse while
encouraging increased immigration to Canada. We want faster but
fair decisions for refugee claimants. The bill would help us
achieve these objectives.
Bill C-11 would give Canadians the balanced approach they asked
for. It would ensure openness to those who would contribute to
Canada and our collective future and ensure tough penalties for
those who would abuse our generosity.
I want to be clear. The bill would not be tough on the
immigrants and refugees who built this country in the past or who
would help us build it in the future. However, it would be tough
on criminals, terrorists and those who are threats to our
security in Canada.
I assure all members of the House and all Canadians that
everyone will receive due process, fair treatment and the
protection of our charter of rights and freedoms.
Canadians have told us clearly that it takes too long for us to
do many of the things we do. They have told us that it takes too
long to remove those who are not welcome in Canada.
1520
The bill would give us a clear, responsible and balanced new law
that would help us continue to build the country. In particular,
it would allow us to say no faster so we could say yes more often
to the immigrants and refugees Canada will need to continue to
grow and prosper in the years ahead.
I again remind and assure the House and all Canadians that even
as we say no faster to those who are not welcome in Canada, we
would ensure there is full respect for due process and for the
laws of Canada of which we are so proud.
As I mentioned before, this is framework legislation. It would
enshrine rights, key policies and key principles. It would
provide our immigration program with the flexibility needed to
manage in an increasingly complex and continually changing
environment. It would enshrine our agreements with the provinces
which recognize immigration as an area of shared jurisdiction.
Our shared work on the bill has extended to proposals for the
regulations that would support it. Work on the regulations is
already underway and, as committee members know, the results are
posted and updated on a regular basis on our website.
I want everyone to know the website address in case interested
Canadians would like to visit it and get the most up to date
information. Visitors to www.cic.gc.ca can receive all the
information about the legislation and other programs and policies
of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Information
can be viewed on the website by members of parliament,
non-governmental groups, the legal profession and anyone who has
an interest in the evolving proposals for the regulations
concerning immigration and refugee determination.
I think members will agree that the process is, has been and
will continue to be a transparent one. Following a suggestion
made at the standing committee, proposed regulations would be
tabled in both Houses of parliament as part of the normal
pre-consultation phase before they are finalized. This would
underline the transparency of the process and ensure
parliamentarians an important role.
The regulations would include a strengthened program for
overseas refugee resettlement, an expanded family class and new
selection criteria to attract more skilled and adaptable
independent immigrants. They would also include an in-Canada
landing class for temporary workers, foreign students and spouses
who are already established in Canada and wish to stay.
It is important to state clearly for the record that the great
majority of immigrants and refugees who come to Canada come here
legally. They respect our laws and we welcome them. At the
front door there is a big welcome mat as we say to those who come
to Canada “Respect our laws. You are welcome. We need you. We
want you here and we welcome you”.
They come here to make a contribution. They make an important
contribution to our society, our economy and our communities.
Refugees and immigrants built this country and will continue to
do so in the years ahead.
Canadians want a new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that
respects our laws and traditions and, above all, continues our
tradition of welcoming newcomers. We must continue the
humanitarian traditions of openness and compassion that have made
this country so proud. Bill C-11 and its accompanying
regulations would do just that.
Many who participated in the development of the bill deserve
recognition and acknowledgement at this time.
I acknowledge the important contribution of my parliamentary
secretary, the member for Gatineau. I thank him for his support
and hard work in bringing the bill to this stage.
1525
I also acknowledge the important work of all members of the
standing committee, particularly the members of the Liberal
caucus who engaged in consultations in the very early
developmental stages. All members of the House were welcome to
participate and did so at the standing committee with the kind of
thoughtfulness that is very important.
I also thank members of the opposition. I know the member
opposite is surprised to hear that because he was a little
concerned that I was too partisan in my remarks. I thank the
members of the opposition parties who asked very thoughtful
questions. Even though I was surprised by some of the positions
they took, I believe the hard work of all members of the House
helped produce a bill which should be supported by all members of
committee and of the House.
I am aware that what happened at the very end of the committee
process was quite collegial. I was surprised to hear that the
bill might not be supported by everyone in the House who
participated because it deserves their support.
I also acknowledge the officials in my department, led very ably
by the assistant deputy minister of policy, Joan Atkinson. I
think anyone who participated at the standing committee or who
reads Hansard will agree with me that she gave clear and
detailed explanations of very complex and often difficult policy
implications and objectives. She answered all questions from all
members thoughtfully and articulately and has put on the record
for future consideration the bill's policy intent.
I hope all members of the House will agree with me that
Assistant Deputy Minister Joan Atkinson did an outstanding job of
not only defending the bill but ensuring that all members of the
standing committee understood the policy intent and implications
of the legislation. I also thank all presenters who came before
the standing committee and all who sent in detailed briefs.
I also acknowledge the many individuals and groups who met with
me personally. All that consultation, input and advice has
resulted in an excellent piece of legislation that will stand the
test of time.
Many individuals check our website regularly. Many do not.
Those who have an interest in citizenship and immigration and in
the important work we do should know they are always welcome to
contact members of parliament on both sides of the House. They
can contact the department or the website, and the questions they
have will be answered as quickly as possible. We want to ensure
that people know and understand why we have the policies we have,
what their intent is and how we go about implementing them in a
way which is consistent with our Canadian values and in a way
which has become a model for the world.
When I visit our visa posts around the world and meet with
officials from countries with which we have bilateral relations,
they all ask me about our open and transparent approach to
immigration in Canada. They are interested in our new point
system. They are interested in the fact that everything is on
the Internet and that people are encouraged and welcome to apply.
They are envious of our record of independent adjudication at the
Immigration and Refugee Board. They are interested in the fact
that we have an arm's length IRB with three divisions, one of
which sorts out refugee claimants.
We know that even though Canada has a different approach than
other countries, at the end of the day many countries in the
western world ultimately have the same approval rates that Canada
has. There are different mechanisms and ways of getting there
but we know, and I know this because I have met bilaterally with
world leaders, that at the end of the day following due process,
the difference for Canada is we make those decisions sooner in a
transparent and arm's length way. We give people access to
judicial review. We make sure that all risk conditions are
considered. We give them landed status and encourage those who
are in genuine need of protection to get on with their lives in
Canada as quickly as possible, to integrate in our society and
feel welcomed.
1530
We know that there are some people who come to us who are not in
genuine need of protection. The challenge for the IRB is to make
those decisions and then tell those people who are not at risk of
leaving Canada, who are inadmissible to Canada or who are not in
genuine need of our protection that they must leave Canada. That
is always difficult.
We can understand why people want to come to Canada. We are
proud of the fact that for the seventh year in a row the United
Nations has declared Canada as the best country in the world in
to live. One important parts of our immigration program is
family reunification and our commitment to do that.
This bill, as I said in my remarks before committee, strengthens
our commitment to family reunification, both for immigrants and
for refugees. By leaving the application open for a year, we
will encourage refugees' families to reunite more quickly. By
having an in-Canada landing class for spouses, we will encourage
husbands, wives and partners to be together and have status in
Canada as quickly as possible.
We know there are many challenges that face us but, after almost
two years as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I want to
state clearly to the House the confidence that I have in my
officials around the world at the visa posts. They do their very
best to make good decisions, to make decisions that are important
for Canada because it is about nation building. They are the
ones who interview the applicants. Those immigration officers on
the frontline are the ones who make a decision as to whether an
interview is needed at all. They do this in the face of
significant challenges. We know that they often see documents
that are not real. We know that since the photocopier was
developed we are seeing an increase in fraudulent documents.
That poses a great challenge.
That is why in this legislation we have made an inadmissibility
category, that if persons present fraudulent documents to Canada
they will be inadmissible to Canada for a period of two years.
That is supposed to be a deterrent because we want people to
respect our laws. We want people to come to Canada, obey our
laws, do it the right way and come through the front door where
there is a big welcome mat.
However, the door that we want to close is the back door to
serious criminals, to terrorists, to those who pose a risk to
Canada, to failed refugee claimants and to those who are not in
genuine need of our protection. At that back door there is a
deportation order waiting.
Canada has one of the best records of removals of any country in
the world. Last year over 8,600 people were removed from this
country. Of those removals one-third, over 1,700, were those
who were criminally inadmissible to this country. However the
other two-thirds were failed refugee claimants, people who had
overstayed visitor's visas and those who had no status in Canada,
no right to remain in Canada.
