37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 051
CONTENTS
Monday April 30, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-278. Second reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. John Maloney |
1125
1130
| MOTION NO. 285
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-278. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1135
1140
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1145
1150
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1155
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. David Anderson |
1225
1230
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1335
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1340
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1400
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| INDIGENOUS GAMES
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| JAPAN PRIZE
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1405
| HÉRITAGE SAINT-BERNARD
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| ROBICA FORMAN TANK LIMITED
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| THE GULLY
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| AMATEUR SPORTS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1415
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIVACY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1435
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| CIGARETTE SMUGGLING
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1440
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1445
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1450
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ELECTIONS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1455
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Georges Farrah |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| FEDERAL LAW-CIVIL LAW HARMONIZATION ACT, NO. 1
|
| Bill S-4. First reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PETITIONS
|
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Chemical Pesticides
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| The Environment
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Falun Gong
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1510
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Health
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1515
1520
| Mr. Randy White |
1525
1530
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
1535
1540
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1555
1600
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1605
1610
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1615
1620
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1625
1630
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1635
1640
| Division on motion deferred
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1705
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1710
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1715
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1720
1725
1730
1735
| Division on motion deferred
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1740
1745
1750
1755
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1800
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1805
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1810
1815
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1820
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1825
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 051
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday April 30, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved that Bill C-278, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prohibited sexual acts), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today to
speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-278, which would raise
the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.
I should make mention at this point that it is the third time
this private member's bill has hit the floor of the House. It is
the third time there was enough emotion and concern to bring it
forward, and that is the viewpoint held by so many people outside
the House. I might also point out that I think parliamentarians
overall find a universal agreement on matters like this in the
House.
The protection of our children is the key point that the bill
targets. It brings into focus the concern expressed by the
public who want a greater level of security for our children. The
bill would not answer all the problems out there when it comes to
sexual offenders and how they may act or react against our most
vulnerable. There are other variables, such as the early release
of pedophiles and sexual offenders, that contribute to the
growing number of victims in our society.
I think we all have a differing view on the role of government
in this area. However, overall, whether we are Conservative,
Bloc, Liberal, socialist or libertarian, there is a general
consensus to protect Canada's children.
I think the one word that really describes the reaction of the
public when a child, one of the more vulnerable in our society,
is attacked by a pedophile or a sexual offender, is outrage. I
think we have seen this outrage expressed time and time again in
every community across the country.
As a police officer, I remember when a whole community would
almost have to hunker down because a sexual offender was released
from prison. The sexual offender was so dangerous that the
public had to be notified and his picture had to be posted, and
yet he was being released.
The big concern regarding that particular individual was the
fact that his target was young children. He would not touch 15
or 16 year olds as they were of no concern to him. He was after
the younger children, the ones who were 14, 13, 12 and perhaps
younger.
That took great resources from the community, the police and
social services. Partnerships available to deal with this kind
of crime must be tied together to combat it effectively. We must
put those at risk in a more secure area.
1110
I have a couple of press releases before me that reflect what
happens when a sexual offender threatens a community. I will read
two very important examples because they do tell quite a story.
These stories will have been heard and repeated time and time
again in communities.
The first story deals with a 52 year old parolee who had been
serving a life sentence as a dangerous sexual offender. He was
released on parole. Hardly a few days had gone by when he
grabbed a young girl, just above being a toddler, and walked down
the street with her. Fortunately, her father was not far away
and he was able to intercept and get his daughter back to safety.
The parolee's propensity was to go after the very young and the
very vulnerable. He was fully paroled after serving 29 years of
a life sentence for brutally raping a three year old girl.
Everyone, including the police, were notified about this man's
release. The parole board said that it had no choice. The
community, in this particular case, was unaware of what was about
to happen. Thank God there was some intervention on the part of
the father as this individual was attempting to apply his desires
upon this young girl. These things should not be happening. The
community has a right to know about these kinds of situations.
The second example deals with a repeat pedophile who was
infected with HIV, syphilis and two strains of hepatitis. He was
freed from prison and moved into a Toronto halfway house. He had
four previous charges and was convicted of sex crimes against
pubescent boys aged 9 to 14.
These are habitual types of crimes zeroing in on the most
vulnerable: children aged 12 to 15. My bill would like to raise
the level of protection up to 15.
Some people have proclaimed that they would like to see the age
of consent lowered to 12. However, the majority of Canadians do
not hold that viewpoint. The House has made an effort to do
that. However, that does not reflect the viewpoint of people in
my community and it certainly does not reflect the viewpoint of
parents who are attempting to keep their children safe and secure
and want what is best for them.
They want to be able to protect them, and herein lies the
involvement of our legislators in government, the people in the
House.
1115
It seems, as time passes from one generation to the next, the
innocence of childhood gets shorter and shorter. The bill is a
very small attempt to restore innocence to youth, to curtail and
incarcerate sexual predators who pick on those under 16. For
too long we have allowed the exploitation of society's most
vulnerable, our children, by those who would extinguish their
youth and replace it with mistrust, suspicion and lasting
psychological and sometimes physical damage.
Apart from the psychological costs to the victim, the societal
costs can be absolutely enormous. On numerous occasions I have
had individuals come to me, both male and female, who were
sexually assaulted as youngsters. They bear the shame and
sometimes feel guilty about their own actions and the fact that
they were caught in that situation. Out of fear, or whatever the
case may be, it was never revealed. Something triggers it in
their lives and they had to confess to someone else what had
happened to them.
When we look at the psychological profiles of victims having to
bear these dramatic things in their lives, even trying to hide
them in some cases, it affects their relationships with others,
sometimes their productivity in the community and certainly close
relationships like those with family or between husband and wife
in future years. They have major problems to overcome.
We will never be able to get rid of all attacks by those who
want to exploit children, but we sure can curtail them. We have
a responsibility as parliamentarians, as the government today, to
bring about a more secure future for many.
We are talking about ending the vicious cycle of one person
exploiting another, who exploits another, who exploits another.
If it means raising the age of consent to include a larger group
of youngsters when they are still vulnerable, still shaping their
thoughts and their futures, and putting them under a protective
umbrella, that is what the House should do.
Over the past year the House grappled with fallout from the
Sharpe case in British Columbia. We were reminded in no
uncertain terms through this pedophile and his actions that there
were some very dangerous, conniving and manipulative people out
there. I believe it is essential to develop and direct the law
of the land to protect our children.
It does not matter to whom we talk, consultations with police
departments and prosecutors will reveal what must be done and
should be done, if only the legislators really, truly and
honestly want to compile that information from those two groups
of authorities in our land.
1120
Legislators at all levels of government must not shirk their
responsibility to step in where society breaks down. In that
respect I am very much aware of the rage out there when
pedophiles and others attack our young children, as I would
suggest most members would be. Far from just a casual number of
offences are taking place in our country.
I know too that there are other related offences such as
Internet pornography. A registry for controlling pedophiles and
other forms of law that require partnerships with social services
and the like are certainly required. People who fall into those
categories should be consulted.
In conclusion, we are not the same society we were when the
current legislation came into effect back in the late 1800s, but
we as legislators are in the driver's seat. We must not let
changes in society allow the moral high ground to slip away. It
is our job to protect it. The bill is about protecting Canadian
children. I know we all agree that it is a goal worth pursuing.
I urge support for Bill C-278.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill
C-278, an act to amend the criminal code respecting prohibited
sexual acts, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Bill C-278 proposes to amend in isolation several sections of
the criminal code where the general minimum age of consent is
part of the definition of sexual offences involving a child
victim. The current age of consent to most forms of sexual
activity is 14, but there is an important exception for
consensual sexual activity between young people within 2 years of
age and under 16.
Bill C-278 proposes to increase the general age of consent to
sexual activity from 14 to 16. The age would also be raised to
16 in the existing exception. The proposed bill would also raise
the age to 16 in connection with the powers of the courts to make
prohibition orders against offenders who are convicted or who are
discharged on conditions in a prohibition order of certain sexual
offences against a person under 14.
Bill C-278 reflects valid concerns about whether the current
protection provided to young people in the criminal code is
sufficient. There appears to be general agreement that the
current minimum age consent for sexual activity, which has been
in the code for more than 100 years, should be reviewed. At the
same time care must be taken that any changes provide
comprehensive protection and do not accidentally create an
inconsistency in the code or criminalize the consensual sexual
activity of young people.
Permit me to raise three distinct points. First, as we know, in
November 1999 the Department of Justice released a consultation
document entitled “Child Victims and the Criminal Justice
System”. The document examines a wide range of possible changes
to both the criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act to improve
public safety for children. Although the major responsibility
for child protection lies with the provinces, there is a key role
for the criminal justice system in supporting provincial and
territorial efforts in this area.
The consultation paper is a collection of suggestions for change
put forward by provincial and territorial officials and others
working with children. Three main areas are under consideration:
the creation of further child specific offences, including the
age of consent issue; sentencing to protect children from those
who might reoffend; and additional means to facilitate children's
testimony.
The release of the consultation paper invited comments from all
Canadians. The public consultation phase is now complete and
efforts are being made to complete the provincial and territorial
consultation with their co-operation as quickly as possible.
It has been argued that the general present age of consent,
which is 14, is too low to provide effective protection from
sexual exploitation by adults. The relatively low age allows
pimps, for example, to seduce young girls, with the intention of
luring them into prostitution without fear of prosecution.
1125
Social workers are concerned that many young people in care may
be vulnerable to be targeted by pimps. Canada's age of consent
is lower than that of many other countries that use 15 or 16 as
the minimum age. However the bill put forward by the hon. member
for Calgary Northeast is premised on the belief that the issue is
a straightforward one and that all that is involved in addressing
the complex issue of age of consent is simply to change the age.
With respect that is not the case.
Protecting our children goes beyond a simple and arbitrary
increase of the age of consent to sexual activity. It means
addressing the broader issues of the safety and well-being of our
children. Our objective is to develop and maintain effective,
comprehensive measures to support provincial and territorial
measures to improve public safety for children and to protect
children from serious injury and even death at the hands of
adults.
The achievement of this objective rests in a collaborative
effort by the provinces, the territories and the Government of
Canada. While the provision of services to children who are in
need of protection is the responsibility of the provinces and
territories, the assurance that appropriate offences and
penalties are available for serious harm done to children remains
the responsibility of the Government of Canada. By targeting
extreme forms of harm through the criminal code, the Government
of Canada would provide strong support for provincial and
territorial initiatives to protect children.
However Bill C-278 does not maintain a comprehensive approach.
It leaves a reference to age 14 in several provisions, for
example section 281 dealing with the abduction of a person under
age 14, and even more critically perhaps in section 810.1 which
allows a court to issue a prohibition order if there are
reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual will commit a
sexual offence against a child.
The provision in section 810.1 has proven to be an effective tool by
some police forces and high risk offender teams in providing
community monitoring and control of pedophiles. It is
unfortunate that these two sections have been left out of
the bill. It is also unfortunate that the only remaining child
testimony provision that refers to age 14, section 486 which
allows child witnesses to have available to them a support person
while they are testifying in court, should also have been left
out of the bill.
Second, the bill does not address the criminal code consequences
of raising the general age at which sexual activity with young
people would be criminalized. With respect, by not addressing
this issue, Bill C-278 proposes an amendment that is inconsistent
with the other relevant sections of the criminal code.
For example, even though the complainant's age would be raised
to 16, there is no consequential change to the age of the accused
in the exception that prevents criminalizing consensual sexual
activity between young people close in age and under 16. The
result is that a teenager over the age of 16 who has consensual
sex with a person under 16 but who is close in age would be
considered to be engaging in criminal conduct. At the same time
a younger teenager would be able to consent to sexual activity
with a person close in age. This outcome would appear to be not
only discriminatory but also contrary to common sense.
The consultations undertaken by the Department of Justice have
generally indicated that if the age of consent is raised the
close in age exception for these older children must be
broadened, perhaps to include within the exception consensual
sexual activity between children who are three or even four years
apart.
That would allow a child who is just before his or her 16th
birthday to engage in consensual sexual activity with a young
person who is approaching his or her 18th or even 19th birthday.
Otherwise that behaviour, which may be considered inadvisable but
certainly not criminal by most Canadians, would be subject to
prosecution under the criminal code. Bill C-278 does not address
the issue but rather could create confusion and criminalize the
behaviour of all children over 16 years of age even where the
behaviour was consensual.
Third, the bill does not address the broader implications that
arise from the amendment to the general age of consent. Since
legislative changes do not take place in a vacuum, we must be
aware that a change in the age of consent may have an impact on
other legislation.
For example, such changes may impact on the age 14 for providing
assistance to child witnesses, as I mentioned a minute ago, for
competency to testify in the criminal code and the Canada
Evidence Act, and even for marriage legislation in the few
provinces that still allow children under 16 to marry.
The question is: Would an amendment to the age of consent to
sexual activity require amendments to other age related
provisions of the criminal code and other statutes? Furthermore,
any arbitrary changes in the criminal code would be inconsistent
with the government's commitment to consult with the provinces
and territories before introducing amendments intended to support
its efforts to protect children from abuse, neglect and
exploitation.
During the consultations several jurisdictions voiced concerns
about proceeding too quickly on this question and accidentally
criminalizing the behaviour of young people.
1130
The Minister of Justice cannot support Bill C-278 for three
reasons.
In conclusion, the issue of age of consent is a real concern.
Children deserve to live in a safe society and be protected from
all forms of exploitation by adults. At the same time, to be
effective, people in the community and at every level of
government must work together because we all have an important
role to play.
We believe all Canadians should be given an opportunity to
express their views on the issue. We also believe changes to the
age of consent must be practical and carefully considered to
ensure they achieve their goal without unintended negative
effects. To do so they should be dealt with in a comprehensive
package within the broader context of other age related issues in
the criminal code. That is why the Department of Justice issued
its consultation paper. The results of that consultation process
should be used to ensure that the best options are put forward
and carefully considered so that children can be given the
comprehensive protection they deserve.
* * *
MOTION NO. 285
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to move the
following motion. I move:
That Motion No. 285 be reinstated at the end of the order of
precedence for the consideration of private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brampton
Centre have consent to put forward his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-278,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in
the debate on Bill C-278. I know it has been before the House in
previous incarnations and is one that all members take very
seriously.
I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He raises
some very good points and very specific technical implications.