It is important for us to know that if we are going to open that
front door wider, to reunite families, to welcome the refugees,
to encourage applications from around the world, to bring the
immigrants here that we will need to continue to grow and
prosper, we must give Canadians the confidence that we are able
to say we want our laws respected. We will treat them fairly but
we want them to obey our laws. We want them to come in the front
door, not to try to sneak in the back door.
1535
As difficult as it is for us to tell people that it is time to
leave Canada, we know it is an important part of the integrity of
the immigration program.
My department has two mandates that are reflected in the bill.
That is why I say the bill is balanced. The priority for my
department is to bring in the people Canada needs, to reunite
families and to welcome those refugees who are in genuine need of
our protection. However, my department also has an enforcement
mandate to ensure that our laws have integrity and that those
people who have no right to remain in Canada are stopped from
coming. That is called interdiction.
We have a network of immigration control officers around the
world who do their very best in often difficult circumstances and
with people who are not often telling them the truth when they
try to come to Canada surreptitiously. Our immigration control
officers, we call them ICOs, are the frontline to try to prevent
access to Canada by those who have no right to come here.
However, because we have the largest undefended border in the
world and are dealing with human judgments, we know that people
are sometimes able to come into Canada. Then it is important
that the enforcement side of the department does its job.
When I say Bill C-11 is balanced, that is what I mean. It is
balanced with a tilt to welcoming and encouraging those people to
who we will need in the future to come to Canada. We are a small
country with just a 30 million population.
We know about the dependency ratio. By the year 2010 there will
be five people working for every one person retired. By the year
2020 there will be only three people working for every one person
retired. That poses a great challenge for the government and for
all of Canada. Why? Because we are not having enough babies.
I jokingly can say I have done my part. I have four children
and six grandchildren. I look around the House of Commons and I
do not think I can count on everyone here to go out and start
producing the people we will need, although I can hear some
members opposite say they have done their part as well.
The reality is that we need people in every region of the
country. We need people in the urban and rural best kept secrets
of Canada, the small and medium sized cities. We have to tell
the world of the wonderful communities ready to welcome
immigrants and refugees because they want them to succeed and buy
homes. They want them to succeed and pay taxes that will support
our public education and health systems. We need them to bring
their families because it is families that build communities.
There are some who would suggest that the family class does not
contribute, but I would say they are wrong. The family class,
the parents, grandparents and dependent children who come
together to create families and communities and contribute today
but also in the future to the building of the country, is the
reason why family reunification is such an important cornerstone
of our immigration policy.
As I conclude my remarks on Bill C-11, I want to assure the
House that it is an extremely important piece of legislation
because it sets the framework for the immigration program for the
new millennium. We know the world has changed since the last
piece of immigration legislation was adopted by parliament almost
25 years ago. We know we are in a different world. We know
there are all kinds of communications, not only the kind of
communication available through the Internet, telephones and fax
machines, but the kind of communication that is available by
getting on an airplane and travelling around the world.
1540
I visited Pier 21 in Halifax. I know it has special meaning for
Madam Speaker and for the over 40 members of the House who came
to Canada as immigrants, often as children, and many of whom
arrived at Pier 21. That historical museum, that monument to the
immigration, tells us the story of how this country has changed.
It has changed in many ways because of the contribution of those
people who came to Pier 21, but it has also changed because of
our environment, a global world where people are on the move.
That is the challenge for all of us in Canada.
Bill C-11 responds to that challenge. It is a thoughtful,
reasoned approached, a bill that balances the duel mandate of my
department. That bill is worthy and deserving of support of all
members of the House. It is my hope that I will be pleasantly
surprised and that we will see support from the opposition
parties who were instrumental when assisting at committee, but
then walked out the door and started to advocate for greater
rights and longer processing.
One thing this piece of legislation does is attempts to
streamline so we can make decisions more quickly when it comes to
refugee determination and faster but fairer processing for
refugee applications. We also want to be able to remove people
more quickly.
Some amendments from the opposition party which would have made
it more difficult to remove those people who posed a risk to
Canada or those people who had committed heinous and serious
crimes disturbed me. We have a tradition in this country that
only Canadian citizens have the right to remain in Canada. Even
Canadian citizens can be extradited if they commit a serious
crime in another country and that country succeeds in making an
extradition application. That is done through the Department of
Justice. Everyone is assured due process.
Those people who are not Canadian citizens, who come to Canada,
commit a serious crime, who pose a threat to the safety and
security of our country should, in my view, be removed as quickly
as possible. I was disappointed that that view was not shared by
members of the opposition party. That surprised me. I think if
their constituents knew that, they would insist that they support
the government's goal of trying to remove those who have
committed serious crimes and who are a threat to Canadian society
as quickly as possible.
The vote we will have this afternoon will be for third reading
of Bill C-11. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. As
minister, I have seen first reading, second reading, full debate
at committee and all consultations.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my predecessor for the
important work she did in conducting the consultations that led
to the development of the bill. It was the foundation of those
important consultations over a period of four years which led to
the development of the bill.
It is my hope that when we have the vote this afternoon, Bill
C-11, which is so worthy and deserving of support, will receive
unanimous support by all members of the House.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the third
reading debate of Bill C-11, the act respecting immigration to
Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are
displaced, persecuted or endangered.
I appreciate the initiatives and the efforts of members from all
parties to actually improve this legislation and the hard work
they have done on this committee. At the risk of sounding
partisan, I especially appreciate the hard work of the Canadian
Alliance MPs who had considerable input on this.
1545
The bill would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act of 1976.
There are some much needed changes in the bill but unfortunately
it has a series of serious flaws.
Immigration to Canada should be simple. Either one meets the
criteria to enter Canada or one does not. The legislation should
be clear, transparent, comprehensive, precise, democratic,
accountable, efficient, effective, enforceable, easy to interpret
and helpful to legitimate immigrants, while maintaining the
integrity and security of Canada and Canadians.
Let me make it very clear that the Canadian Alliance will pursue
a policy of open and transparent immigration. The nation is
strong because at one time either ourselves, our ancestors, our
parents or grandparents all immigrated here. Even many of our
aboriginal peoples, anthropologists tell us, at one time found
their way across the Bering Sea to what we now know as North
America. We all immigrated here at some time. The strength of
our nation will continue with a good and sound immigration
policy.
The legislation may be well intended but the outcome may
unfortunately not serve its stated purpose. Lack of clarity,
prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation may
ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation that it
purports to replace. There is far too much reliance to interpret
89 pages of regulations that are in the legislation. Much of
what is in the regulations should in fact be in the legislation
itself.
Regulations really give the minister the option of running the
department any way he or she sees fit. That is not
accountability in government, but the present government is not
known for its accountability. The Liberal government has a habit
of governing by regulation and not by legislation. Regulations
cannot be debated in the House of Commons and so in a way it is
governing through the back door. It not only makes legislation
undemocratic but makes it complex, opaque and difficult to
understand.
The Canadian Alliance attempted to have amendments passed that
would have made the legislation effective and workable but the
Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of the amendments presented
at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration by the
Canadian Alliance member were rejected by the Liberal dominated
committee. There was no true freedom for members on the
government's side to vote and support common sense amendments to
the legislation.
There is a history of the government not accepting most of the
opposition's amendments to any bill. A government should be open
to amendments that make sense. It does not weaken the government
in the eyes of the public. It strengthens it when the government
shows that openness. We on this side are open to pointing out
times when the government does that which is good. We point that
out and we give it credit. We think correspondingly it should
respond to amendments from the opposition that make sense and
would improve the legislation.
There are many examples where the government did not seem
capable, certainly not willing, to do this. For example, in Bill
C-7, the youth criminal justice act, the Liberals refused to
accept amendments from the opposition and eventually passed yet
another ineffective piece of legislation.
We all know that on Bill C-15 the government refused to accept
an opposition suggestion to split provisions that would protect
children from Internet predators, which we all support. It would
have split the bill into other pieces of legislation which we
were willing to debate separately, but the government was not.
The official opposition had a number of suggestions for
improvement that we wish the government had incorporated into the
bill.