There are always implications when one looks at a bill as
comprehensive as the criminal code.
My overall reaction to his commentary is to ask what is stopping
the government. It is a shame that private members bring forward
good ideas and that the response of the government and the
parliamentary secretary is to simply stand and tear the ideas
apart limb from limb rather than embrace them and offer creative
and constructive suggestions.
Much of the underlying theme of his commentary was to say that,
yes, the government sees this as a problem that could be
addressed. However the response is typically that they should
study it more, do a survey and somehow engage more of the
stakeholders to get their feedback.
That is consistent with the overriding concern of the Liberal
Party to make sure it is okay in the polls. The Liberals want to
make sure there is sufficient public support rather than take
bold action on something that could have considerable impact on
the lives of Canada's most vulnerable citizens.
I must begin by commending the hon. member for having the
initiative to bring the matter forward, a matter he has been
persistent in raising before. I believe it is because of his
deep seated concern, having worked as a police officer, for
children who are so vulnerable and who are often placed in a
situation where someone in a position of trust preys on their
vulnerability.
It goes without saying that it is sad that sexual predators are
out there. They can be found in every province and every corner
of the country. Infamous cases have occurred in places like
Mount Cashel and in my home province of Nova Scotia in Shelburne
at the school for boys. These were terrible instances where
individuals were preyed upon by those whom they should have been
able to rely on for protection. Sadly, the opposite occurred.
The life altering and life lasting implications and damage that
result from a child being abused in this way is absolutely
shocking and abhorrent to Canadians.
We have heard time and again of the horrible events that can
occur in a child's life. What better place to address the issue
than the Parliament of Canada? What higher calling, what higher
cause could there be than to protect children from this fate?
1135
Sexual predators, I submit very firmly, are not always
interested in sex but in power, control and severe violence. That
reinforces the worry parents have every time their children leave
their homes. To properly deal with the situation we need a
national sex offender registry, something other parties have
called upon the government to enact.
Again, the government's response has been a half measure. It
says it has something on CPIC that is similar but CPIC does not
provide the early intervention or information that police and
communities need to play a truly protective role.
The Liberal government, and the solicitor general in particular,
must take responsibility to enact this type of legislation and
bring forward a national sex offender registry. The Liberals say
it is one of their top 10 priorities but time and again the issue
seems to slip through our fingers when we have an opportunity to
do something about it here on the floor of the House.
On the other hand, some provinces are taking the initiative.
Ontario last Monday launched the first sex offender registry of
its kind in Canada. Each sex offender in Ontario must register
within 15 days of release from custody. The same applies to
those serving sentences in the community. A file will contain
the offender's address, phone number, physical description,
aliases and list of offences. Such information is critical to
police if they are to afford protection to those whose children
could be preyed upon.
Anyone sentenced to less than 10 years must report their
whereabouts for 10 years. Offenders sentenced to longer than 10
years will remain on the registry for life. This is the type of
bold, proactive and, in some instances, harsh legislation we
need.
The Ontario government cares about public safety and is reacting
to the concerns of communities in the province. Its law was
passed in honour of Christopher Stephenson and is often referred
to as Christopher's Law. Thirteen years ago young Christopher
was abducted at knifepoint from a Brampton mall, sexually
assaulted and murdered by repeat sex offender Joseph Fredericks.
It is absolutely gut-wrenching that something like that must
happen before politicians and legislators take notice. However,
such examples illustrate how important it is to take initiatives
that can prevent lifelong suffering, murder, exploitation and
terrible instances of sexual assault and intrusion into young
people's lives.
Sadly, with the current state of affairs, offenders registered
in Ontario can leave the province to avoid tracking because of
the lack of a nationwide sex offender registry. Currently we
have only piecemeal laws to deal with sex offences.
Former government legislation, old Bill C-7, names pardoned sex
offenders and requires them to remain on the RCMP database. Such
information would only be released to certain parties under
special circumstances and with the approval of the solicitor
general. However that is not enough. There is not enough money
currently in the CPIC system. There is not enough know-how or
infrastructure to allow CPIC to fully address the issue.
The private member's bill before the House is an opportunity to
bring forward legislative change that the member, and I think
many members of the House, embrace and see as an improvement.
The bill would require changing the current age of consent under
the criminal code from 16 to 14. The parliamentary secretary
makes a good point in that some implications might be unwanted
and unforeseen by the hon. member moving the motion. There is an
anomaly with respect to those close in age engaging in consensual
sexual activities.
I cannot speak for the hon. member but I suggest he would be
enthusiastic and pleased if the parliamentary secretary or
someone on the government side amended the legislation to make it
more in keeping with his intent: to protect children from
exploitation by those who would recruit them for prostitution,
lure them on the Internet or in person, or in any instance prey
upon them sexual purposes.
1140
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast has brought forward
legislation that the Progressive Conservative Party will be
supporting. We have moved similar legislation in the past which
tried to expand the envelope of protection for children. This
bill quite clearly fits into that category.
The number of reported instances gives rise to the need for
action on the part of all governments, be they federal,
provincial or municipal. We must do more. We must be more
pro-active and involved in ensuring children are protected. We
must ensure that those who contravene current or future laws are
dealt with in a serious and straightforward way. We must do
everything in our power because that is currently not the case.
More could be done. The hon. member who moved the motion knows,
having worked as a police officer, that the implications are so
grave and life altering that public safety should be our sole
motivation.
I am pleased the bill has been reinstated in parliament. I
encourage all members of the House to support this and other such
legislation. If we must amend it, as suggested by the
parliamentary secretary, let us do so quickly. Let us make
the necessary changes so that it fits cheek and jowl with the
current legislation and there are no unwanted consequences. Let
us ensure that there are consequences for those who break the law
and prey upon children. Let us make this issue a firm commitment
and legislative priority of the House.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the private
member's bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast.
The bill would amend sections of the criminal code that deal
with prohibited sexual acts committed with children under the age
of 14 and in the presence of children under the age of 14. The
bill would extend the prohibition to acts committed with children
under the age of 16 or in the presence of children under the age
of 16.
This is the fourth time the hon. member has introduced this
bill. His perseverance and dedication on behalf of children and
families needs to be recognized and commended. It is a valuable
bill and one that aims to protect the young and vulnerable in our
society from sexual predators.
As a former police officer, the hon. member has no doubt
witnessed first hand the devastating effects on 14 and 15 year
old children who have been victims of the manipulation and
coercion of adult sexual predators.
A person under the age of 16 is still considered a child in our
society, deserving and requiring protection. Although the law
states that a 14 year old has the legal authority to consent to
sex with an adult, a person must be a full 18 years of age to
participate in pornography. This is because the creation of
permanent records of teenagers' sexual activities has
consequences which children of that age may not have sufficient
maturity to understand.
The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sharpe, aside
from two exceptions, substantially upheld this law. However one
could argue that the average 14 year old or 15 year old does not
have the maturity, confidence or understanding to make a rational
decision to become sexually involved with an adult.
With regard to children 14 years of age and older, parents really
have no legal recourse if they find that their child has been
enticed into a sexual relationship with an adult.
1145
On this note I believe that the reintroduction of this bill is
very timely. It goes to answer some of the concerns raised by
the secretary of state or the parliamentary assistant to the
minister.
With Bill C-15 the government has recently introduced long
needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators.
Unfortunately, with the current age of sexual consent, this
protection is only substantially provided to children under 14
years of age. Many Canadians, including concerned parents, are
not aware of this present serious deficiency in the law. For
example, a 30 year old man could pose as a 16 year old boy over
the Internet, converse with a 14 year old girl and lure her to a
private residence or hotel room. Provided that he obtains a
so-called legal consent from the girl, he may legally have sexual
contact with her.
Canada has one of the lowest age of consent laws in the
developed world. Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Iran, Kosovo,
Romania and Serbia are among the nations that have set the age at
14. I do not think that is company we should be proud of being
in with respect to this particular issue.
In contrast, the age of consent in Australia varies depending on
the region, because of course the criminal law there is state
based rather than based on the federal government. It varies
between 16 and 17, as it does in the United Kingdom. New
Zealand's age is also set at 16. The age of consent for most
American states also ranges from ages 16 to 18. Only four
states, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina, have set the
age at 14.
Simply looking at our counterparts in other developed nations
should give us an indication that we may need to rethink our
current age of sexual consent. For the member opposite to stand
up and say we need to do more studies on this is simply avoiding
the problem, trying to excuse years of inaction that the member
for Calgary Northeast has identified and, to his credit,
continues to raise in the House.
There are a number of groups and lobbyists and others who would
like to see the legislation changed, including a very prominent
group in my hometown province, Child Find Manitoba. This group
has first hand experience dealing with sexual crimes against
children and we need to take its concerns seriously. I recently
had occasion to meet with members of that group and they are
clearly concerned about the current age of sexual consent.
Sexual predators need to be controlled by specific constraints
that are set out in the law. Setting the age of sexual consent
at 16 would give parents and law enforcement officers the legal
protection and authority they need to give these children
proper protection from predators. We need to protect these
children from criminals who use the current law as a defence as
they coerce children into giving their consent.
One need not go very far in looking at examples. Mr. Sharpe,
whose case was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, had the
audacity to say on national TV or radio that because children's
bodies might be sexually maturing at age 12 he saw this as a
God-given justification for allowing predators like him to take
advantage of children like that.
1150
I am not going to raise the numerous and lengthy arguments about
why that kind of reasoning is perverse. I think every member
here recognizes the perversity of that reasoning and the
perversity of that individual. However, it does illustrate that
there are actually people in our free and democratic society who
think in that manner.
The amendment will send a very strong and clear signal from the
Government of Canada and from this parliament to the people who
look to parliament to establish these guidelines and these rules.
Speaking as a former crown prosecutor and as a member of the
Manitoba attorney general's department for many years, during
which time I also did child welfare work, the excuse put forward
by the Liberal member that this is a complex matter is simply not
correct. If there was any concern on the part of government
about this issue, this law could easily accommodate concerns
raised. Any consequential amendments that would have to be put
in place are minor. It is simply an excuse that should not be
given any credence here.
The simple reason, the simple answer, is that the government
does not care enough to make these changes to protect these
children and to give our parents and our law enforcement
authorities the necessary jurisdiction.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. I want to commend the
member for Calgary Northeast for bringing his private member's
bill, Bill C-278, to the floor of the House of Commons. The bill
would raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years.
This problem is not new to anyone. It is a very serious problem
in our society. I come from British Columbia. Saanich—Gulf
Islands is my riding and we witnessed last year the case of John
Robin Sharpe, who was trying to justify that it is okay to
sexually abuse young children. He was trying to suggest that
child pornography is okay. That case went to three levels of
court: to the B.C. supreme court and the British Columbia Court
of Appeal, which actually ruled that possession of child
pornography for one's own personal use was okay in British
Columbia, and to the Supreme Court of Canada, which thankfully
was able to see that it was actually not okay.
There are sexual predators in our society. They are real. They
are being released from prison. They are offending right away in
many cases. This is just not okay.
The member from Manitoba who just spoke said that this amendment
will send a strong and clear signal from the Government of
Canada. Unfortunately it will not, because this private member's
bill is not votable. The committee that decides on private
members' bills decided that this one should not be made votable.
Members of the House will not even have an opportunity to
vote the wishes of their constituents on this private member's
bill, private members' bills being categorized as free votes.
That is not acceptable either. This is not a partisan issue.
This is not a Canadian Alliance, a Liberal or a Tory issue. This
is an issue which a former police officer, the member for Calgary
Northeast, is bringing to the floor of the House of Commons, and
it is a very serious concern.
1155
The Parliament of Canada had an opportunity, if it had wanted to
make this votable, to send a very clear signal about the age of
sexual consent. Children 14 years of age are hardly out of
elementary school. They are the most vulnerable in our society
today. We are sending the wrong message. In fact I understand
there are some hon. members who suggest that the age of consent
should be 12. Children that age are still in elementary school.
I personally know that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is
one of the most honourable of men. I have the highest
respect for him. He is bringing forward a private member's bill
which should be made votable and it has not been. We will not
have the opportunity to send this clear signal. That is
troubling. Why are we not getting this opportunity?
This is the type of thing that Canadians want us to focus on.
Canadians are looking to us as leaders to put forward
constructive solutions on justice issues and on so many other
issues in health care and finance. I could go on and on. This
is just one small snippet. There are many more. This is one
area that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast feels is
important enough that he has drafted a private member's bill to
be brought before the House of Commons. I do not think it is
acceptable that this bill is not votable.
This is not a partisan issue. We as parliamentarians have a
duty to bring issues like this forward. I want to commend the
hon. member for Calgary Northeast for bringing this to the House
of Commons. There may be different viewpoints, but I am 100%
solidly behind this private member's bill. I think it is
excellent.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would first certainly like to thank those members in
the House who made very direct presentations in support of my
bill. I know that they speak for many others. Just for the
record, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. member for Provencher
and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The whole issue when offences like this take place in the
community—again I am going to say it—is summed up in one word:
outrage.
I was looking through the statistical background of sexual
offenders in federal correctional institutions at present.
Unfortunately I could not get the most up to date information,
but as of December 31, 1997 there were actually 4,591 sex
offenders under federal jurisdiction. That does not include
those under provincial jurisdiction. That is quite an extensive
number of individuals. Twenty-one per cent of the total federal
offender population is considered to be sex offenders. The
average age of sex offenders under federal jurisdiction was
43 years old. The oldest sex offender was 89 years old.
It just happened that I walked through one of the federal
institutions one day not too long ago. That day they admitted an
83 year old man for a sexual offence. This is an issue that does
not diminish with the age of the offender. The offender
constantly has this propensity to get involved in this kind of
criminal activity, picking on our youngest and most vulnerable.
The victims unfortunately can be of any age, some as young as
babies in their crib. This I gathered from my experience in the
police department in Calgary for 20 some years.
1200
I can only encourage and urge all members in the House to push
the government side, cabinet or whomever has the final say to
bring about real change. It is unfortunate that a vote cannot be
taken on my bill. I believe a vote on this particular topic
would pass in the House but unfortunately this is not a votable
item. However it will not die here. I believe members on both
sides of the House will make sure that it will be on the table
again.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item the order is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts. The first amendment is
to change the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada to Farm Credit
Canada, both acronyms being FCC.