As a general principle we have suggested that the minister
should establish an ombudsman to receive complaints from
Canadians on all matters pertaining to immigration. The
ombudsman would report annually to the House of Commons. We feel
that was a valid proposal, one that would not hurt the government
but strengthen it. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Ministers should consult with municipalities. Wherever I go
across the country, and as members of the Canadian Alliance visit
with mayors and municipalities, we see the need for a
consultation process with the federal government with respect to
resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where
applicable. The municipalities have to bear not only the
responsibility but the cost of this, and there needs to be
consultation with the federal government. A Canadian Alliance
government would do that.
1550
The government should encourage open and accountable discussions
between a variety of agencies, as well as the provinces and
non-government immigration organizations. In this bill the
government has missed the opportunity to truly strengthen and
have a vibrant immigration policy. Our party would work with the
provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants.
The Canadian Alliance supports the current immigration levels
but we would like to see immigrants in the jobs that they were
trained to do. We would like Canada to attract the best and the
brightest from around the world, not just those who wish to come
here so we can fulfil a quota but those whose skills correspond
to the needs of our economy.
Physicians and nurses are not on the list of occupational needs
required by Canada despite acute shortages in those professions.
This is an obvious deficiency in the bill. Even if a doctor or a
nurse were to immigrate to Canada, he or she might not be allowed
to work in his or her field of endeavour for up to two years or
until the minister granted a work permit. Whether they are
doctors or nurses, qualified immigrants should be able to find
work in an expedient way in the occupations in which they were
trained. They should not have to work below the level of their
qualification.
When it comes to families, we support the expedient
reunification of family members. The bill purports to help
family reunification, but without the proper enforcement and the
staff to handle the changes proposed in the bill, the line-ups of
people waiting in the system may be even longer. The system may
become further clogged, which is not the way to reunite families.
In order for people to have their spouses or fiancés immigrate
to Canada, they must be financially responsible for them for up
to five years. That means the spouse or the fiancé is not
allowed to work in Canada until his or her application is
processed.
A real case in point is when a Canadian marries an American.
They both work in the high tech industry and they wish to return
to Canada. The American spouse can be sponsored but will not be
allowed to work even though the need and the demand is here. He
or she can apply for independent status but will not be able to
work for up to a year while the application is being processed.
These kinds of discriminatory provisions should be removed.
I might add that the discriminatory right of landing fee, also
called the head tax, is not a signal to families that we want to
see them reunited. The costs are shamefully high, especially to
low income families wanting to reunite their families. That is
inappropriate and we are opposed to that.
Bill C-11 is also a direct attack in some ways on legitimate
refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our
share of genuine refugees. However paragraph 3(2)(d) states that
Canada is:
—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of
persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political
opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as
those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment;
This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise
undesirable entering Canada who claims to be a refugee would be
under Canadian protection from extradition to another country if
there was reason to believe they would be under threat of any
harm. The list of undesirables includes international
terrorists, murderers, members of organized crime, sex offenders
and child abusers.
The key changes include referring refugees to the Immigration
and Refugee Board within three working days. What is key here is
the processing time of a claim would still remain at 90 days.
There is no improvement whatsoever and that is unacceptable.
The unnecessary appeal processes need to be curtailed. The
onion layer effect of appeals actually causes more problems than
it attempts to solve. The definition of a refugee needs to be
clearly defined. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We
support doing our part to help those who are truly in need, but
keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them,
especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are
deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months and years
in the system.
1555
The bill would also give refugees, as well as refugee
applicants, full charter protection. If for any reason someone
is either denied access to Canada or refused refugee status, that
person would be entitled to an appeal. It also means refugees
would be given full rights as if they were citizens of Canada,
appealing possibly all the way up to the supreme court. No other
country in the world does this.
It has been reported recently that some 15,000 individuals
facing deportation warrants are missing and Canadian authorities
have no idea where they are. The government's record for tracking
landed immigrants is abysmal. We do not keep exit reports on
those who depart and this is something that needs to be
addressed. There are 89 pages of regulations and the government
does not have the ability to keep track of exit reports.
The Canadian Alliance, along with most Canadians, supports the
deportation of undesirable individuals without question or delay
in cases of criminal activity or non-compliance with the
Immigration Act.
Bill C-11 would completely strip the minister of his or her
right to deport those who have either broken the law or have come
to Canada to escape the law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling
in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay, which came down on
February 15, applies to those individuals who face the threat to
their person if deported from Canada.
According to the ruling, all convicted or charged criminals can
now seek asylum in Canada and the minister has no visible
authority to deport them. There is nothing in the legislation to
address this supreme court ruling. This is a grave deficiency
and the minister will not address it.
The bill would allow for so-called front-end security screening
but it would only apply to refugees, which in some cases is a
physical impossibility. Front-end screening would not apply to
applicants in general.
The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security
measures for both refugee and immigrant applications but there is
no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this would
work. It appears that it would be at the whim of those who
administer the program.
No one should be allowed to enter Canada without proper security
checks as to his or her risk to the country. All persons
entering Canada should be subject to a security check at all
ports of entry. All persons entering and leaving Canada should
be recorded as deemed to have entered or left Canada.
Shortage of staff and inadequate training create a security
risk. This was evidenced by Mr. Lai Changxing, the accused
kingpin smuggler who landed in Canada through queue jumping, who
was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background
check. This is just not acceptable.
In relation to human smugglers, the government should send a
strong message to these individuals who exploit and prey on
vulnerable people. Our actions should be stronger than words. We
need tougher laws and the will to implement them by levying
longer jail sentences and higher fines. All vehicles, be they
ships, aircraft or automobiles, used in the illegal
transportation of human cargo should be immediately seized and
impounded for at least one year.
There is no penalty for knowingly submitting a false application
for immigration to Canada. Individuals may submit as many
fraudulent applications as they like. A mechanism needs to be
put in place that would prevent repeat fraudulent application
submissions. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious and
fraudulent applications. This will continue to cause endless
paperwork for visa officers.
Bill C-11, regardless of its intentions, does not deliver what
it is promising without better enforcement, accountability and
management. There is no action plan in the legislation to
achieve these results. The good points in the bill are
unfortunately outweighed by its flaws, flaws which we in the
opposition parties have identified. We have proposed amendments
to improve the bill but they have been rejected.
1600
Unless the Liberal government is willing to entertain amendments
to strengthen and improve the bill, I cannot support it. We want
to support a good, transparent, open policy of immigration in
this country, but the bill will not do it.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Canada and Quebec are havens. The Immigration Act should
enshrine this welcome in a fair and equitable manner so as to
respond as humanely as possible to the needs of new arrivals, be
they immigrants or refugees, in accordance with international
conventions and the values held by Canadians and Quebecers.
However, the anchor point for Bill C-11 is the harsh treatment
accorded illegal immigrants.
Much of the bill focuses on the closing of the door on potential
immigrants, through the consolidation of measures intended to
prevent fraud, reveal false declarations and abuse and deny
criminals and people representing security risks access to the
country.
Initially, it would appear from the bill that Canada has been
invaded by criminals of all sorts; in a word, the door is open
too wide. Not only is there a need for a bolt, but for an
impenetrable alarm system as well.
The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with this position. While it
is important, indeed vital, to prevent criminals, especially
those in organized crime or who have committed crimes against
humanity, from entering the country, we must remember that these
individuals represent a minuscule fraction of the people
immigrating to Canada.
To do otherwise is to reinforce the prejudice against refugees
and immigrants.
I will quote to you, if I may, Madam Speaker, from an open
letter from the Centre justice et foi de Montréal on Bill C-11:
Bill C-11 was introduced in an essentially negative and defensive
light: campaign against the snakeheads, major increase in
penalties, increased powers of detention, reinforced
interception measures abroad, reduced possibilities of appeal or
review.
In our opinion, this represents a serious and dual perversion of
the entire Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. First of
all, it is situating immigration—an asset to society, a plus,
even a demographic necessity in the case of Canada—in a reverse
perspective, as a threat from which we must protect ourselves.
Also, it is displacing the function of protecting those in
need—the refugees included in the title—to protecting Canadians
from the potential risk or abuse connected with these new
arrivals.
...The logic of repression is everywhere, without
escape and without end, and even if officially only certain
immigrants and refugees are targeted, it will end up spilling
over inevitably to all immigrants and all refugees.