In 1994 the Farm Credit Corporation had a $3.5 billion loan
portfolio. Information from its director given to us the other
day in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was
that the portfolio is now in the neighbourhood of $6.8 billion.
There is an obvious need in Canada for the Farm Credit
Corporation. The Canadian Alliance Party generally supports
it. However the debate today is about amendments to the act that
would create this credit corporation in Canada. The vote is
about the amendments and not whether Canada should have a Farm
Credit Corporation.
The Farm Credit Corporation has a role to play. The question is
how big a role should that be? Government lending institutions
in competition with private and other government lending
institutions, like the Business Development Corporation, is a big
question. Is the Farm Credit Corporation the appropriate vehicle
for carrying out government policy? Another big question which
needs to be answered in this debate is whether it will remain
focused on the primary producer? This is a big concern because
the original purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation was to ensure
that Canada had, as part of its insurance, a viable agriculture
sector with the ability to produce food in this country for both
domestic consumption and export.
I would ask at this time, Mr. Speaker, for the consent of the
House to share my time with the member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, under the bill the
leading role of the Farm Credit Corporation would be expanded to
allow the corporation to lend to businesses that were not
necessarily directly involved in primary agriculture production
and did not necessarily have farmers as their majority
shareholders. This is the first of three major changes proposed
in the amendments being put forward.
The leading role of the Farm Credit Corporation would be
expanded to allow the corporation to provide equity financing.
This would be accomplished by allowing farm credit to hold
non-fixed assets, for example cattle, lend money on that basis
and hold the cattle as collateral.
In my time in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I had quite a
bit to do with the federal Bankruptcy Act. There are a whole
additional set of problems that come along with holding
collateral that is not real estate or real property.
This is the area that the Farm Credit Corporation is moving in.
It may provide some opportunities but it also provides greater
risk.
1205
Bill C-25 would also formalize the Farm Credit Corporation's
leasing ability, which could include farm land. One of the things in
the bill is that there are no real limits or restrictions on
FCC activities. It would allow the FCC to get into a lot of
areas that maybe it traditionally was not in and would greatly
expand its operations.
The bill would expand the focus of the Farm Credit Corporation
beyond its original purpose to provide financial services only to
family farms and businesses directly related to primary
production. I do not believe it is valid to extend Farm Credit
Corporation's involvement beyond farming operations.
In the context of the primary producer, will the farmer benefit?
Will the farmer have to compete for the available credit? Will
he or she end up in a cross-subsidization situation, where other
agriculture businesses would be receiving the FCC funding at the
non-primary producer level?
By extending the Farm Credit Corporation's lending abilities
beyond primary production, the bill would bring the FCC more
directly into competition with private lending institutions and
would overlap with government institutions such as the Business
Development Bank. We saw the influence that the Prime Minister
had with the Business Development Bank in a negative way. We
have to be concerned that the Farm Credit Corporation does not go
down that same road.
Regarding competition with the banks, the Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce, for instance, is very active in Selkirk—Interlake.
We do not want to see competition from a government lending
institution that would have the effect of reducing the ability of
private institutions such as our locally owned and run credit
unions to continue to be a part of the communities, carry out the
funding and lending necessary and actually help stabilize our
communities.
The Farm Credit Corporation is run out of Regina. Not every
small community has a Farm Credit Corporation in town. That is
why I caution about the Farm Credit Corporation getting into
competition with banks and credit unions. It would be
one area where expansion would create unfair competition or
competition that would only be there because of government. This
is a good reason to oppose the bill.
Bill C-25 would also formalize Farm Credit Corporation's ability
to own or lease land. The FCC stated that this was not the
intent of the amendment. It claimed the leasing provisions would
be for equipment. However this is not clear in the legislation.
It is not appropriate for the federal government to be an owner
of Canadian farm land on a long term basis.
Allowing the FCC to permanently hold and lease land could result
in the Canadian government's holding influencing the market value
of farm land. Allowing the FCC to hold and lease land
permanently may also provide the corporation with an incentive
not to pursue every possible means to allow farmers experiencing
financial difficulties to stay on the land.
I made the point and will come back to it over the next few
minutes that the Farm Credit Corporation, like every other crown
corporation, has as a portion of its mandate the implementation
and carrying out of policy that comes directly out of the creator
of the crown corporation, in this case the federal government.
1210
Therefore, the Farm Credit Corporation is an instrument of the
federal government. The policies and the dictates of the federal
government change with the wind sometimes and sometimes for good
reasons. However those changing dictates would have the Farm
Credit Corporation carrying out government policy. I am not sure
that it is always the best vehicle for government policy to be
carried out through a lending institution like the Farm Credit
Corporation.
Even under the current legislation, the Farm Credit Corporation
has become a significant land holder. In the year 2000 the Farm
Credit Corporation owned over 360,000 acres, 95% of which was
held in Saskatchewan, the province that has been hardest hit by
the farm income crisis
While it is impossible for it to avoid holding land for short
periods of time, the act should and could explicitly state that
the Farm Credit Corporation should divest of any holdings as
quickly as possible. The question of having a time frame in
there would also be worthwhile looking at. The price of land is
determined by market value and that is established over the
course of years. Therefore, a time frame could be included, not
necessarily one year but five years, for the government to
release its holdings of massive amounts of land for whatever
reason would be reasonable.
Bill C-25, also extends the Farm Credit Corporation's lending
ability into the area of equity financing. This would be done by
allowing it to hold non-fixed assets, as an example cattle, as
collateral for these loans. This change would allow the FCC to
provide farm financing to primary producers who were not eligible
under the current legislation. In many cases this would provide
financing that would not be available from private lenders. This
is a positive change to the legislation, providing the funding is
limited to primary producers.
There are good parts to this bill but there is also some serious
concern about the massive expanded role.
The Canadian Alliance policy on this issue states as follow:
We will foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of
consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad,
including the elimination of inter-provincial trade barriers. We
will withdraw government from areas of the economy where the
private sector could deliver the same services more efficiently
and will end the unfair practice of providing subsidies to
industries, businesses and special interest groups.
We are not advocating that the Farm Credit Corporation be
eliminated or disbanded. We are putting in a caution to ensure
that it does not provide unfair competition by getting into an
area that is being well-serviced by the private sector.
Bill C-25 takes the primary focus of the Farm Credit
Corporation away from providing credit to primary producers.
The Canadian Alliance believes that this shift is wrong.
Members who appeared before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food said this was not the case and that
it would still focus on farmers as primary producers.
However we all know that as policies change and the government
dictates to the corporation what it is going to be doing, that focus
could change. In fact it may no longer be the case that the primary
producer is the main beneficiary of the Farm Credit Corporation.
When we speak of credit, I would like to deal for a minute on
the present situation in agriculture in western Canada. It is
more than credit that is needed there in regard to the overall
agricultural farm policy and what can be done for the benefit of
farmers. What is required is that the federal government get
out of the way of farmers attempting to accomplish their economic
objectives.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board from
Regina has the opportunity to take action with his cabinet and
government to move the Canadian Wheat Board along on a voluntary
basis to become a marketer for wheat and barley for those farmers
who want to have their grain marketed through there. However for
those farmers who do not, there should be a choice to market
their grain otherwise.
1215
The sole purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is the orderly
marketing of wheat and barley according to the various sections
contained in the act. It is only incidental if it gets a good
price and passes that price back to farmers. That is not its
primary objective.
As in the Farm Credit Corporation, what is wrong with free
enterprise like the rest of the grains, oilseeds and specialty
crops are involved in? What is wrong with free enterprise in the
marketing of the personal crops that a farmer grows on his or her
farm? This is a major issue. Rather than looking at giving more
loans to farmers as the government is saying under the Farm
Credit Corporation and cash advance programs, it should be
looking at what it could do to lower taxes and change marketing
so that farmers can actually increase their incomes themselves.
There is not one other grain, oilseed or specialty crop that is
fighting to get underneath the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat
Board Act. If that does not tell the minister something then I
do not know what does. It is one area that would lower the
necessity for credit if farmers were able to increase the income
that they could get from wheat and barley that are currently
constrained under the Canadian Wheat Board.
At the present time the Canadian Wheat Board regulates all of
Canada outside the designated area as to exports and export
permits. The costs of these export permits and the
administration of them are paid by farmers in the designated
area. Money comes out of the pool account for a service that
farmers are not getting in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,
but the service is being provided to farmers in other parts of
the country. I am asking the auditor general to look into that.
That issue will be coming up in the next few weeks and months in
the House.
Even if the cost for the regulation outside the designated area
was only one dollar, the real question is: Why should farmers in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have to pay even one lousy
dollar for a regulation that they receive no benefit from?
Another issue that will be raised over the upcoming weeks, and I
am putting the wheat board minister on notice, is why a farmer
has to buy back his own grain to export it or, in the case of
organic flour producers, to mill it right in Canada? Obviously if
Mr. or Mrs. Farmer could get a permit to export the grain or mill
their own wheat there is nothing intrinsically wrong or evil in
milling flour or exporting wheat.
The only conclusion that I could come to is that the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board wants to keep farmers
under the dictatorial powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, which
it gets through the federal Government of Canada, by forcing the
buyback provisions on to farmers. That way the minister
is able to make sure that it is uneconomical for the farmer to
have to sell his grain to the Canadian Wheat Board, buy it back
and then export it.
We could talk about all the credit we want but there are many
things like changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, including things
such as getting rid of the four cent federal excise tax on fuel,
that would help farmers directly today. The Farm Credit
Corporation Act is supposed to be about helping farmers.
In addition, it is very important that all of us in the House of
Commons speak out clearly and loudly to say that there are many
other things that could be done to help our primary producers. We
have to get on with it.
I was interested to hear the minister of agriculture's remarks.
We get some of the real intent of why he put these amendments
forward. I will mention just a couple of them.
1220
He said in his speech that the corporation would assist a
greater number of agriculture enterprises in creating jobs and
economic growth in rural Canada. This points out that it is a
clear instrument of government policy. The government is looking
at somehow using the Farm Credit Corporation to move agriculture
beyond the crisis to which the throne speech referred. I do not
know whether additional bureaucracy and instructions from the
minister would move agriculture beyond crisis. We should free
our farmers up so that they would move beyond crisis if the
government in some cases just plain gets out of their way.
The minister also said that there was a definite need for
services that help farm families make the transition from one
generation to the next, just as beginning farmers need help in
getting a solid start. According to the Farm Credit Corporation,
it said in committee that it had no plans to be involved in any
transition project. The Farm Credit Corporation is supposed to
be a self-funding institution. As a result, the question of
whether or not the taxpayer would be exposed to a much greater
risk is one that would have to be dealt with.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for
Selkirk—Interlake on his presentation and for sharing his time
with me. We are here today to debate Bill C-25, an act to amend
the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
The purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation, since 1959 when the
Farm Credit Act was passed, has been to provide
farmers and those involved directly with production access to
loan money. A short history of the FCC shows that major changes
have happened over the years, but we can see that it has also
maintained its original mandate of providing loans to primary
producers over the 40 plus years it has been in existence. It
was established in 1959 to provide credit to farmers and
specifically to primary producers. At that time the loan rate
that money was lent to farmers was set at a legislated rate of
5%.
The 1960s saw substantial changes to the FCC from the initiation
of an appeal board in 1965 to the introduction in 1968 of a
market formula rate that allowed the FCC for the first time to
cover the cost of its borrowing. During the 1970s the FCC
expanded and in 1978 it posted its first ever surplus. The
1980s, however, were a much different story. This was a
difficult time for much of the agricultural farm sector. The FCC
found itself caught in the agriculture squeeze and the federal
government was forced to put $600 million into the FCC to keep it
solvent.
In 1993 the Farm Credit Corporation Act was passed allowing the
FCC more flexibility to fund farmer owned, farmer related
agricultural proposals. It was not just farm land that money was
being lent on, but farm related businesses could also get loans.
However those farm related businesses had to be controlled by
primary producers.
In recent years the FCC has been self-funded and it continues to
grow, but throughout its 40 plus year history its mandate has
always been to fund primary producers in their agriculture
related endeavours. We are today again debating the future of
the FCC in Bill C-25.
The bill makes several changes to the Farm Credit Corporation.
It makes significant changes in some areas and not so significant
changes in others. One of the changes involves changing the name
of the corporation from the Farm Credit Corporation to Farm
Credit Canada. This is not a name change that is necessary in
western Canada where everyone is familiar with the Farm Credit
Corporation, but it is being done to give it a stronger name
recognition in the province of Quebec. I hope that the expense
can be justified when it comes to changing the name.
More substantive changes are being made to the bill than just
the name change. I would like to talk about three or four of
them today. The first one deals with equity financing. This
change is seen as a positive change if it is properly done. If
the FCC is to be involved in agriculture lending then it needs to
move carefully in this direction.
1225
If members were to take a look at some of the developments in
agriculture, particularly in western Canada with hog barns being
built and feedlots being proposed and built, they would see a
situation where people do not have a lot of collateral to put up
for these projects. For the lenders to be involved in that they
need to be able to take out an equity position in it.
The bill would allow the FCC to do those kinds of things and
then to develop its loan portfolio from there. These are projects
that have a higher than average risk factor to them. It gives
people an opportunity to get some financing. It also gives
lenders an opportunity to cover their own interest.
The second change the bill proposes is to formalize the lease
financing arrangement in which the FCC has already taken part.
Lease financing allows producers some good possibilities as well.
For different reasons, people sometimes do not want to buy their
equipment. Lease financing allows them to lease it. Leasing for
some is also a tax decision. Leasing gives the producer the
choice of service that he wants to take part in. It is a good
opportunity for producers and for the FCC. The FCC's lease
financing in the past has been shared with other institutions,
for example, the CU lease program. This would give lenders the
opportunity to protect themselves.
One of the main concerns I have about lease financing is in the
area of land and how land is handled by the FCC. It was because
of the situation through the 1980s that the FCC found itself
holding in excess of one million acres of land at one point and
it had to do something with it. Some of the land was leased back
to farmers. Over the years the acreage that it was holding has
been dropping off, which has been a good thing, but the bill does
not address the issue of whether the FCC would be into land
leasing in a big way or not. From the evidence, it seems that
the FCC is not interested in that. If that is the case, it
should be addressed in the bill.
The legislation, in order to be supported, needs to clarify that
area. Farmers do not need more competition, particularly from a
government funded corporation.