That, in my opinion, is a very good summary of the general
feeling of almost all individuals and organizations we met with
during the committee hearings.
Yesterday the House awarded honourary citizenship to Nelson
Mandela. No one can ignore the paradox and irony of the
contrast between yesterday's Motion No. 379 and today's bill.
If the new legislation had been in effect 40 years ago and
Nelson Mandela had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an
organization for the subversion by force of any government, to
use the wording of clause 34, he would have been inadmissible.
He would have been sent back to South Africa and there is a good
chance that he would not have ended up the Nobel Laureate we now
know.
During the committee review of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois
introduced an amendment to paragraph 34(b), so that only those who
engage in or instigate the subversion by force of a
democratically elected government be inadmissible. It seemed
logical that the government should support this amendment.
I do not have to tell members what the government's answer was.
True to itself, it rejected the amendment.
1605
The process for appointing board members is another major
component of this bill. The bill does not include any changes to
the appointment process. However, for several years, the Bloc
Quebecois has been criticizing the Liberals for constantly
making political appointments to the commission. It is essential
to set up a transparent appointment process that will ensure
full impartiality and a selection based on the qualifications
and professional experience of the candidates, and not, as is
often the case, on their political connections.
Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a
single member, it is even more critical that decision makers all
be extremely competent. Unfortunately, the amendments that we
proposed in this respect were rejected. Yet, the government did
not have to look very far. It could have looked at the
appointment process for Quebec's administrative tribunals.
A brief was presented to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration by two lawyers and a psychiatrist. The Bloc
Quebecois endorsed the proposed changes. By presenting them, we
felt we would solve the problem of the political appointments of
members by proposing the use of objective criteria guaranteeing
the competence and independence of members. But the Liberal
Party does not want this. It prefers to continue to appoint
members in a totally arbitrary fashion, thus significantly
reducing the moral and legal authority of these administrative
tribunals.
How dare the government toy in this way with the life, safety and
freedom of these applicants?
Board members have an important responsibility, and it is no
exaggeration to say that they have the power of life and death
over those appearing before them.
Early this year, a bad assessment had tragic consequences.
Everyone remembers the tragic situation in which the federal
government placed Haroun M'Barek, a Tunisian who requested
refugee status but was sent back to his country of origin, even
though all signs were that he might be tortured there, which was
in fact what happened. Too late, Canada recognized its mistake.
In this case, the Bloc Quebecois' pressure on the government
certainly played a role in Canada's interceding for Mr. M'Barek,
but it would have been better if Canada had not had to intervene
and Mr. M'Barek had been recognized as a political refugee.
The Bloc Quebecois finds regrettable the hard line taken by the
government in introducing this bill and the accompanying public
announcements. Through its approach to this issue, we believe
that the government, which seems to be trying to reassure the
Canadian right, is reinforcing prejudices towards refugees and
immigrants. It is thus encouraging division and heightening
xenophobic and racist sentiments in society.
In recent years, the Bloc Quebecois has frequently argued that
the Canadian system for granting refugee status should include
two essential characteristics: it must be prompt and fair towards
the person rightfully seeking asylum, and it must dissuade those
who clog the system with unfounded applications.
The slowness of the claims process is the cause of unacceptable
human tragedies and puts people and families in extremely
difficult situations. Is it acceptable that, at the end of
December 1999, in Montreal alone, over 7,000 individuals seeking
asylum were still awaiting a hearing?
I should mention that, although the bill proposes changes to
claims for refugee status, nowhere does Ottawa agree to assume
the administrative costs. If the government is so sure the
measures proposed in the bill are effective, it should agree to
assume the cost of them until the persons involved have been
declared refugees and obtained permanent residence or left the
country.
In February, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia criticized the
federal government's handling of the movement of asylum seekers,
demanded major remedial action be taken and called for the
federal government, which is solely responsible for the refugee
determination process, to assume all the costs of it.
1610
We must remember that it costs Quebec alone over $100 million a
year to look after persons awaiting a federal decision by the
IRB.
In closing, I would like to express to you a concern over the
Canada-Quebec accord. The importance of this agreement lies in
the fact that Quebec, aware of its responsibilities to protect
French, can and must promote francophone immigration. It is no
secret to anyone that the English language minority in Quebec is
part of the vast anglophone majority in North America.
Quebec's anglophone minority can absolutely not compare itself
to French language minorities in the rest of Canada. We are
obviously concerned, and so is the Quebec government, by
paragraph
3(3)(e) of Bill C-11, which reads as follows:
3.(3)(e) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to
enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic
minority communities in Canada;
Could it be that this paragraph challenges what had been agreed to
in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and
temporary admission of aliens?
In her presentation on this amendment, the hon. member for
Saint-Lambert indicated on behalf of the government that the
purpose of this added provision was to ensure that the spirit of
the Official Languages Act would be respected, and to help
Canada's official minority communities, and to reflect the
spirit of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages,
who hopes that the Official Languages Act will be acknowledged
in one way or another in every bill.
Indeed, the Official Languages Act stipulates that:
The government is committed to enhancing the vitality of the
English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and
supporting and assisting their development. It is also committed
to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and
French in Canadian society.
The anglophone minority in Quebec cannot, however, flourish at
the expense of the francophone majority, which is far more
threatened and hemmed in on all sides by a North American
anglophone tide.
The 1991 Canada-Quebec accord introduced a new and important
objective for Quebec, to preserve the demographic weight of
Quebec within Canada and to ensure the harmonious integration of
immigrants into that society.
This addition to the Canada Immigration Act might also be in
contravention of the spirit of Bill 101, which sets out criteria
giving precedence to immigration by persons with a knowledge of
French.
There is a consensus within the population of Quebec to the
effect that it is imperative to ensure the survival of the
French fact in North America. Need I remind hon. members that
only 2% of the population of North America is francophone?
This threat to the survival of French was noted by UNESCO in
1999, when it judged that Quebec was entitled by law to restrict
access to English schools because this was an appropriate way of
preserving the French fact in Quebec. Even the Canadian
ambassador to UNESCO stated in his argument:
In the specific demographic context of Quebec, the precarious
situation of francophones and the preservation of their cultural
identity in North America, and more specifically in Canada,
required a legislative intervention tailored to their unique
situation.
Could it be that wishing to support and assist “the development
of minority official languages communities in Canada” and enhance
“the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority
communities in Canada” within the framework of immigration
legislation could have the direct effect in Quebec of favouring
the English-speaking minority in Quebec to the long term
detriment of the very existence of the French-speaking minority
in Canada?
Since 1951, Statistics Canada figures have shown a constant
decrease in the size of Canada's French-speaking population.
It will therefore be important for the Government of Canada to
enforce clauses 8 and 9 of this bill so as not to threaten
Canada's French-speaking minority, most of whom reside in Quebec.
1615
In closing, I cannot help regretting that the third reading of
Bill C-11 has been rushed through in under two hours. This shows
a complete lack of respect for the people of Canada and of
Quebec. It also shows a lack of respect for those men and women
who dream of coming and building a better future in Quebec.
I hope that the bill can be amended in the near future so that
it meets the real needs of the public.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-11, as I have
done on behalf of the New Democratic Party throughout the entire
legislative process dealing with this bill on immigration and
refugee policy.
The bill was touted as constituting a major overhaul of the
Immigration Act. It was supposed to be a long awaited
replacement for a law that has been in place for more than 22
years. We all know that it replaces Bill C-31, which died on the
order paper when the federal election was called, so the
government had a second chance to get this right but refused. It
had an opportunity to get up the courage and lead with some
vision, but it failed miserably.
It is rare in my experience to deal with a government bill that
is so seriously flawed as this one, so universally opposed as
Bill C-11. Certainly I know that in our committee discussions
there was universal opposition to the bill on the opposition
benches. That was before today, before the leader of the
Alliance Party rose in his place and appeared to be contradicting
the good work, on many different levels, of the Alliance critic
for immigration.
I hope the wisdom of the critic for the Alliance will prevail
and that we will see a co-operative effort on this side of the
House in continuing to apply pressure on the government to
improve the bill and to think twice before allowing it to come to
a vote today. I know that seems a bit far fetched, but the
sentiments we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast
were very clear and precise. Canadians do not want to see this
kind of rigid, restrictive and punitive approach and are very
disappointed in the Liberal government.
This is an area that is sensitive. We know that. We know,
based on how immigration issues are raised in the House and the
concern on the part of Canadians to ensure a balanced approach,
there is a need for leadership by the government to help educate
and inform Canadians about the need for immigration.
On a matter of such importance as immigration policy, population
policy, which really is fundamental to the whole policy area, it
is hard to imagine any government proceeding without considerable
backing, without even qualified support from the opposition
benches or without some community organization leaping to its
defence. However, that is exactly what the government is doing.
It is plowing ahead despite repeated concerns, suggestions and
criticisms raised by Canadians, by individuals, immigration
advocates, refugee sponsors, ethnocultural organizations and
people who advocate and work in the field day in and day out.
It cannot be said that efforts were not made to improve the
bill. It is not for the lack of trying that we end up in this
position today with a bill that is virtually unchanged from the
start of the process to the end. The committee worked hard. It
has been acknowledged. Canadians worked hard. Throughout the
committee process we heard from over 150 different groups from
coast to coast to coast. Almost in unison they spoke against the
bill.
We proposed hundreds of amendments at the committee level during
clause by clause.
There were over 80 amendments from the NDP alone. Yet with the
exception of perhaps a handful of amendments, a few small
changes, the bill remains flawed. It remains a document with
many offensive and troubling aspects.
1620
I want to make it clear that for the NDP, at least, this bill is
problematic not because of one or two offensive clauses but
because as a whole it goes in the wrong direction. I think this
is the case for other opposition parties and it had been the case
for the Alliance Party as well.
The bill is contrary to the very values that Canadians hold so
near and dear. The bill as a whole, in all of its parts, is a
disappointment. It is a lost opportunity and is regressive in
many ways. Many have told us that bill would in some cases
actually make the situation even worse. Imagine that. After all
the consultations and the successive bills presented on this
matter, it is not even possible to draw the conclusion from all
groups involved, including experts and concerned citizens, that
the bill is better than the present 22 year old law. That is
what we are hearing.
Imagine a Liberal government bill being so roundly criticized
not because it offends, with the exception of the Leader of the
Opposition and a few others, the extremist elements of our
society, the right wing elements or the conservative doctrine in
the country, but because it violates fundamental principles in
the areas of democratic rights, civil liberties and humanitarian
ideals. That is astounding.
As so many told us throughout the whole process, the bill, when
all is said and done, is un-Canadian and undemocratic and it is
certainly un-Liberal. Liberal members in the House today should
be ashamed for supporting this bill and for refusing to rise in
their places and speak against this very regressive legislation.
Legislation in the immigration and refugee policy field should
flow from our history, our traditions and the values of Canadians
and it should be based on population needs. In terms of history,
as many have said in the House, this country has been defined by
the waves of immigration that have taken place over a long period
of time.
We have all said in the House that except for Canada's
aboriginal peoples all of us or our ancestors came from somewhere
else. We are all immigrants and we value the fact that our
society is diverse. We see Canada gaining strength from
adversity in terms of our climate and our geography and also from
our diversity in terms of the successive waves of immigration and
the ethnocultural diversity of the country.
I think it is fair to say that Canada is one of the most
ethnically diverse societies in the world. It has certainly been
stated that way by Gwynne Dyer, who wrote a wonderful piece in
Canadian Geographic in the February 2001 issue, in which he
said:
What is truly remarkable is the ethnic profile of the immigrants
to Canada, which is unique in how closely it matches the global
distribution of the human population...Canada, more than anywhere
else, is truly becoming the world in one country.
Canada's legacy, Canada's history, is about that diversity. It
is not just about the number of people who have come from so many
different places. It is about how we treat and deal with one
another in the context of being a mosaic. It is our tradition
and our values that have shown the way. Canada is a model for
the world in terms of respect for differences, for not imposing
one view or one way of thinking or one way of life on our
immigrants and the people who make up this country. Our way is
one of easygoing acceptance, of generosity and tolerance and
respect for differences. We do not impose some uniform identity
on the immigrants who come to this country.
1625
One would think, based on our history, traditions and values,
that today we would be at a point of advancing openness and
tolerance in the form of the bill before us.
That happened about 30 years ago. That was a significant part
of our history. The government of the day under Pierre Elliott
Trudeau actually looked at this as an important policy area that
had to be addressed. We saw legislation introduced that allowed
for the doors of our country to be opened up and for immigrants
to come to this country from all over the world.
Here we are today in the year 2001, the start of the millennium,
with the hope that we could build on that history and that
tradition. Instead we are looking at probably one of the most
restrictive and punitive pieces of legislation that parliament
has seen in a long time. It is certainly out of character in
terms of Canadians' expectations with respect to Liberals in this
country.
Some of the recent developments illustrate what kind of
situation we are dealing with. It is not just a regressive,
restrictive, punitive law but also a fortress mentality that is
deeply entrenched in the system. Although the minister is
addressing this issue, we saw the treatment of Tinuola Akintade,
the British citizen who received such rough treatment at an
airport in this country, thus showing us that legitimate visitors
are sometimes treated like criminal suspects in the country
today.
We have also learned some lessons from the whole episode with
respect to establishing honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela.
Although it is very important for the government to have taken
this initiative, and we have supported it every step of the way,
we certainly were appalled at the one or two Alliance members who
objected to recognition for Nelson Mandela.
We are also galled by the decision of this government to make
such an important statement at the same time that it is bringing
in a bill that, if we were able to repeat history and he was
seeking refuge from his particular circumstances, would have
denied Nelson Mandela the ability to enter this country in the
first place. As we have heard from many organizations and
certainly from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who
made this point repeatedly during the process pursuant to Bill
C-31, Nelson Mandela would have been denied entry into this
country because he would have fallen under the definition of
being a terrorist.
This point was made so well recently in an article in the
Globe and Mail written by Sharryn Aiken and Andrew Brouwer,
who stated that for many individuals the provisions of Bill C-11
actually mean:
—that merely associating with known suspects, sympathizing with
a national liberation struggle or doing some community organizing
in Canada will be enough to get a person labeled “member of a
terrorist organization,” if the cause in question happens to be
on the government's informal...blacklist. By permitting such
findings of guilt by association, the provisions violate
international standards and principles of criminal law, bringing
to mind some of the worst excesses of the McCarthy era.
The other important point in this debate is the need for this
legislation to reflect population policy, for it to be based, to
be founded, on our vision as a country in terms of numbers, in
terms of where we want to go, how we want to grow and at what
speed, and how we meet the needs of citizens in this nation.
Canada can no longer count on a steady stream of prospective
immigrants knocking at our door seeking admission. We are just
not competitive any more. We are not competitive because we have
moved so far toward a very punitive, restrictive process.
The numbers say it all. We have heard so much from the minister
about opening the front door. We have heard so much about trying
to get our immigration and refugee population up to 1% of
Canada's overall population.
If that were the case today we would be at about 300,000 new
immigrants or newcomers to Canada. According to the latest
statistics, we are not even close. The numbers are a little
higher than they were in 1967 when a Liberal government opened
the doors and brought in legislation at that time.
1630
We are not making great progress toward meeting that minimal
goal of 1% of our population. We are not meeting that goal in
terms of immigrants or refugees. We are not contributing in a
major way, as many Liberals have stood up in the House to
suggest, for Canada to be a home for displaced persons and people
in need of protection. We are told over and over again how
Canada is a model in terms of refugees, yet when it comes down to
the actual numbers, for the last year for which we have
statistics, we are at about 25,000 refugees. I do not think that
is something to brag about. It certainly points to the
possibilities for more openness when it comes to both immigrants
and refugees.
We are a large country. We have the second largest land mass in
the world. With only a little more than 30 million people, we
can do better than this in opening our doors to people who want
to come to Canada. We have to do better if we are really serious
about renewing ourselves as a population and ensuring that we
continue to meet the economic and social needs of Canadians.
We heard from many groups that made that point, especially
people from Manitoba such as the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration
Council and the Citizenship Council of Manitoba. Both
organizations have said time and time again that our demographics
show that we are both aging and we are not having enough
offspring to replace our current population. This was a point
made by the minister today.