The main change I see in the bill, and the one that is most
important, is in the loan eligibility criteria. Up until
this point loans that were given out by the FCC had to be given
to people who were primary producers or the majority of people
involved in the project had to have been primary producers.
Bill C-25 proposes to change that. It would allow lending to
ag-related businesses that are not producer controlled or
producer owned. The argument for this change is that it would
help develop value added businesses. The benefits of this
argument are outweighed by some potential problems. I would like
to talk about two or three of those problems.
First, and most important, the legislation represents a basic
change in FCC policy and philosophy. For 40 years the FCC has
had one mandate, which is to provide primary producers with
access to credit. This would change from farmer oriented to
agribusiness oriented and the focus would shift significantly
because of the legislation.
Second, I have a concern over a potential conflict of interest
in the legislation. We have seen in the past that other
semi-independent government institutions have given us examples
of conflict that we do not want to see in the FCC. The most
prominent of these and the most obvious has been the Business
Development Bank. We have watched and we have been assured that
it is business as usual for even the Prime Minister to call these
institutions to influence loan decisions.
To this point the FCC has been free of those problems and
accusations, as far as I know, and it should stay that way. The
legislation brings in a potential conflict of interest problem
that the FCC and producers do not need.
The third concern is the possibility of large agribusiness
corporations or co-operatives coming to the FCC for financing. We
have seen businesses of different sizes getting in trouble. For
the first time the bill would allow the FCC to make large loans
to large scale businesses. The problem with that is if that does
happen it would remove the possibility of financing for smaller
operators and for farmers.
1230
I would like to wrap up my comments today with some conclusions.
First, the equity financing provision in the bill is a
potentially positive addition. It would be an improvement if it
were properly and carefully managed. We will be pushing for
amendments, however, in a couple of the other areas that I have
mentioned, particularly in the area of restricting lease
financing to equipment.
Although the FCC did have over a million acres in its portfolio,
it has reduced that. Two years ago it had 360,000 acres and last
year it dropped off to 120,000 acres. From what we see here, it
is trying to get rid of the land. We need an amendment that
would ensure the FCC does not find itself in the same situation
that it did 10 years ago.
Most important, we need an amendment that would continue to
require that active producers are the majority participants in
order to be eligible for FCC loans. This runs contrary to what
the legislation suggests but, in the interest of primary
producers, needs to be maintained.
For 40 years the FCC has been concerned, first and foremost,
with primary producers and their agricultural operations. It is
essential that remains the focus of the FCC business. The bill
leads FCC away from that. The FCC should restrict itself to its
historical mandate and work to do a good job in that area rather
than trying to spread itself all over the agricultural landscape.
Bill C-25 needs some amendments to accomplish that goal.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill
C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts. Amending an act
always has an impact on other acts.
If I understood the essence of the bill correctly, the Farm
Credit Corporation is going through an identity crisis. It is
normal that, at this time and in the current context, the Farm
Credit Corporation finds itself lacking in identity.
Is it related to a province, to a country or another country?
Thus it was decided to settle the identity problem by changing
the name.
I am anxious to meet with the officials, at the stage of the
clause by clause examination of the bill, and see whether they
can justify why, by changing the name of the corporation and
giving it a Canadian identity, they are debasing the French
language in the process.
The corporation used to be called “Société du crédit agricole”
in French. Now its name will be changed to “Financement agricole
Canada”, three words with no link between them and no modifiers.
I wonder what warranted such a change. It could easily have been
called “Société du crédit agricole du Canada”. Adding “du
Canada” would have been enough. Why introduce the concept of
“Financement”? That does not tell us how it is organized.
This tells us that someone is involved in “financement”.
Someone, something, some agency somewhere is providing financing
to the agricultural sector.
In my opinion, the effort to find something elegant in French
has not been excessive, to put it mildly. I will have some
questions on this lack of respect for the French language for I
feel linguistics have been rather short-circuited here. It
strikes me as unacceptable that they want to change the name
while not respecting the essential elements of the language.
On the other hand, the minister has raised three points in his
speech, while the summary gives six reasons for changing this
bill.
1235
In his speech the minister referred to his desire to extend the
corporation's capabilities to provide services.
In itself that is good news because our farmers have told us
on a number of occasions that theirs is a sector in crisis.
Farmers need to see financial steps taken to allow them to keep
going, either to get through bad times, or to develop, create
more employment and so on.
So extending the scope of services is, in itself, a good thing.
The desire to do so however must not allow the new Farm Credit
Corporation to go beyond the primary sector, for example, and to
focus increasingly on financing the processing sector to the
detriment of the production side.
I did not see anything in the bill in the way of a safety
valve—or a guarantee or security—that would enable
us to be absolutely certain that farm credit in Canada will not
suddenly become obsessed by profit, like all funding agencies,
and want to neglect the primary sector, the agricultural
producers, in order to make more profit by supporting
second level development, for example the processing sector.
The second objective is to help family farms achieve their
long term goals.
This is good news because we see more and more a tendency where
family farms are disappearing.
Last weekend I took part in a symposium in
Sainte-Croix-de-Lotbinière where farmers had chosen as a meeting
theme “Rethinking Agriculture”. They are concerned, and rightly
so, about industrial farm development at the expense of family
farming, which is reasonably big and allows a family with a few
children to live from farming and to leave a legacy to its
children.
When we see the increasingly huge developments in different
sectors and, as a farmer put it, when they have to leave
$2 million of rigging to their children before leaving them their
assets, there are few young people who will be able to become
farmers if we do not pay attention to this issue.
This is all the more important because, if we neglect family
farm production—the small farm,—our rural communities
will be depopulated. A farmer told me that in his village in
Kamouraska there is only one child. There are no other
children. They have all gone because there is no longer a
school. Instead of taking the bus to get to the neighbouring
village, people move directly to that village.
In some villages there are four, five or six abandoned farms
that were, not too long ago, during the settlement, cleared away
and returned to farming, and that are now lying fallow and quite
often returned to the forest because there are no other means
of supporting the young people who would like to move there.
I hope that the Farm Credit Corporation will always have as a
goal the provision of long term support to an increasing number
of family farms.
Again, there is an issue which will have to be dealt with and
which is a real social problem. It has to do with the third goal
of the bill, which is to help family farms make the transition from
one generation to the next. This issue will really have to be
dealt with.
1240
We will have to find incentives and other measures to facilitate
passing on farms from one generation to the next.
When a farmer is unable to pass on his farm to his son because
most of it will go to income tax, there is a major problem
because people will try to sell their properties instead of
trying to find solutions to the situation. We will have to deal
with this problem and help families to pass on their properties
to the next generation.
After reviewing the goals of the bill we see that, according to
the information we were given, there were several series of
consultations before the bill was introduced. It seems that
those responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation have consulted
several agricultural organizations and that a majority of them
were favourable to the proposals contained in the bill.
The government of Quebec looks favourably upon the amendments
contained in the bill, but it believes that the new corporation
should continue to play a limited role in Quebec's agricultural
industry.
I think the Quebec government would like the new agency to play
fair and avoid providing, in Quebec, loans at below market
rates. It would not like Farm Credit Canada to take hold of the
Quebec market by offering discount rates, as is already being
done to a point.
I heard complaints by some credit unions and information to the
effect that in certain areas even the National Bank is a
victim of the current Farm Credit Canada, which is providing
loans at below market rates.
Obviously this new agency will have to abide by the market
rules and abstain from providing lower rates to attract
potential clients. It is extremely important that the agency be
very cautious with this.
The UPA, or Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, was
indeed consulted in 1999. It agreed with the principles of the
bill being discussed then and it should still agree with this
bill, provided it has not been changed.
But the UPA has one serious reservation. It is against any
direct loan by the new agency to companies that are exclusively
in the processing industry.
As I said in my preamble, Farm Credit Canada should not shift
its focus from the primary sector to the processing sector.
It is also concerned that that could result in a shift in Farm
Credit Canada's mandate where it would end up supporting the
processing sector to the detriment of the primary sector, which
could jeopardize the great objectives the minister of
agriculture was talking about last week and I also mentioned
earlier, namely helping young farm families to settle in and
to inherit their parents' properties.
If Farm Credit Canada changes and ends up giving preferred
treatment to processing, we could have problems.
1245
What led the government to pot for the changes it is introducing
today? I can think of three, including the need to give farmers
greater choice in financial and commercial services. Per se,
that is good news. When a farmer goes to a bank, a caisse
populaire or to Farm Credit Canada, he will probably be able to
negotiate better conditions if there is competition. He will
sometimes be able to find a better account or better loan
conditions by comparing. It is very important that the Corporation
not make it a policy to offer the lowest rates at all times.
It cannot usher a farmer into its office and say “How much did
the bank want? How much did the caisse want? I will give a
lower rate to start with”. It should not work like that
otherwise it would be really unpleasant.
Another principle underlying the amendments is the need for
greater structural flexibility. Farm producers have often told
us that greater flexibility is needed. The rules are often
complicated and complex. The bureaucracy is heavy and things no
longer get done.
If Farm Credit Canada—I have a hard time remembering that name,
because it means nothing in French and is impossible to
remember—has greater flexibility, it will be farmers who
benefit.
The government also wants to create partnerships, which will
serve farmers over the long term.
This too is very interesting to imagine. Although it is not
possible at the moment, we can see that in the economic
development of our regions, it would be extremely important to
be able to create partnerships because the resources we need
are not always available among our young people or farmers
themselves. It is important to be able to create partnerships
if we are to develop the economies of our regions.
This government should be concerned about examining the state of
the regions at the moment. Resource regions are losing their
populations. The day the resource remains, but the people have
left, we will pay a whole lot more to recover the resources in
these regions than we do at the moment.
It is vital we keep our resource regions alive, that is, with an
economy to support the existence of the local market, the gas
station, the confectionery store, the grocery store, the school,
the church, the caisse populaire, and so on. If we do not keep
this in our regions, we will wake up to the fact that it will be too
late. Special programs will be required to recover the land we
gave up. This is very important.
What are the main changes? First there is a name change and
the name is not entirely a success. I hope we will get some
explanation and at least have a full sentence in the bill. If
I get an answer like “The lawyers suggested it”, I will remember that
lawyers specialize in the law, not in language, as I have always
known. It is because they have such a hard time drafting
legislation that we have so many trials.
If they were as rigorous with the language, if they took words
for what they mean, there would be fewer trials to interpret
them.
When I am told that lawyers provide linguistic help I think
there is a problem in terms of understanding people's respective
responsibilities. A lawyer is competent in the legal field, but
language is not necessarily his forte.
The main changes will allow the corporation to provide business
services to producers, directly or through a partnership. These
services include business and estate planning and also land
management.
1250
With our aging population it will be extremely important—and I
support the idea—to ensure that this corporation can help our
communities in the estate planning area since it is critical to
ensure that the land is passed on, under acceptable conditions,
to members of the younger generation who are interested in
carrying on.
These services are already provided in certain areas, but the
bill seeks to make them accessible in every rural area in the
country and this is a positive point.
The bill will also allow the corporation to provide lease
financing to farm producers. The current act does not prevent
the corporation from providing such financing, but the bill will
clarify and define its scope.
As can be seen in the automobile industry, an
extremely important factor has been to allow people to drive more
comfortable and better cars since many are taking advantage of
the option to replace their vehicles at regular intervals.
For a young person who wishes to go into farming or take over
the family farm but wants to acquire more modern equipment, I
think that leasing is probably a more interesting approach for
him to consider, or at least to think that it might be available
instead of thinking that he has to tie up $200,000, $300,000 or
$400,000 in equipment, before even starting to plant.
This would also give producers and farm corporations access to
equity financing. The corporation will thus be able to share
directly in the business capital or use these investments to
attract other investors.
This too is excellent news for our producers, for our farming
co-operatives, and for the projects that our farmers are
developing in certain sectors short of resources. This is
surely a very good prospect for them.
The purpose of the corporation will be to provide financial
services to businesses related to farming. Here again—I wish to
be clear about this, and we will be discussing this at committee
stage—it will be necessary to ensure that this represents
perhaps a percentage of the financial products devoted to this
and to ensure that the primary sector will not suffer as a
result.
Finally, the corporation will be able to create subsidiaries to
form partnerships which will provide new services independently
of the existing corporation.
This too is good news but, again, care must be taken to avoid
having the legislator's intention circumvented by the kind of
flexibility the government wishes to introduce.
I am pleased to tell the House that the Bloc Quebecois will be
supporting this bill and that we will do everything we can to
see that it is passed as quickly as possible so that farmers can
benefit from the services which this new legislation will offer.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise
to speak to the upcoming changes for the FCC. I am speaking on
behalf of our agricultural critic, the hon. member for Palliser,
who unfortunately could not be with us today.
Also a special hello and thanks to the dozens of farmers in my
riding of Musquodoboit Valley. They are some of the best
producers in the entire country. I am very proud to stand in the
House to represent them and quite proudly say to them that I and
my party support the thrust of this bill, although there are
always a couple of cautions that need to be addressed.
Overall, we thank the government for these much needed changes.
Similar to our colleague from the Bloc, we hope they pass fairly
quickly. Above all we hope the constant consultation and
dialogue with the main producers and with those people directly
affected by the legislation continues. That dialogue is
extremely important for the future.
1255
Who could forget the crisis in the agricultural industry over
the last few years? Many of us were at farm rallies on the Hill
and at rallies held throughout the country, especially in the
prairie provinces. Statistics show that over the last two years
22,000 families in the western provinces alone have left the
farm. If that does not constitute a crisis in the industry, I am
not sure what does.
Being a fairly new MP, going into my fourth year in this place,
I always felt that it should be up to the Government of Canada,
irrespective of one's political leanings, to look after our
agricultural industry. If we do not do this to the best of our
ability then unfortunately we will seriously neglect what I
consider the most important industry in Canada.
When members had breakfast this morning and when they have
dinner tonight, I hope they appreciate the people who are willing
to get up at all hours of the day to sow the seeds so our
families can be nourished. I think I speak for all members of
parliament when I say we are extremely proud of the Canadian
agriculture industry. We are very proud of the thousands of
farmers and their families who toil in the fields and factories
so we can provide nourishment to our families on an ongoing
basis. Above all they do it fairly cheaply.