Then the question is what is the action to deal with that
situation, and why have we not taken more steps to open our
doors? Is this what Canadians want? What affect will this have
on our social and economic well-being? Can we survive as a
nation if we cannot be competitive because of a stagnant
population? Is this truly the kind of vision we have of Canada
in terms of the global community?
The point of all the presentations we have heard was to base our
policy on history, values, traditions and on population needs. We
have failed to do that through this bill. We have lost an
important opportunity.
What the government is really doing with this bill is protecting
Canada from the world instead of uniting and re-uniting families
and building a nation. It seems to me that the bill is
predicated on that fortress mentality of keeping out the bad guys
and protecting Canadians from negative elements in the world. The
bill fails to do what is fundamental to the task at hand, which
is to ensure that we allow families to be re-united and that we
build the country on the basis of the contributions that each
individual and each family make, just as our ancestors did, and
that in the process we build and unite this country.
What we are doing in the bill is the worst possible thing of
all. We are responding to an anti-immigration sentiment that is
a very small part of public opinion these days and declining with
every day that passes. There is a pandering to prejudices tone
in this bill that does in fact lead to xenophobia and racism.
That is the last thing this place should be about. This is the
last thing the government would want to do I would hope.
We are debating a bill that is keeping people out instead of
re-uniting families and building a nation. We tried very hard to
expand the definition of family class. We proposed adding
grandparents, brothers and sisters. It was a tie vote until the
chair had to break the tie and kept with Liberal policy, which
was unfortunate.
Equally unfortunate is the fact that the government refuses to
look at the whole restrictive approach to visitors visas which is
probably cause for the greatest number of concerns and cases that
MPs hear in our constituency offices.
The bill refuses to deal with the head tax which does restrict
immigrants from less developed and poorer countries around the
world. It is discriminatory because of the head tax. We tried
very hard to get that deleted.
1635
It falls short in dealing with the whole issue of foreign
credentials and ensuring that we recognize people with training,
skills and education from other countries. It fails to, as we
tried to do, eliminate and replace the live-in caregiver program,
which is so repugnant in the treatment of women and the
perpetuation of the notion of women being cheap slave labour. It
denies people the right to pursue their democratic rights for
appeals to the courts. We heard that over and over again. It
does not live up to our international conventions on refugees and
torture. It is a disappointment on many fronts.
I would like to conclude with one sentence that asks the
question: In this world of globalization and rapid technology,
does this have to mean harmonization and homogenization or would
it not be better to ensure that the strength and the spirit of
individual communities and ethnocultural populations is
supported, enhanced and able to contribute to the strength of
this country?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to
share my time with my friend, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan
River.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give its
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, as we
know, the twelve to eight split was unbalanced. Although we did
not get what we wanted out of Bill C-11, there was goodwill on
both sides of the House during the presentations from over 150
witnesses. The hon. members for Mississauga West and London
North Centre provided very solid contributions.
[Translation]
I also wish to pay tribute to the Bloc Quebecois immigration
critic, the member for Laval East, and to the New Democratic
Party spokesperson and the member for Dauphin—Swan River, all of
whom made an important contribution to consideration of this
bill.
[English]
Our country was not built by a big Sussex, New Brunswick, or a
big Lethbridge, Alberta, or even a big Winnipeg. We built it
together. A very multicultural pluralistic society built one of
the best nations in the world, one that is the envy of the world.
I am very proud of the Progressive Conservative background and
our history of embracing immigration, which is an economic
necessity to grow our vibrant society. We also embrace the
welcoming of human diversity in a protection of refugees. Canada
is one of the four countries in the world that accepts convention
refugees. We should be applauded for that.
I would like to pay tribute to members such as the hon. member
for Cumberland—Colchester who was a member in the former prime
minister, Brian Mulroney, government. Immigration rates tripled
from about 88,000 to about 240,000 over the nine year regime of
that government.
The Liberal Party of Canada has a very well-deserved history
with respect to immigration. Look how it opened its arms to
Canadians through the era of statesmen such as Wilfrid Laurier,
Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. That is the traditional
position of immigration with the Liberal Party of Canada.
Looking at Bill C-11, it would seem that the Liberal Party of
Canada is the most reticent among the political parties in the
House to embrace massive immigration and to provide the necessary
tools to protect refugees.
Clearly there was a divergence of opinion between the member for
Dauphin—Swan River and the Leader of the Opposition with respect
to their speeches, but I will leave that issue aside.
1640
In summary, we have some problems with the bill. There is a
lack of entrenched appeal rights for permanent residents and
sponsors. A clause in the bill specifies that a refugee may make
only one claim per lifetime no matter how drastic the change in
circumstance. We have a problem with the fact that the final
appeal for a refugee is a mere paper appeal. We believe that
refugee rights are human rights. We should determine if a person
could be persecuted, or tortured or perhaps die by not granting
refugee status. We should look that person square in the eyes
when we make that determination, as opposed to a mere paper
appeal.
The bill has been rushed through. We essentially have had
closure on debate. We are fast-tracking the bill as we head back
to our ridings for the summer months.
One initiative was taken and I want to compliment my colleagues
on the opposition benches in particular. After hearing 150
witnesses from coast to coast and travelling this great country,
we said we needed an opportunity to reflect on the information we
had received. We needed to have a week to prepare our
amendments. I put an amendment forth to force the government to
move in that direction. However to the credit of the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration and her colleagues on the Liberal
benches, they saw the wisdom of that particular motion as we
headed to the latter days. In fact we were able to table some
amendments that actually had a modest augmentation to the bill.
Essentially what we are looking at with respect to the
legislation is an opportunity to have a pioneering piece of
legislation, one of which Canadians can be proud, which would
replace an outdated piece of legislation.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What did we get?
Mr. John Herron: Instead we got mediocrity at best. My
friend and colleague from the NDP agrees with that position.
Robert F. Kennedy stated:
Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of
us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total
of all these acts will be written the history of this great
generation.
Every member in the House had an opportunity to take an
incremental step to augment the legislation, to bend history and
bring forth a better piece of legislation.
What I am concerned about is that the party of Pearson and
Trudeau has had its traditional position eclipsed by individuals
who see immigration as a problem, as opposed to something that is
an economic necessity and is something that actually builds a
greater Canada, economically and with respect to human diversity.
The party has been sucked into the debate where it is easier to
talk about the .00001% of immigrants or refugees who have
criminal difficulty of some form, as opposed to talking about the
fact that the glass is very full.
The tough sounding legislation is not necessarily going to help
the Liberals obtain their one per cent target with respect to
immigration. Stripping rights of permanent residents and
refusing to protect refugees to the degree we should will only
make life unfair and difficult, if not unjust, for many people
who fall within the 99% range with respect to the immigrants to
our great country.
As a point of fact, we heard officials infer and offer in
committee that the problem with addressing the criminal aspect of
immigration and refugees and removing undesirables was not the
bill. They even advocated that the bill would not even enhance
the situation. It was the application of the act.
1645
I very much want to help the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. She simply does not have the resources to actually
do what she wants to do. In order to cover it up politically, we
have a bill that sounds tough but really does not provide an
additional tool kit. It merely strips the rights of permanent
residents and does not protect refugees to the degree that we
should. Moreover, it really taints the traditional position of
the Liberal Party of Canada with respect to immigration.
However there were some actual wins in the bill. I would like
to point out one. The Progressive Conservative Party tabled a
particular amendment, which was passed, and I will refer to it as
a great Tory amendment. It specified that both permanent
residents and protected persons shall be provided with status
documents which allow travel, ID and access to school. I thank
my colleagues on all sides of the House who actually supported
that amendment tabled in the name of the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada.
I will just touch on other problems with the bill. We know that
it strips rights of permanent residents unnecessarily and denies
them the fundamental justice of due process. In fact in regard
to the protection of refugees, I have two problems. The bill
does not provide for an oral appeal in the final application. I
will give credit to the government for adding an additional
appeal to the process, but it is a mere paper trail. It is not
an oral appeal.
We need that extra appeal because of the very fact that we have
moved from three adjudicators to one. With a single person
making the determination, it is that much more important to have
some form of review of what took place in that particular
determination. I think this is a point that all members
understand, but the bill fails to deliver on that particular
aspect. If we want to move faster, because we move from three
adjudicators to one, so be it, but we need to have an oral
appeal. If we get it wrong and make an error in the
determination of a refugee, people die, people get tortured,
people get persecuted. Those are the facts we have to endure. I
believe the bill falls short in this aspect.