Food costs in Canada as compared to other countries are
relatively inexpensive. People who suffer through tight
financial times always worry about the cost of putting food on
the table. When we look at the overall picture of what it costs
to put food on our table compared to other items which we
purchase such as shelter, clothing, home heating oil et cetera,
food is relatively inexpensive. Therein lies one of the problems
we are facing today.
The price that producers get for their product is very low. This
is one of the crises we have. Wheat is made into bread and the
bread is sold in the stores but the price of that generally goes
to the middle man; the marketers, store owners and so on. If a
loaf of bread cost $1, I believe the primary producer may get
about 6 cents. That has to change so our primary producers who
feed us and export to other countries get better value for the
work they do.
The FCC is a wonderful institution for farmers when they need to
diversify or when they need to purchase new equipment in order to
ascertain future funding so they can carry on their business.
A young man from Saskatchewan with his family and many other
farmers appeared before our caucus a few months ago to describe
the scene on the family farm. I asked this young man, who was
about 12 years old, if he was going into farming like his father
and grandfather. He said no. I asked if there was anybody
else in his classroom who was thinking about taking up
agriculture as a livelihood. The young man again said no.
That begs this question: Who are going to be the farmers of
tomorrow? We know who the farmers are today, and many of them
are going through a crisis because they are not sure if they will
be able to make out the year.
Nobody likes to go from crisis to crisis year in and year out.
Farmers know very well that historically there have been great
years and poor years. They have always got through those years.
However a tremendous number of farmers from coast to coast, not
just in the prairies but in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada,
are going through a very difficult time. Anything the federal
government can do to assist them should be done very quickly.
It appalls me at times when I hear the federal government say
that it has a new aid package based on provincial funding and
that it will give $6 out of every dollar for aid but the
provinces have to come up with the other $4. Nova Scotia is
going through a pretty severe debt and deficit situation right
now. It simply does not have additional funding to give to its
farmers.
1300
Nova Scotia rightfully says that if the federal government is
swimming in billions of dollars of taxpayer money then at least
it should assist those provinces and others with more funding for
farmers, at least to get them through this crisis stage so they
can set up long term arrangements for the future.
I know the federal agriculture minister from Ontario is a decent
fellow, but he made a comment regarding P.E.I. potato farmers
that I am sure he will live to regret for the rest of his days.
He said that maybe those potato producers should grow something
else because of the recent battle with the United States.
That is easy for someone to say, but P.E.I. grows some of the
best potatoes on the entire planet. They have diversified in
potato farming. The infrastructure, the machinery, the plants
and the workers were set up for that. Then the federal
agriculture minister turns around and says that the battle with
the United States is pretty tough so maybe they should grow
something else.
If the federal minister honestly believes that, which I am sure
he probably does not, then P.E.I. potato producers should say
“Okay, Mr. Minister, if we are to diversify, what should we
diversify into? Is the federal government going to provide the
funding for us to diversify?” If that is indeed the case, the
minister should back it up with dollars and then maybe some of
those producers will grow something else. If the minister is
suggesting that they need to grow something else after they
already grow the number one potato product in the country—at
least that is my biased opinion, coming as I do from Atlantic
Canada—then he should at least back it up with some dollars.
Overall the changes in the FCC are positive, as long as the FCC
continues to focus on the primary producer. That is essential.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has indicated to us that
it has no overall objections to the legislation. Credit Union
Central of Canada, representing credit unions across the
country, formed a committee to study this legislation. During
the consultation process it fully supported the proposal as long
as credit unions could participate in some of the services,
equity financing and partnerships. This of course would include
the caisses populaires of Quebec.
This aspect of it is extremely important. Bill C-8, the
financial restructuring act, is now going through the House. It
has gone through this place and is on its way to the Senate,
ready for royal assent. It will create great change in the
financial sector in the country. When all those changes happen
it will be extremely important to ensure that agencies such as
credit unions and caisses populaires, which play vitally
important roles in our country, especially in rural Canada where
most of our farms and primary producers are based, have an
important say and a role in the future of how FCC does its
business. If they do, they will continue to have our support.
The National Farmers Union is concerned that the FCC may soften
its focus on family farms and primary production. The government
and the FCC have made a commitment that farming and the primary
producer would continue to be the main focus of the corporation.
That is essential.
In order to maintain the so far lukewarm support of the National
Farmers Union, which represents a tremendous number of farmers
across the country, it is imperative that the government and
whatever party is in government years down the road continue that
important dialogue with groups such as the National Farmers Union
to ensure that primary producers rural communities and
those family farms are indeed integral to any decisions made.
The best way to do that is with open and transparent
consultation. The federal government has been blamed many
times—I think of the Sea King operation for example—for hiding
behind its words, for other concerns it tries to hide from, and
for not being completely open and transparent. I beg the
government to ensure that it does not do this with our
agricultural concerns. That would be a very sad thing.
The corporation's main focus would continue to be small and
medium sized operations that contribute to local communities. We
have to take the government and the directors of the FCC at their
word. If indeed that is correct, they will have our support and
the support of many family farms throughout the country.
However, again I would like to remind the government and those
in opposition right across the country that it is imperative to
maintain that and not lose sight of the main focus in years to
come.
1305
In fact, the FCC has only a handful of accounts with businesses
that have revenues over $5 million. The majority of its day to
day business is indeed with small and medium sized family farms.
That is extremely important.
Another concern in regard to a lot of family farms these days is
lease financing. Under the new legislation the FCC would offer
lease financing directly to or in partnership with agricultural
operators. There is a growing need for lease financing in the
agricultural industry for operators who want to manage cash flows
with increased flexibility. The 1993 act does not prevent FCC
from offering lease financing. However, the new amendments
clarify the scope of the corporation's service in that area. More
important, with a more flexible financial structure the FCC will
be able to create subsidiaries to partner with other
organizations in offering more comprehensive financial packages.
With Bill C-8 and the concentration of our financial
institutions, it is very important, at least in my mind, that
farmers and primary producers have the option and flexibility to
look for the best rates when it comes to their lending needs. The
corporation would have access to additional financial management
tools to secure its portfolio and offer expanded services to
agricultural operations. A more flexible financial structure
contributes to the viability of the FCC and its ability to serve
agriculture in the long term. That is definitely what is needed.
The country deserves and demands an agricultural policy from A
to Z that really meets the needs of the family farm and medium
sized producers and ascertains and tells Canadians once and for
all that in this country we will be able now and in the future to
feed ourselves. An awful lot of people are concerned that we as
a country may be losing our agricultural sovereignty. We simply
cannot allow that.
I could not help but notice that one of the greatest fighters
for the family farm, a gentleman from Ontario, is in the House
today. I thank him for his personal efforts in bringing the
issue of the family farm to the House of Commons and to his own
government. He should be complimented for his work in creating
awareness of the crisis on the family farm.
There are other concerns throughout the country. We would like
to ensure that the family farm issue is not just not a debate in
the House and is then forgotten. We would like the family farm
issue to continue in the House and we would like to ensure that
when changes need to occur we can meet those changes along the
way.
It gives me great pleasure every September and October when I
come to Ottawa to bring with me about 100 pounds of Annapolis
Valley apples of various descriptions. I hand them out.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Bring lobsters.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: My colleague from Brandon—Souris
would like me to bring lobsters. I can do that tomorrow if he
wishes. We could have lunch together.
I like bringing the Annapolis apples to Ottawa because I pick
them right from the trees and hand them out to the first 100
people I see. Those apples are from farmers and producers and
their families who are very proud of what they do.
All who go to the beautiful Annapolis Valley will see for
themselves the pride of the communities in regard to growing a
tremendous product. Anyone seeing the farms in Prince Edward
Island will see the pride of farmers in producing those great
potatoes. A great songwriter in Canada, Stompin' Tom Connors,
wrote a great song called Bud the Spud. I highly recommend
listening to that song in lighter moments. It is absolutely
fabulous.
We have already debated what farming does for us in terms of
being able to feed ourselves and in maintaining an agricultural
policy. However, a majority of Canadians now live in urban
centres and some of them have forgotten what it is like to be on
a family farm. I highly recommend that all members of parliament
and their families take time out of their busy lives to visit a
family farm and thank farmers for the work they do and for
maintaining the high standards of quality of the food we consume
on a daily basis. Without farmers the country would be at a
severe loss.
On behalf of farmers in my riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore, it gives me great pleasure to rise today
in support of this bill. We agree with the government that it
should be moved ahead fairly quickly so that the farmers and
primary producers of the country can get on with their busy
lives.
1310
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take a couple of minutes to first of all address
the remarks of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, who
touched on the fact that urban members do not seem to really
understand the stresses and strains in agriculture, but I know
all members of parliament understand that the hourglass is
running.
My remarks are for the hon. member and, I hope, for
officials in the department of agriculture. On February 20, all
of us in the Chamber gathered together to say that we wanted to
do more, that we wanted to support our Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food at the cabinet table and make sure there were
sufficient funds for this spring for seeding on April 1.
I was home on the weekend and I have to confess that I am
absolutely embarrassed. That $500 million in extra money that
all members of parliament, all parties under the leadership of
our minister of agriculture, managed to get through the system
has not been sent out. Farmers are out there. Anybody who takes
a drive in the country these days can see everybody is out there
planting.
We talk about urban people not really being as sensitive as they
should be to the challenges and stresses of the Canadian family
farm, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like through you to say to
officials in all the ministries of agriculture across Canada and
in the department of agriculture and the treasury board, wherever
they process that money, to please get it out because it was the
unanimous position of the House of Commons that it was to be out
by the end of March.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comment. He is right about the $500 million being
allocated on February 20. We on this side of the House and
others have agreed that was about $400 million short. However
the fact is that the delay of that money, which did not get sent
out when it should have, is absolutely inexcusable.
I will take just a moment to mention the member for Malpeque,
P.E.I., who has been very critical of the department of
agriculture for really being out of touch with what is happening
on the family farm. I believe his criticism is rightfully placed
because the department is simply out of touch with family farms
in this country.
I can assure the hon. member from the Liberal Party that I
believe all he really has to do is walk over to the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister, tap them on the shoulder during
question period and tell them to get on with the job of looking
after our family farms. We would be very supportive of that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the comments from the previous speaker. We have gone
off in a different direction with respect to the bill before us
right now, the bill dealing with the Farm Credit
Corporation. However I will touch on that other direction just
for a moment.
As members are well aware, I am the Progressive Conservative
Party critic for agriculture. I have obviously had a lot of
dealings not only with members on this side but with members on
the government side as well as producers. In my constituency,
agriculture is the backbone of our economy and therefore I deal
with this issue on a daily basis.
As for the dollars that were earmarked for the agricultural
economy, dollars that were to go back to producers, the $500
million, different provinces are providing those dollars in
different fashions. In Manitoba we call it CMAP 2, the second
program. With provincial and federal contributions, it will come
to about $92 million. That has been capped at about $11,000 for
each producer. To the member for Toronto—Danforth, $11,000
might sound like an awful lot. However, currently it is costing
the average producer somewhere in the neighbourhood of $120,000
to $150,000 to put a crop in the ground.
Input costs such as those for fertilizer, gas and pesticides are
included. Therefore the $11,000 is not a substantial amount of
money.
1315
The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was
right when he indicated that there was an additional requirement
for $400 million. That would have brought it up to what we
consider to be a reasonable limit of $900 million at that time.
I do not want to get into a debate, but every member on that
side of the House stood and voted against an additional $400
million. It was not a non-confidence motion. It was just not
meant to be. The amount of dollars that were necessary at the
time were not forthcoming.
For producers who will receive their portion of the $500
million, it is not sufficient to keep most of them on the land,
on the farms this year. A long term well thought out safety net
policy is necessary and must come forward, a policy that would
allow farmers some glimmer of hope they can produce crops that
pay a fair price for a commodity and that they can continue
farming not only in their lifetimes but hopefully into the
lifetimes of their children and their grandchildren.
We are here not only to talk about agriculture but a component
of agriculture, the Farm Credit Corporation. As we have seen in
the debate, agriculture has changed over the last number of
years. It has changed effectively from last year. The Farm
Credit Corporation has to maintain its ability to compete in that
world of change in agriculture.
The Farm Credit Corporation was created on October 5, 1959 by
the Diefenbaker Conservative government when the Farm Credit Act
was proclaimed into Canadian law to provide a consistent source
of lending services that farmers could rely on through all
economic cycles. At that time the corporation was mandated to
provide one product at a fixed rate, that is first mortgage loans
to farmers to a maximum $20,000.
I mention that because we have come a long way from 1959 to
today, and the Farm Credit Corporation has to move with that
change within the agricultural industry.
During the first 34 years the Farm Credit Corporation and the
Farm Credit Act went through many evolutions to keep step with
the agriculture industry. In 1968 farming corporations became
eligible for FCC loans. Loan limits increased to $150,000 in
1975. In 1982 amendments to the act led to the introduction of
more loan products and the FCC made its debut on the capital
markets.
In 1993 the Farm Credit Act was replaced with the Farm Credit
Corporation Act, which expanded the mandate of the FCC to better
respond to the needs of the agricultural sector. The FCC could
now offer products such as financing to purchase or improve
farmland and buildings, buying personal property for farming
purposes and consolidating debts. It enabled the corporation to
support value added production by providing financing for
diversified enterprises on or off the farm.
The act has helped bring the FCC in sync with the changing
marketplace. The Farm Credit Corporation loan portfolio has
grown from $3.4 billion in 1993 when the act was introduced to $6
billion today. At present the crown corporation serves 44,000
customers with 900 employees in 100 offices across Canada.
The Farm Credit Corporation is a good corporate citizen. It is
there for a purpose. Back in 1959 the purpose was identified,
the need was identified and the Farm Credit Corporation was born.
It is a good crown corporation that provides a very valuable
service to many farm customers across the country.
It is a bank. Let us make no mistake about that. I can go out
and find people anywhere who do not like dealing with banks of
any sort.
1320
Sometimes people who borrow money do not like paying it back and
therefore the bank is at fault. The FCC is a good bank. It does
its business properly. It puts money into the agricultural
sector. It gets the money back from producers and puts it back
into the sector again. It is self-sufficient and
self-supporting.
Last year the FCC put record amounts of dollars back into the
farm economy. A record amount of $1.7 billion was lent to
agriculture producers. We recognize that there are some
difficulties in the farm economy right now. Why is it that
banks are lending a record amount of $1.7 billion? Is most of it
rewriting old notes and old loans? The answer I was given was
no.
About $200 million of it was rewriting old notes, but $1.5
billion was new money going back to people to expand their farm
operations, to put in different types of operations, agriculture
operating practices and value added processing units. It is good
money and good business.
The bank must expand its abilities to be able to compete in a
world where agriculture needs new and innovative measures and
programs. It has done that since 1959 when it started with a
maximum $20,000 mortgage loan at one rate. It has gone the whole
gambit now. The act would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to
put forward new products to producers that would help them
continue their operations.
The Progressive Conservative government improved the way FCC was
managed. We brought in the FCC equity building plan in 1990 to
allow farmers to extend their leases and buy back land once they
were on firmer financial ground.
The Progressive Conservatives moved the head office of FCC to
Regina so that it could be closer to those who it serviced the
most, namely the majority of customers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba
and Alberta.
We passed a bill to expand the role of FCC allowing it to make
loans to farmers who wanted to diversify their operations. The
bank was able to and allowed to put more dollars into the pockets
of farmers who wanted to diversify their operations and become
better at what they did.
There are a number of components in Bill C-25 that I would like
to speak to and in some cases I wish to question. In every
legislation one wants to hear from the people whom it will
affect. We also want to hear the ups and downs or the pros and
cons of amendments to the bill.
I would like to mention another point. The president of the FCC
appeared before the agriculture committee last week. I stood in
the House about a week ago on a piece of private member's
business and suggested having crown corporations including the
Canadian Wheat Board open to access to information guidelines.
Members of the government argued against me quite vehemently.
They suggested it was my backdoor way of trying to get at the
Canadian Wheat Board, which in fact it was not. It was simply a
matter of trying to have transparency and accountability in a
crown corporation.
The FCC is a crown corporation. I asked the president if the
FCC was eligible under the Access to Information Act and he said
that it was. I can file an access to information request with
respect to the FCC and I would then have access to that
information.
I asked the president if it was a real deterrent in a very
competitive business like banking. He explained to us that it
was not the case, that he did have the ability under the act to
withhold some very sensitive information that would be a
detriment to the competitiveness of the business, but he said in
general terms that having to deal under the Access to Information
Act was not an impediment to its operation. I say to the
government side that here is one crown corporation, which is in a
very competitive business with banks, credit unions and other
financial lending institutions, that can work under those
circumstances and still have access to information available in
its crown corporation.
The bill is a step in the right direction. The PC Party will be
supporting reference of the bill to committee after second
reading. We look forward to asking specific questions of
stakeholders who will come before the committee to give their
impressions of the legislation.
1325
The first thing the bill would do is change the name from Farm
Credit Corporation, the name which I grew up with and know very
well, to Farm Credit Canada. There is not much differentiation
between Farm Credit Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation.
We all recognize FCC as a federal institution. I am told that
the only reason this is to happen is so that more credit can be
given to the federal government. When customers go to farm
credit Canada as a crown corporation, they will recognize it as a
Canadian federal institution as opposed to a provincial
institution.
To me there is much in a name. Perhaps there are reasons that
can be explained to me as to why this is absolutely necessary. I
would also like to know what the costs are in changing the name
from Farm Credit Corporation to Farm Credit Canada. Changes in
the letterhead, operating tools, all the documents and required
legal changes in a name change may well have a huge cost
associated with them. Perhaps it would be better to use those
dollars to give producers a lesser rate, or perhaps even more
support systems to producers, than simply to change the name. We
would have to debate that.
The mandate of the FCC would be expanded from financial services
to farming operations and businesses related to farming, to
business services and products to such enterprises. That in
itself is broadening the mandate of the FCC, of which our party
approves.
Farming is changing quite dramatically. In my constituency
alone the majority of the economy is either directly or
indirectly related to agriculture. We have often said that we
cannot simply sell the raw material at the farm gate and expect
an income generated that would allow people to stay on the farm.
We have to value add. We have to add to the product. We have to
make sure that those businesses are set up to take a raw material
and make it into something more than just simply a bushel of
wheat or a bushel of barley going some place else.
That means a number of opportunities. In my area in particular
we have a state of the art hog processing plant which means that
more raw material must be produced. That raw material requires a
lot of investment in hog farms, cattle operations and chicken
farms. The FCC must have the ability to be able to finance those
types of operations to allow for diversification in the
agricultural community.
Beyond that, looking into the production services and processing
services of other businesses can now go forward. We have around my
area an isoboard plant that produces strawboard. FCC should,
does and would have the ability to fund those operations so that
straw taken from agricultural production could go into the
production of another commodity that has value.
The FCC should also have the ability to do equity deals, another
opportunity in expansion of the services that it would be able to
provide.
The FCC would have the authority to provide loans to businesses
related to farming in both cases where the business is majority
owned by farmers and where it is not. Currently it has to be
owned by farmers. Now it can go outside those guidelines,
outside the box, and allow dollars to go to loans given to
corporations which do not have any direct farmer impact. That is
good as it expands the services available from the FCC.
The FCC would be given authority to incorporate, amalgamate and
dissolve subsidiaries. It would be able to provide lease
financing for assets to be used in a farming operation or a
business related to farming. This again is a change in the FCC
mandate where there could be lease financing for assets. This
would allow operations to free up cashflows to go into the
operation or expansion of their businesses.
The FCC would be given the authority to acquire and dispose of
equity interests in farming operations or in businesses related
to farming. The president of the FCC would be designated as its
CEO. A provision would be made for the appointment of an acting
president and an acting chairperson where necessary. This is
just good business.
1330
As I mentioned earlier, the FCC is a well run and
self-sufficient corporation. It has $6 billion outstanding in
loans, but it must get with the program of today's 21st century
operations of business.
There are potential questions and criticisms. I mentioned the
name change and the cost. The bill has the potential to
unnecessarily compete directly with credit unions and banks. The
purpose of the FCC is to provide loans to farmers and not to
equipment dealers and wheat pools.
I say that we must question this, not necessarily disagree with
it. It must expand its opportunities to compete. Competition in
the banking industry is not so terrible, and neither is
competition in grain marketing. Banks and credit unions can
compete effectively with the FCC. I do not believe the rules
have unfair advantages for the FCC and I am sure banking
institutions see it the same way.
Although the bill expands the lending powers of the FCC, farmers
do not need more debt. That is one of my concerns. Extending
more credit to farmers is perhaps not the best thing for farmers
who already have substantial debt. Unfortunately banking
institutions too often are more the problem than the solution.
Where there is equity in the land moneys will be given to
farmers, and that is not necessarily the best thing. However I
have faith in the FCC to know what is best for it, for its
customers and for the industry.
We have not heard a lot from other members, stakeholders or
industry groups, but that is what the committee is all about.
Perhaps when witnesses appear we will have a chance to examine
the bill more thoroughly and get their input into what is good or
bad about the legislation.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party we
will be supporting this piece of legislation. I agree in all
sincerity with the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation. It
does an exceptional job, considering that it is a bank and that
people have as much respect for bankers as they do for
politicians. However as a banking facility it does, in my
opinion, provide the services that are needed in the agricultural
community.
I look forward to coming back to the House after committee and
perhaps putting forth amendments. I certainly look forward to
coming back at third reading and suggesting that some of the
stakeholders proposed good changes to what I consider a good
piece of legislation.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the hon.
member from the Conservative Party. It concerns the flooding
that occurred in the southwest of his constituency and in the
southeast of my constituency. About 100,000 acres in my
constituency are under water at the present time.
I will go back to those years as they relate to the Farm Credit
Corporation because the people in that corner of my constituency
and in the corner of the hon. member's constituency have never
financially recovered from the flood. I wonder if the new
regulations of the Farm Credit Corporation will venture into that
broke and devastated area and see fit to help those people get
back into the farming economy. With pictures like the one I have
right now, we can see those people are finished.
In order to get crop insurance farmers had to put a crop in.
They also had to take it off, so they took off barley that
weighed about 38 pounds and oats that weighed under 30 pounds and
they still have it in their bins. They cannot sell it or give it
away, and yet when they applied for the AIDA program they had to
list it as a saleable commodity.
Does the member think the new bill we are debating will help
people in Gainsborough, Saskatchewan, or Melita, Manitoba?
1335
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I know where the member
for Souris—Moose Mountain's sympathies lie. I sympathized with
producers in my area and his area in 1999 when a lot of our
constituents were unable to put in a crop. The worst thing that
can happen for a producer is to see land sitting there and not
allow it to grow a crop.
I could stand here and argue the insensitivity of the government
in not providing proper support to the area as it did for the ice
storm, the Red River Valley flood and other situations. However
that is not the question. The question is whether the bill will
allow the FCC to put the proper tools and money back into those
areas.
The FCC always had the tools to put money into those areas but
on an individual, one on one basis. The hon. member is a farmer.
He recognizes that different operations are handled differently.
Each operation has different commodities, different debt loads
and different cash flows, and each must be dealt with
individually.
The FCC, as any other bank, looks at the likelihood of repayment
as the final requirement in deciding whether to put more dollars
into those areas. I believe the FCC would consider investing in
those areas, certainly more so than some of the large national
banks that are pulling out of them. I am sure the member would
agree that banks are not as forthcoming with agriculture, whether
in our areas or other areas. Only the FCC would consider
investing in those areas.
Credit unions may consider it as well. I give credit
unions a lot of support for going into smaller areas and putting
money back into the agricultural community, particularly in our
areas.
We are finding it tough. There is no question. Some people in
the area affected by the flood will not put in crops this year.
It is as simple as that. Will the land be farmed? In most
cases, yes. It will be rented out and farmed by someone else, but
perhaps not by the right people. It should be farmed by the
people who owned it originally but they have decided to get out
of farming. That is sad. It is something we try to prevent, but
unfortunately the government does not listen.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris. As he knows, the FCC has now expanded
outside agriculture and into aquaculture. Should aquaculture be
under the authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or
the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food?
Many commercial fishermen and the Canadian Council of
Professional Fish Harvesters have expressed concern about
government lending to aquaculture sites when environmental
concerns about aquaculture have not yet been fully debated or
researched. Does he or his party have concerns about funding to
industries such as aquaculture?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the few
areas in which I do not have a lot of experience or
understanding. However I too was not a recipient of the apple.
There were 100 apples given out and I never got one. Maybe it
has something to do with the fact that I do not know much about
aquaculture.
I do know, however, that aquaculture is funded by the FCC. It
should be funded by some sort of venture capital program.
Aquaculture should have the opportunity to develop as an
industry. In order to do so it must have investment programs
available to it, particularly venture capital investments.
Whether that is done through the FCC or some other program is not
important. However the FCC does have experience with that and I
would like to see it continue putting dollars back into the
industry.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue
of great importance to my constituents. I will be raising
questions that the government must answer before we can continue
the debate. I look forward to hearing the answers which will,
hopefully, be forthcoming.
For those watching on television, I will outline what we are
debating today. Bill C-25 is an act to amend the Farm Credit
Corporation Act and make consequential amendments to other acts
that affect this area.
1340
The purpose of the bill, as outlined by the government, is to
modify the role of the Farm Credit Corporation. The bill
proposes changes to three key areas.
The lending role of the FCC would be expanded to allow it to
lend to businesses which are not directly involved in primary
agricultural production and in which farmers are not necessarily
the majority shareholders.
The lending role of the FCC would also be expanded to allow it
to provide equity financing. This could be accomplished by
allowing the FCC to hold non-fixed assets, for example cattle or
other things, as collateral. Bill C-25 would formalize the FCC's
leasing ability which could include farm land.
This is of primary importance to the people of Saskatchewan. I
looked at some of the figures put out by the Farm Credit
Corporation. Saskatchewan alone has $1.3 billion in loans.
That is second only to Ontario, which has $2.1 billion.
The other provinces fall in line. Alberta and Quebec are next
with a little under $1 billion in assets in the portfolio.
Because that is of such critical importance to the people of
Saskatchewan, and with the farm crisis we are currently
experiencing, it is important that the government handle the
issue very carefully. We need to ensure that primary producers,
farmers of Saskatchewan, are properly protected and that we
do not move away from properly serving them through the Farm
Credit Corporation.
The bill before us would expand the focus of the Farm Credit
Corporation past its original mandate of providing financial
services only to family farms and businesses directly related to
primary production. We need to ask whether the Farm Credit
Corporation's involvement should go beyond direct farming
operations and, if so, how primary producers would be protected.
My colleague from B.C. who is sitting beside me would ask the
same question in relation to things that go on in B.C. People in
the Maritimes would also like to know how they would be
protected. They would like to know if the focus of the FCC would
continue to be on farmers and their needs.
If we extended the FCC's lending abilities beyond primary
production the bill would bring the Farm Credit Corporation into
direct competition with private lending institutions and make it
overlap with other government institutions such as the Business
Development Bank.
In the little town I come from there is a credit union that was
established many years ago to serve the clientele in that area.
It is a co-operative of sorts. I need to know if the FCC will
directly compete with organizations which were established to
serve local people and which have done an excellent job of doing
so. Sometimes a good thing can undermine one that is even
better. We need to ensure that does not happen.
There is tremendous openness for interpretation in some of the
bill's clauses. I will read a section from the bill:
The purpose of the Corporation is to enhance rural Canada by
providing specialized and personalized business and financial
services and products to farming operations, including family
farms, and to those businesses in rural Canada, including small
and medium-sized businesses, that are businesses related to
farming. The primary focus of the activities of the Corporation
shall be on farming operations, including family farms.
1345
It sounds wonderful. It sounds good. It is an intention that we
could never disagree with, but years down the road how will it be
interpreted? What will a business related to farming include?
What will it consist of?
Unless we have an assurance that somehow primary producers,
farmers, will be protected, we would have difficulty supporting
this idea. The idea is great, but we need to know what will
happen and how it will be interpreted in the future.
We also note Bill C-25 that we are discussing will formalize the
FCC's ability to own and lease land. The FCC has stated that
this is not the intent of the amendment. It claims that the
leasing provisions are for equipment. However, again the
legislation does not make this clear. It can give the government
the mandate to make changes behind the scenes, to slip in changes
that would affect agriculture very adversely. It is not like
other legislation that is often brought before the House. It is
enabling legislation.
Through the administration of the bill many changes can be made
that were not anticipated when the bill was debated in the House
of Commons and often received the support of many members. We
need to know if this will give the FCC the ability to begin to
own land, possibly for long periods of time, without any limit as
to how long it can hang on to the land.