There is another aspect that I believe falls short with respect
to refugee protection. We proposed an amendment that was
supported by the opposition and was supported in spirit by
members of the government side. I want to pay tribute to the
member for Winnipeg South Centre, who actually helped provide a
compromise amendment. We said that there should be a capacity to
make a second appeal for refugee status if the circumstances in
the country drastically change or if there is some reason why
evidence could not have been deduced properly in the first
hearing.
I have a brief example. Convention refugees receive status here
in Canada after they were able to escape persecution in their
home country. Then things turn around in their home country, or
they think so, and they go back. Five or six years later or
maybe even a couple of years later they look at it and say the
country has gone to hell in a handbasket again, so they want to
survive and find refuge. Under this law it is a grey area. I
will not say that there is no chance of them getting a second
application approved, but it is a bit of a grey area.
Those are the particular problems I have with the bill. We
thought the government missed some opportunities to further
describe common law partner as meaning same sex and opposite sex,
which would have meant a lot to a certain community. We should
have embraced that. Also, the head tax is still there and has
not been addressed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the learned
member for Dauphin—Swan River, so we can actually have a
diversity of opinion.
1650
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment, and I want to
congratulate my colleague from Fundy—Royal for his speech and
also for his magnanimous gesture in including a member from
another party in the debate. I think that is a very good thing
do. I also congratulate my colleague from Mississauga West who
gave consent and informed his members on the other side that it
would be an appropriate thing to do. I think that any time we
can work in a less partisan way to address a serious issue it
serves us all well.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member for Fundy—Royal for
being very unselfish in sharing his time with me today.
I am very honoured to take part in the third reading of Bill
C-11, the new immigration act. I have said to the House before
that as a third generation immigrant to this country, I am very
privileged to be here, and that includes the 44 other members in
the House who are also Canadians by choice. I believe we are all
very thankful that this country has taken us in.
Unfortunately we still have a long way to go. A new immigration
bill is long overdue. The bill is called an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. Unfortunately
the contents of the bill do not reflect the title.
Also at this time I want to thank my deputy critic, the member
for Blackstrap, for her due diligence and hard work as we
travelled throughout the country seeking public information.
I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration, members from all sides of the House,
for their tremendous co-operative spirit, which was demonstrated
throughout all stages of Bill C-11. There is no doubt that we as
a committee wanted what was best for this country in our attempt
to write the immigration laws for the next decade.
I want to thank the capable chairman of the committee, the
member for London North Centre, for his relatively non-partisan
approach. I believe he has not forgotten that he, like I,
immigrated to this country in the 1950s as a young child.
Also at this time I need to thank the clerks and the
parliamentary support staff for all the hard work they displayed
in keeping us organized and moving.
We have heard from all sides of the House about how important
immigration is and how immigration built this country. Immigrants
have been coming to Canada since the 1500s and they have shaped
this country. Canadians from all walks of life can relate in
some manner to the immigrants who came to Canada seeking a better
life.
The manner in which Canada welcomed these newcomers was not
always friendly. In my brief intervention here I would like to
quote from a book called Whence They Came: Deportation from
Canada, written by Barbara Roberts. The foreword was written
by Irving Abella in 1988 and I believe this is a good time to
reflect on our history of immigration in Canada. Mr. Abella
states:
Canada is a peculiar nation. Peopled by immigrants, it is a
country, paradoxically, which hates immigration. Every single
public opinion survey over the past fifty years indicates that
most Canadians—including by the way, most immigrants
themselves—do not want any substantial increase in the number of
people admitted to this country. This attitude may surprise
Canadians, but historically it should not.
It is one of our great national myths that Canada has a long
history of welcoming refugees and dissidents, of always being in
the forefront in accepting the world's oppressed and
dispossessed, of being receptive and hospitable to wave after
waves of immigrants.
We Canadians like to think that racism and bigotry are European
or American in origin and play little part in our history,
tradition or psyche. We see ours as a country of vast open
spaces and limitless potential which has always been open and
available to the proverbial huddled masses yearning to be free.
Yet as the recent history in Canadian literature has shown, the
Canadian record is one of which we ought not be proud.
Our treatment of our native people as well as our abysmal history
in admitting blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and during the
1930s and 1940s Jews, should lay to rest the myth of our
liberalism and enlightenment on matters of race and immigration.
Let us face facts For most of our history Canadian immigration
laws were racist and exclusionary. We knew precisely what kind
of people we wanted, and how to keep out those we didn't. Until
the 1960s our immigration policies divided the world into two -
the “preferred” races who were always welcome in Canada and the
“non-preferred” who rarely were. The former were of British
and European stock; the latter included almost everybody else.
The central problem of Canadian immigration policy is that for
most of our history we did not have one. Since 1867 the country
has had precisely four immigration acts. Nor has there ever been
in Canada—neither now nor in the past—any clearly articulated
national consensus about what immigration should be or what it
would be. Except for one constant—its discriminatory
aspects—our policies have had little consistency.
1655
Even today when we look at 1% as the target, we still do not
know why we use that as a target.
The integrity of Canada's immigration system is determined by
processes that are used to determine who would be allowed to
immigrate to Canada and under what conditions they would be
allowed to reside in the country. It is essential that the
checks and balances be in place to ensure that decisions are
just, because no system can ever be perfect.
Enforcement of immigration laws can and does have severe
consequences. It causes a separation of parents from children,
spouses from one another and individuals from a country that was
their home. To ensure that Canada has a balanced immigration
system, Canadians need a process that is responsible,
compassionate, equitable and fair.
Bill C-11 fails to preserve the process that is necessary for
ensuring reliable and just decision making for immigrants and
refugees to this country. The bill strips away the progress that
Canada has made in creating review processes that help bring
balance to our national immigration policy. Some of these come
down to seemingly simple procedural issues but are critical for
the administration of a fair and just immigration system.
The Canadian Alliance cannot support Bill C-11. It just goes
against the values of being Canadian. I thank the member for
Fundy—Royal for sharing his time with me.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan
River. I understand from my colleague who is a member of the
committee and others, and I believe he displayed it again today,
that he takes a very moderate, tolerant and inclusive approach to
the particular issue as well as to other issues that have come
before the committee and the House.
I am not trying to be provocative in this question, but my
confusion lies in the sense that it appears a different approach
has been laid out by previous speakers, including his leader. I
want to make sure that we attribute the credit and the admiration
for the position he has just put before the House.
I am not trying to put him on the spot or have him distance
himself from the previous speaker in his party, but I want to be
generous in suggesting that he has taken an approach that I
believe is very consistent not only with the position of the
Progressive Conservative Party but with that which I think is
more in line with the way Canadians feel that immigration should
work. Would the hon. member care to comment on that?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, to make things very clear,
the Canadian Alliance is pro-immigration. We promise to welcome
new Canadians and at the same time keep out the criminals. The
Canadian Alliance immigration policy states:
Canada is a nation of immigrants. We have always been enriched
by new arrivals to our shores. A Canadian Alliance government
will maintain the current level of immigration. We will make it
easier for immigrants who possess advanced skills and training to
enter Canada, and will make the family reunification process
truly responsive.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I too was very impressed by my
colleague's speech and his approach to the immigration question.
He was critical of the bill. Would he tell the House what he
feels should be in the bill that is not in it at present? What
changes does he feel would be appropriate to assist immigrants in
entering our country?
1700
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the irony of the hearings was
that the majority, probably over 90%, of the more than 150
stakeholders were in opposition to the bill. Obviously there is
something wrong with the bill.
It is impossible to travel throughout the country and spend two
weeks in Ottawa listening to Canadians voice their opinions of
the bill. Over 200 amendments were put in the committee on a
clause by clause basis and the majority, again I would say over
90%, were rejected. Some of them were very rational and
reasonable. The government accepted a few, but not a lot was
done with them.
I will illustrate that the one area which needed to be clarified
was the whole issue of foreign nationals and permanent residents.
The member on the government side suggested we should perhaps go
back to the old business of landed immigrant status. If people
land they are landed and have status. That is a very rational
approach. I wish the government had listened to its own member.