Will this inflate the price of land and cause hardship for many
farmers who right now have a difficult time competing with those
who are not directly involved in agriculture? We need to know if
that will be the case. We do not see any limitations within the
bill that address some of these concerns. Will the FCC be
allowed to permanently hold and lease land that could result in
the market value of farmland increasing and hurting primary
producers?
Those may not sound like major concerns at this point but years
down the road, once the legislation comes into full effect, it
could hurt the people involved across Canada. Allowing the FCC
to permanently hold and lease land may provide that corporation
with the incentive not to pursue every other possible means to
allow farmers who are experiencing financial difficulty to stay
on the land. In short, the bill could provide the FCC with the
incentive to prematurely foreclose on Canadian farmland.
Will the FCC continue to look at its mandate to help farmers or
will it become more involved in ensuring that the corporation is
financially successful? That could have a very negative effect.
We need to have the assurance and the proper amendments need to
be made so that farmers have the guarantee that it will not move
away from its mandate.
I read the clause in the bill which can be interpreted in many
other ways. We would agree that businesses in rural Canada,
including small and medium size businesses and businesses related
to farming, should get the help they need, but how far away from
farming does a business have to be before one begins to say it is
not really related to farming?
Will the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool be eligible for loans under the
legislation? I would like to know. I do not know. We are
asking some tough questions that need answers.
Under the current legislation, the FCC will become a significant
landowner. In 2000 the FCC owned over 360,000 acres. Guess
where most of that farmland was owned?
Some 95% of it was in the province of Saskatchewan, the province
that is experiencing the most difficulty right now in the farm
crisis. Not to belittle the problems that farmers are having in
Manitoba, Alberta and across the country, but this is having a
major impact because of the dependence on grain and oilseed crops
in the province.
1350
While it is impossible for the FCC to avoid holding land for
short periods of time, the act should somehow explicitly state
that the FCC would divest itself of any holdings as quickly as
possible.
Bill C-25 also extends the FCC's lending ability into the area
of equity financing. This would be done by allowing the FCC to
hold non-fixed assets such as cattle as collateral for loans.
This change would allow the FCC to provide farm financing to
primary producers who are not eligible under current legislation.
In many cases this would provide financing that would not be
available from private lenders. This is a very positive change
to the legislation. The funding that would often be limited to
primary producers would no longer be available.
In the Canadian Alliance policy we state very clearly that we
will foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of
consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad,
including the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers.
We will withdraw government from areas of the economy where the
private sector could deliver the same services more efficiently.
We will end the unfair practice of providing subsidies to
industries, businesses and special interest groups.
We do not want the government to compete with areas in the
private sector that are providing a good service and possibly
undermine that service. That is what we are saying in our policy
and we stand by that.
We will withdraw from areas in the economy where the private
sector could deliver the same services more efficiently. I
already pointed out that they might be competing with another
institution, namely the Business Development Bank.
Will Bill C-25 take away the primary focus of the FCC from
providing credit to primary producers? If that were to happen,
we as Canadian Alliance members of parliament believe that this
would be a shift in the wrong direction. This would be a move
away from where we should be moving.
The FCC should not be providing funding for non-farming
operations if it hurts farmers and primary producers. Lending
institutions are already in that area, for example the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
We in the Alliance Party do not want the Farm Credit Corporation
under Bill C-25 to go into direct competition with private sector
lenders. That would be wrong and that would get the government
involved in areas that it should not be involved in. That is a
basic policy area of the Canadian Alliance.
The bill formalizes a lot of the FCC's leasing ability. We have
to be very careful. Short term ownership of land is unavoidable
in some cases, but the FCC should not go into the business of
owning farmland in the long term. It could inflate the price of
land and hurt the whole agricultural sector. This might make it
more difficult for farmers and for primary producers to get
credit where they normally would be able to access that credit.
I have a couple of other questions, but the key question still
needs to be asked and has to be answered by the government. Does
the bill ensure that farmers will be properly served? Will
farmers have to compete for capital now that they normally did
not have to compete for before?
I need to mention something else. Will Canadian taxpayers be on
the hook for loans that would not normally have been made but
would be made and in turn be a higher risk loan? Would taxpayers
be on the hook for any bad decisions made?
1355
I mentioned about this being enabling legislation, enabling the
government to do things behind the scenes that it would not
openly do. I am noted for following the Firearms Act issue. One
thing I have found through that piece of enabling legislation is
that the government has brought forward many things it originally
said was not its intention, such as private police and
enforcement agencies. The kinds of things we were assured would
not happen are in fact happening.
What does that have to do with this legislation? Will this bill
be an open book for the government to bring in government policy
through the back door that may hurt farmers but may not be
directly visible at this time? We need to have that kind of
protection. Are the changes here in the best interest of
farmers?
Will adequate provisions be made in Bill C-25 that would prevent
the FCC from bailing out large, non-farmer owned businesses at a
future date? I do not see that protection right now. Large
corporations could possibly access capital for a bailout that
would hurt farmers directly. A large agribusiness, possibly even
a multinational agribusiness, could access the money unless there
are proper provisions put in place that this would not happen.
If we read the legislation it sounds good, but it could be
interpreted years down the road in a very different manner than
we are expected to interpret it at this point. Would a limit be
set on the size of loans offered to businesses that are not
majority owned by farmers? We need to have that protection put
in the bill.
Would a farm equipment dealer be able to access the resources of
the Farm Credit Corporation? Could these businesses access
capital through other lending institutions? We do not know what
checks and balances will be provided to ensure that certain
companies will not be able to access the capital, which would
then remove that capital base or pool of capital from primary
producers.
All these things need to be addressed. I should like to hear
some of these questions answered by the government. I see that
my time is up. I have asked what I think are the key questions
farmers in my riding are asking. I would like the government to
answer those questions today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
the Toronto Star reported that the provincial minister of
the environment has vowed to save the Oak Ridges moraine as part
of her challenge to make the environment a priority once again
with the Ontario government. She is quoted as saying “For the
first time it seems the premier and my cabinet colleagues are
committed” to the environment.
It is nice to know the provincial government has finally
listened to what the people around the greater Toronto area have
been saying since the 1980s. It is nice to know that the
provincial minister now has a great appreciation of protecting
the environment and that the moraine is an environmentally
sensitive area.
Let me remind the House of an announcement made by the Minister
of Transport in my riding on March 23 this year. In addition to
the award winning park designed for the Downsview lands, and in
addition to the renewal of the Toronto waterfront, the federal
government will protect in perpetuity 7,562 acres of land around
the Rouge Park and the Oak Ridges moraine.
This was the right thing to do. Now let us see how the province
will contribute to saving the Oak Ridges moraine.
* * *
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if we go back in Canadian history we
find that we had some very dangerous workplaces. A lot of people
lost their lives through work practices. Conditions now are much
better and we continue to improve yearly, but lives are still
lost through workplace accidents. Even one life lost is one too
many.
Conditions in other countries in some cases now ape exactly what
Canada was like in its earliest years. It is very dangerous for
workers in those countries.
1400
When joining with them as trading partners, that is something
Canada should take the lead on to ensure that there is workplace
safety not only in this country but in countries around the
world, particularly those we trade with.
We will continue to make an effort for the future of all workers
in this country and others because it is critical that people be
able to practise their occupation and know that they are coming
home safely to their families. Families of workers who have lost
someone in their family as a result of workplace accidents—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
President Bush took the world by surprise when he announced his
decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change.
What is in Canada's best interest now? First is not to waver
but to continue with our commitment to the Kyoto agreement and
adopt a strong plan for greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Second is to learn from past experience, and particularly from
acid rain in the 1980s, in the knowledge that the U.S.A. often
decides to join global initiatives at a later date.
Third is to play a constructive and convincing role in
Washington to join global efforts, setting an example with other
developed countries for the developing countries such as China
and India to follow at a later date.
Canada can show leadership in energy efficiency and demonstrate
its sense of responsibility to the global community. Climate
change represents a golden opportunity. Will the Government of
Canada seize this opportunity? Hopefully, yes.
* * *
INDIGENOUS GAMES
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that
Canada will host the North American Indigenous Games from July 25
to August 4, 2002.
These games are the cornerstone of a growing movement of
aboriginal sport and culture and were born out of the reality
that aboriginal youth athletes have not been provided the same
opportunities to participate in domestic or international
competitions as their non-aboriginal counterparts.
Identifying and removing the barriers to participation for
aboriginal people in sport in Canada is one of the four equity
and access ministerial priorities for the Department of Canadian
Heritage. The North American Indigenous Games are one of the
primary vehicles identified by the aboriginal community as a
means of achieving this policy.
I invite members to join me in congratulating the host society,
the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba and the Government
of Canada, on their efforts in preparing to welcome over 7,000
young aboriginal athletes in 2002.
* * *
JAPAN PRIZE
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to inform the House today of a most prestigious
award in recognition of the work of University of British
Columbia Professor Emeritus Dr. Timothy Parsons. Dr. Parsons is
the first Canadian to receive the prestigious Japan Prize, which
is equivalent to a Nobel Prize.
Awarded the Japan Prize in Tokyo last Friday, Dr. Parsons was
recognized for his extremely valuable work in fisheries
oceanography through his work in renewable resource management
and conservation.
Through this award, Dr. Parsons is recognized by scientists
around the world. The level of this award exemplifies his
important career in science and the advancements of sustainable
marine life.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to use its agencies
for self-promotion rather than the public good.
For example, a briefing note that was written for the industry
minister by an official at western economic diversification
indicates that a proposal for funding a new NRC research facility
in Edmonton is driven by the government's need for “visibility
and credit”.
Obviously the Liberals' way of doing business is more about
making themselves look good than it is about serving Canadians.
Fortunately most Canadian taxpayers know that and they resent
Liberal efforts to buy their favour with their own money.
The Canadian Alliance has always favoured the replacement of the
regional development agencies with policies that are actually
designed to address persistent regional economic inequities.
These new government documents lend credence to that policy by
showing that western economic diversification and its sister
agencies are all about benefiting the Liberal government and not
about benefiting the people of Canada.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the diligent efforts of
the hon. member of parliament for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore in promoting Hepatitis C Awareness Month.
1405
Although Bill C-243 was dropped from the order paper, I am
nevertheless pleased to inform the House that the Minister of
Health has designated May as Hepatitis Awareness Month.
[Translation]
Increased public awareness is essential if Canadians are to be
better informed about hepatitis. Hepatitis Awareness Month is a
good means of achieving this.
[English]
The profile of hepatitis C will be raised at the upcoming
Canadian conference on this disease which will take place in
Montreal this week. Health Canada is a major sponsor of this
conference.
[Translation]
By designating May as Hepatitis C Awareness Month, our
government is providing clear proof of its commitment to fight
this disease through prevention and information.
* * *
HÉRITAGE SAINT-BERNARD
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday a
community organization in my riding, Héritage Saint-Bernard, won
the Mérite municipal award given by the Ministère des Affaires
municipales et de la Métropole du Québec.
Héritage Saint-Bernard was founded to ensure the protection and
development of fauna habitats along the shores of the St.
Lawrence in the Châteauguay region, as well as to make these
unique spaces accessible and raise public awareness of the
importance and fragility of the biodiversity of ecological
environments in the metropolitan region.
Last year, Héritage Saint-Bernard won the Phénix award, and in
1999 the Black Duck waterfowl management award, North American
sector.
Our most sincere congratulations to this organization which has
the interests of our future generations at heart and is working
to leave them the heritage of a unique spot of which we can all
be proud.
* * *
[English]
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the month of April is Cancer Awareness
Month.
Statistics show that in 1999 an estimated 129,300 cases of
cancer and 63,400 deaths from cancer occurred in Canada. The
leading cause of cancer death for both men and women continues to
be lung cancer.
Unfortunately, many Canadians are unaware of preventive measures
such as not smoking and a healthy diet to protect against cancer.
Therefore I request the Government of Canada to continue its
support of cancer research and prevention initiatives.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate the
Weyburn Red Wings hockey team who won the Anavet Cup Saturday
night with a score of 3-2 in double overtime against the Manitoba
OCN Blizzards. The Red Wings won the series in a hard fought six
games. I applaud both teams for their great effort.
The Weyburn Red Wings have won the Anavet Cup five times, three
times in the last five seasons. Now they advance to the national
championships, which this year will be held in Flin Flon,
Manitoba.
The Canadian championship series will be a round robin affair
with teams from Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Flin Flon, Manitoba,
Camrose, Alberta, Saint-Jérôme, Quebec and Thornhill, Ontario.
I want to inform the House that this member will be pulling for
the Weyburn Red Wings to win the national championship.
* * *
ROBICA FORMAN TANK LIMITED
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Robica Forman
Tank Limited of St. Marys, Ontario.
Robica Forman has landed one of the biggest contracts in its
history, a $10 million contract to supply the Canadian military
with 88 fuel delivery tanker trucks in the next two years.
Robica Forman will construct the six wheel drive 7000 litre
refueler tankers that will be used at military bases in Ontario,
Quebec and Alberta.
Robica, a family owned business, has been operating since 1952.
It specializes in petroleum and propane tank trucks, fire trucks
and water tankers. There are 50 employees working for the
company.
Robica's plants in St. Marys and Stratford will both benefit
from this deal. In order to handle the additional work, Robica
will expand its plant in St. Marys and hire an additional 12 to
15 new staff. I want to congratulate Bob Nothof and the staff at
Robica.
* * *
THE GULLY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, off the coast of Nova Scotia near
Sable Island lies the largest submarine canyon on the eastern
coast of North America, commonly known as the Gully. It is
larger than the Grand Canyon in the United States.
1410
The Gully is home to 15 species of whales and dolphins,
including the vulnerable northern bottlenose whale, ancient sea
coral and many varieties of fish.
For bringing the Gully to the attention of parliament and all
Canadians, I wish to extend my thanks to Sarah Dover of the World
Wildlife Fund, Dr. Rick Smith of the International Fund for
Animal Welfare, Elisabeth May of the Sierra Club, Derek Jones of
Newellton, Nova Scotia and Mark Butler of the Ecology Action
Centre of Nova Scotia. They stress the need for protection of
the Gully from deep sea fishing and oil and gas exploration.