Unfortunately permanent residents still risk losing their status
when they leave the country. Because permanent resident and
foreign national intermingle at times, the government made it
worse. It put the words permanent resident alongside the words
foreign national throughout the bill. The government could have
done a lot of things to improve the bill but did not.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time in what is left of the debate with the
member for Laval West. I have witnessed what I can only call
treachery in this place today. I sat through committee hearings
where the critic who just spoke put forward a number of
thoughtful amendments that were surprising to many of us on the
government side. He listened to some of the people who came
forward, took up the challenge they put before the committee, and
put forward amendments.
Those amendments in essence would have allowed more rights of
appeal for permanent residents who are convicted of a crime,
sentenced to at least two years of a possible ten year sentence
and who have served that time in prison. When they come out of
prison the minister under the new act would have the right to
begin deportation proceedings.
The critic put forward amendments, as did other critics on the
opposite side, that would have given more appeal opportunities to
criminals convicted under what we call the 10 and 2 rule. The
amendments would have increased the opportunities for appeal.
I came here today to listen to the leader of Her Majesty's
official opposition deliver a speech in which Hansard will
show and record that he said there should be fewer opportunities
for appeal on deportation orders.
I wondered if I was hearing correctly. Was the Leader of the
Opposition openly challenging and countering everything his
critic has done in the weeks and months that have gone by in
bringing the bill to the point of third reading?
I recall the requirement put in place recently that all speeches
by the leader of Her Majesty's opposition be vetted by the critic
within that caucus. I wondered if the Canadian Alliance
immigration critic had vetted the speech by his party's leader. I
can only assume he did not.
It is truly stunning to see this kind of treachery within one's
own organization. It is unfair, because while I may disagree
with the member opposite—
1705
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
listened very carefully to the hon. member. It is very
unparliamentary to accuse another hon. member of treachery. That
language is definitely over the top. I would ask the hon. member
to withdraw the word.
The Deputy Speaker: The intervention of hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River is timely. I was reflecting myself
about the implications of the term or the word.
The fact that it has raised an objection, that in itself
encourages the Chair to ask the member for Mississauga West to be
far more judicious in the selection of his words during the rest
of his intervention.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the passion I feel and
evoke over the issue is because of the stunning reversal of the
leader of Her Majesty's opposition to the position for which the
critic has consistently put forward and fought. These people can
call that whatever they want. I will call it at the very least a
reversal, an admonition, a bailing out, whatever members want me
to call it in acceptable parliamentary language, and I am happy
to live by that. The fact still remains that what we saw today
was unfair to the critic on that side of the House. It was
really quite remarkable.
I also heard in that same speech the need to define a refugee.
How in the world can someone who purports to want to be prime
minister of this land not know that that was done by the Geneva
Convention in 1949 and that the United Nations has long
recognized worldwide refugees.
We do not need to define a refugee. We need to define some kind
of leadership who understands how important it is that we reform
the immigration system and the refugee system. We need to ensure
that we can close the back door and boot out the criminals who
are a danger to our society. We need to open our arms wide to
both refugees and immigrants in all classes, family classes and
economic classes from around the world.
What we need to do is some serious education within the confines
of these walls to understand that the work a committee does is so
vital to forming the final document which will come before this
place for a vote. For someone to stand up having done obviously
no research and with no knowledge, understanding or empathy for
his own critic and the work he has done is absolutely shameful.
I have some possible options. One option is that the critic
should resign his post as critic within the Canadian Alliance or
the leader should remove him because they obviously are divergent
in their views on this matter.
Another option is for the leader of Her Majesty's loyal
opposition to apologize, not to me or Canadians but to the member
for Dauphin—Swan River.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the spirit of the summer break and the holidays, I
would ask the hon. member to divert from his usual habit of
political rhetoric and give us the real contents of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust the hon. member will take
this with all the respect the Chair has for all the members of
the House, but that is definitely not a point of order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, another option is that
the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition should resign his
seat and his job in this place.
1710
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, while we are accustomed to the bluster of the member
opposite and although he may have a good point, with respect to
the bill before the House, it was his government that yesterday
invoked a standing order to limit the debate today, to limit the
debate on another important bill, Bill C-24, and to exclude the
passage of an important bill with regard to water.
Perhaps the most heinous upshot of what the government did with
that particular standing order was to deny members of the House
of Commons the ability to vote on the spending of $166 billion. I
wonder how the member reconciles that with the righteous
indignation he has just expressed toward the opposition.
What would the member say in defence of his position to strip
away the right of the opposition on behalf of their constituents
to have some say in the spending of $166 billion of taxpayer
money?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I said I wanted to share
my time with the member for Laval West. While I would love to
debate the member opposite, frankly my preference would be that
we close the debate by hearing the fine words of the member for
Laval West who has extensive credibility and experience in the
area of immigration.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was full of rhetoric but not
much subject matter, which, coming from that member, is typical.
The leader of the official opposition as well as the official
opposition's chief critic for immigration articulated the
immigration policy of the Canadian Alliance very well.
Could the hon. member tell us about the other side of the bill
which would not close the back door but in fact leave it quite
open? I would like to ask the hon. member about the RCMP, which
is allegedly, under the Liberal government's nose, probing 32
federal immigration employees for criminal offences at 21
Canadian embassies. Another 16 immigration staffers are
allegedly facing internal investigation by department officials
for alleged offences.
The RCMP are also assisting in a probe of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the individuals and
families admitted to Canada from Kenyan refugee camps since 1995
have had to pay bribes to come to Canada. They are genuine
refugees but they could not come through the front door.
Where in Bill C-11 can I find something that will counter and
effectively control corruption and close the so-called back door?
I do not see anything in Bill C-11 that would curtail corruption
and bribery. Where is it?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I can see that colleagues
opposite are not going to allow my colleague to speak. I am sorry
to see that because we will be out of time. With her indulgence
I will respond to the accusations.
Clearly what Canadians hear when they listen to the former
Reform Party and the current Canadian Alliance Party is a kind of
fearmongering and castigation of people with absolute impunity.
The members of that party have the ability to stand up and say
whatever they want against people who do not have the ability to
defend themselves. It is the most despicable game of politics
that one could engage in and we have seen it over and over again.
I have met at least one person over there who has some
integrity, and that is the critic for the Canadian Alliance.
While I may not share his views, I will defend the member's right
to put his views forward forcefully and honestly in committee and
to debate them as he did clause by clause. His integrity has been
impugned in this place by the leader of that party today in the
speech that was delivered. It was the most shameful and
disgusting display of politics I have ever seen. Having looked
at this, there is only one solution, in my view, that the critic
could accept and that is an apology from the leader or his
resignation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
Tuesday, June 12, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose
of the third reading stage of Bills C-11 and C-24, as well as of
Government Business No. 7.
1715
[English]
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1740
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Brown
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Bourgeois
| Brien
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Clark
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Rajotte
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Schmidt
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
|
Steckle
| Stinson
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 84
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and
law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill
C-24.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to seek
unanimous consent of the House that those who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with the Liberals voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
proceed accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1750
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bourgeois
| Brien
| Brown
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proulx
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Roy
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Sorenson
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 210
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Desjarlais
| Godin
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Robinson
| Wasylycia - Leis – 7
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, when the House adjourns
following the adoption of this Order, it shall stand
adjourned to Monday, September 17, 2001, provided that, for
the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be
deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the division on Government Business No. 7. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
During the taking of the vote:
Mrs. Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as voting against the motion.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure
that I am on record as having voted no to this motion.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, can the government House
leader move a motion while he is not present?
The Deputy Speaker: The answer is in the affirmative.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Brown
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 133
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Clark
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Schmidt
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Williams – 69
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
If I may, I would like to wish you all a good summer, filled
with adventure and friendship.
[English]
I look forward to seeing all of you back here in the fall in
good health and in great spirits. On behalf of the Speaker, the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I invite all of you and
the pages to a brief farewell reception in room 216 north after
the adjournment.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two very short
points of order. Will you seek to determine if there is
unanimous consent to deal with a routine travel motion
authorizing travel by the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny
of Regulations over the summer?
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the hon. parliamentary secretary to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, following consultations
including the hon. member for St. Albert, I think you would find
consent in the House to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m. pursuant to order
made earlier today the House stands adjourned until Monday,
September 17, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.)