We in the New Democratic Party from coast to coast encourage the
government to immediately designate the Gully as a marine
protected area and protect it for future generations.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
most of the people facing real housing problems are women
renters. Whether they live alone, head a single parent family
or are young or old, they are often faced with housing that is
too expensive and does not meet their needs.
The housing crisis is a daily drama for women, and Statistics
Canada's latest figures show us just how much. To be a woman
and a renter is a losing combination.
One of the major Canadian demands of the World March of Women is
a 1% increase in public spending on housing.
The Bloc Quebecois calls on the federal government to stop
ignoring the problem and to go after the problem of poverty by
investing the amounts requested in housing. It must correct the
injustices committed in 1994.
* * *
[English]
AMATEUR SPORTS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend the first ever national summit on sport
took place in Ottawa.
The meeting marked the end of a year long consultation process
on amateur sports and the beginning of an ambitious plan to
enhance and strengthen sports in Canada.
The hon. Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced concrete
action. He announced $10 million in new funding for Sports
Canada. He announced the creation of three new advisory
committees to examine the sports administration and development
system, the role of advanced technology in developing our
athletes and how corporate Canada can become involved in funding
amateur sport. As well, he set a one year deadline for
developing a national policy on sport.
I congratulate the hon. secretary of state and I look forward to
the advances amateur sports will make following the
recommendations made during the summit.
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the death toll on the African continent is rising every day, and
I am not referring to floods and earthquakes.
The HIV-AIDS pandemic has already killed 21 million in Africa,
mostly the young. It has now infected almost 26 million in
sub-Saharan Africa, almost equivalent to the population of
Canada. One thousand people per day die in Zimbabwe alone. In
less than three months that would equate to every man, woman and
child in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester.
In Botswana 36% of adults are infected. In another central
African city 43% of all adults are infected. Of the global
number of people infected by AIDS, 70% are on the African
continent.
However, the numbers only tell half the story. The sick and
dying have little care and money for medication and assistance.
The PC Party today urges the Minister of Foreign Affairs to put
this issue on the front burner so that Canada can work with
others to address this human catastrophe starting right now.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians value the wonderful diversity of plants and animals
found across the many different regions of our country.
On April 19 the Government of Canada continued its efforts to
protect biodiversity by signing the Cartagena protocol to the
United Nations convention on biological diversity. The protocol,
also known as the biosafety protocol, will protect natural
biodiversity by regulating the trade of living, genetically
modified plants, animals and micro-organisms.
Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the convention
on biological diversity and has also been an active and committed
participant in the negotiations on the protocol for biosafety.
The protocol represents another solid step in moving toward the
protection of our country's biodiversity.
As well, I hope and believe that the new species at risk
legislation will go further to enhance what we already have in
the country. I urge movement on this particular bill in a
fashion that will do justice to the interests of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
1415
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Arnold Schmidt is a prairie farmer
who has diversified into organic wheat production.
Mr. Schmidt has gone further than just growing organic grain for
a niche market. He has developed sales for organic flour milled
from his own grain. This is exactly the type of initiative that
will bring agriculture out of the current income crisis caused by
the disastrously low world prices for traditional crops.
Unfortunately, Mr. Schmidt cannot get an export permit for his
organic flour from the Canadian Wheat Board. This is in spite of
the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board provides no marketing
services to him. This is wrong.
The government claims that it has introduced Bill C-25 in order
to promote value added processing. What it refuses to understand
is that the best way to promote diversification and value added
processing is to get out of the way of entrepreneurs like Mr.
Schmidt.
The Canadian Wheat Board minister is personally responsible for
not helping organic farmers.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
PRIVACY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, abuse of power is a dangerous thing.
Ontario's privacy commissioner condemned this government's habit
of opening and reading private citizens' mail.
Will the Prime Minister assure the public that his government
will immediately stop the despicable practice of opening
people's mail?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the customs legislation clearly
provides that Customs Canada officials can intercept, upon their
entry into Canada, and—with the upcoming legislation—also upon
their departure from the country, goods shipped through mail
services.
This authority is based on section 99 of the act and on the
existence of reasonable grounds. Incidentally, when he looked
into the matter, the privacy commissioner acknowledged that
these powers were exercised within the law and in good faith by
customs officials.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that response made even our young
Canadians cry out.
It is not just the commissioner here in Ontario. The federal
privacy commissioner has commented about this particular habit.
This is an ongoing hostility toward the rights of Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister give clear direction and tell these
people to stop reading the mail of private citizens in our
country?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, if the member
would read subsection 99(1) of the act it is quite obvious.
We are not reading the mail at all. We are looking at, on a
sample basis, goods coming into Canada by way of the postal
stream. The privacy commissioner has said that we are acting
within the law and in good faith.
Maybe in the next question I should quote from the privacy
commissioner as well.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): That is what we are asking, Mr. Speaker. It is
very rare to see high level public servants, one from a province
and one from the federal government, agreeing on a concern. The
concern is the federal government's hostility to the rights of
individuals. It continues to open our mail. Never mind looking
at the legislation, it should look at what the privacy
commissioners have said.
Will the minister put into practice new safeguards and new
limits on this dangerous increase in the abuse of power?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know that
politics is perception and the leader knows it as well in
telling the population that we are having a look at mail, which
is not true.
We are stopping illegal goods from coming into Canada through
the postal stream. The privacy commissioner has said that we are
acting in good faith.
We need to bear in mind that customs officers have a dual
mandate, one of course being the question of economic
development, and the other, which is important and which I stand
by, being the protection of our Canadian society. We will
continue to work hard for that.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on the one hand the government is opening the public's mail and
on the other hand it is not allowing us to look at its mail.
The information commissioner said that complaints relating to
this have doubled in the last year. The public is unable to look
at the government documents. Since the government is looking at
private documents why will it not release government documents?
Why so much secrecy?
1420
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we do not
look at mail. We look at goods. As well, we work within the
limits of the law and it has to be based on reasonable grounds.
Let me state something interesting. I would like to quote the
member for Prince George—Peace River. He said back in 1994:
It is reported that the justice department has ordered Canada
Customs to allow counterfeit documents found entering Canada
through the mail, including phony Canadian passports, to be sent
on to their destination. This is an outrageous use of the
charter.
Will the minister explain to this House today what must be done
to authorize Canada Customs to seize phony documents...?
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is going to the supreme court to prevent people
from having access to his schedule.
Why does the Prime Minister feel that it is illegal to know his
schedule? What is he trying to hide now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a debate on the Access to Information Act. At this
point, the issue is to define to what degree documents from the
cabinet and from ministers' offices are of a private nature.
There is of course a debate going on. An act was passed and we
want it to be implemented. I am sure that the last thing that
the Leader of the Opposition would like is to see in the
newspapers what is going on in his office. If journalists were
able to check what has been going on over the past three days,
we would have a whale of a time in the House.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian assistance to developing countries is way down.
According to OECD statistics, Canada has dropped from 6th to
17th position on the list of 22 contributing countries over the
past five years.
In 2000 there was even an historic shortfall with only 0.25%
of gross national product allocated for international
assistance.
Is the Prime Minister ready to stand behind the generous
statements he made at the Quebec summit and make an immediate
commitment to set aside 0.7% of GNP for assistance to developing
countries, as recommended by the United Nations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have had a very difficult period financially in Canada and,
unfortunately, the proportion of Canadian assistance to
developing countries has dropped.
But in recent years we have increased our contributions and we
intend to continue to do so. In 2001-02, we intend to increase
our spending in this area by 7% to 10%.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
figures show the opposite. Under a Liberal administration
assistance to developing countries has gone down while the
economy has grown.
Since 1993 the GNP has increased by $334 billion while
international assistance has dropped by $500 million.
Will the Prime Minister admit that it is all the more important
to meet the UN development assistance standards when the economy
is doing well in the interests of international solidarity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just explained that this has been the government's policy
over the past two years. We are going to continue to increase
our assistance to developing countries.
I had asked that we do this when we were at the Japan summit
last July. In the 2001-02 estimates we are going to
increase our spending in this area by 7% over previous years.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the
concrete ways of assisting developing countries and at the
same time developing new international trade markets is to
support the suggestion made by President Fox to create a
development fund for the poor economies of the Americas.
Does the Canadian government plan to support the initiative
proposed by President Fox and to contribute to the creation of
this fund?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week at the summit of the Americas the minister
responsible for aid to developing countries announced a special
assistance program for the countries of the Americas.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
President Fox wants is to see participating countries put 1% of
their defence budget into the fund to assist development of the
poor economies of the Americas
Is the Government of Canada in agreement with such a
contribution to such a fund?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the figure given by President Fox does not, at this time, strike
me as one that will gain the acceptance of the countries making
contributions.
As I have just said, however, Canada has decided to increase its
contribution to developing countries and we have made a
special effort for the countries of the Americas.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
On April 5 last year the Minister for International Trade said
in committee that the government is not seeking an
investor state provision in the WTO or anywhere else. I
further clarified that by asking him about the FTAA.
Why did the Prime Minister allow the Minister for International
Trade to make that policy announcement in committee at that
time and then later on make the statements that the Prime
Minister has made to the effect that there is nothing wrong with
the very thing that the minister says they no longer seek?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our view has not changed. I will repeat
it once again in the House because I think it is very important.
We believe that NAFTA has served Canada's interests very well and
that chapter 11 works reasonably well.
Our view is that we want to clarify certain aspects of chapter
11 within the present mechanism of NAFTA, mechanisms that do
exist, in order to make sure that we respect the true intentions
of the drafters of NAFTA.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question was not about NAFTA, it was about future
agreements.
Perhaps the Minister for International Trade could tell us how
he reconciles his statement to me on April 5 last year that the
government would not be seeking this kind of mechanism in any new
agreement. How does he reconcile that with the fact that the
government now appears to be seeking just such a mechanism in the
FTAA and is defending the very idea that he rejected on that
day?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to one
aspect of chapter 11. It is the investor state provisions. We
as a government are trying to clarify that agreement right now
within the existing mechanisms of chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Obviously when a government negotiates any new agreement or
adopts any new formula it takes into light previous experiences.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's Office has appealed to the supreme court in an effort
to keep the content of its agendas secret.
The Federal Court of Appeal has said that the commissioner
should have access to the documents. The Prime Minister wants
to have this decision overturned. The law is clear: this is not
a matter of internal debate but rather a question of keeping
the Prime Minister's secrets.
What tracks is the Prime Minister trying to cover? Those that
relate to APEC? Those that relate to Shawinigate? What is he
trying to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are simply applying the law as it stands.
The commissioner and the government's lawyers are debating how
the law should be interpreted. We are making much more
information available to the information commissioner than did
the Conservative government the member belongs to.
[English]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is the third time in history the information commissioner
has been taken to the supreme court, all the time by that
government for trying to hide its affairs.
There are several ways to muzzle the watchdogs of parliament.
One way is to deny information to the information commissioner.
The other is to deny adequate funding to the auditor general and
to other agencies.
The auditor general's office needs at least $8 million more to
provide its indepth audits of government departments. The
government says no. Why is the Prime Minister trying to starve
the auditor general and keep her from doing the work that
parliament explicitly charged her and her office to do? What is
he trying to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991' and I do not think we were the government at
that time, it was the Conservative government that cut the budget
of the auditor general at that time. In the last four or five
years we have increased the budget of the auditor general.
* * *
1430
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to Canada's intelligence watchdog the
immigration department forged a key document related to a refugee
claim by a Kurdish man whom Ottawa suspects of having terrorist
links.
Instead of assuring Canadian people that the allegation was
being taken seriously, the minister's official just tried to joke
about it and hoped it would go away. Has the minister called in
the RCMP to investigate this very serious allegation?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to clarify for the
member opposite and the House that the document in question was
an invitation to attend a meeting.
Second, I would like to say to the member that I have met
several times with the individual, Mr. Rae, who is alleged to
have made these comments. He has never expressed a concern to me
personally. Those in the House and other places who know Mr. Rae
know that if he had a concern he would have mentioned it to me.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canadian people still need an answer. I
think the minister should take her job a little more seriously.
Instead of waiting for people to come and find out if they have
complaints, she should take the time to investigate these things.
Even the immigration spokesman admits the document in question
is a computer generated copy. In the interest of clearing the
air will the minister call in the RCMP to investigate this
serious matter?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member
opposite that the department in this age of computers stores
documents in computers. The document in question is a computer
stored document and Mr. Rae has not made a complaint. Nor has
anyone else, I would mention. No complaint has been received.
If he or anyone else had a complaint or a concern they would
have picked up the phone and called and I would have looked into
it, but no complaint was received. I would say again to the
member that documents are stored in computers all the time.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government has given us three different answers up to now
in response to questions on the lease between the Auberge
Grand-Mère and the golf club.
The Prime Minister first told us that the lease had been
terminated. The Deputy Prime Minister then told us that the
purchaser of the auberge had assumed the lease. Then he told us
there never had been a lease.
My question is very simple. Was the lease terminated, was it
taken over or did it never exist? When is the government
telling the truth in this matter?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. They were
not paying attention last week when the Deputy Prime Minister
stood and explained very slowly, and I will do that now, that
there were no legal or economic ties between the auberge and the
golf course following the sale to Mr. Duhaime in the spring of
1993. It is very simple. There were no ties.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. secretary of state should have listened to the
question in order to answer it properly.
That said, on Friday the Deputy Prime Minister invited us to
table the evidence we had on the lease whose existence he had
just denied. A few minutes later he denied consent to table
the lease.
What game is the government playing with its contradictory and
unacceptable behaviour in this matter?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the games that are being played
are by the opposition. It is quite simple. Let me quote what
the ethics counsellor said about the numbered company:
—sold its interest in the Auberge Grand-Mère to Mr. Yvon
Duhaime. This company...was paid in full by the summer of 1993.
Therefore...there were no continuing financial links between Mr.
Duhaime and the Prime Minister since mid-1993.
I ask the member to listen carefully. He continued:
Furthermore, there were no continuing financial links between the
auberge and the golf course.
I ask the member to listen.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are facing ever increasing gas prices. Today
it was reported that we could see gas prices as high as $1 per
litre.
Ten cents on every litre goes to federal excise tax. Will the
federal Minister of Finance cut this tax and help Canadians?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the increase
in the pump price of gasoline is attributable to the substantial
rise in the world price of crude oil. The price of crude has
more than doubled since 1998.
In fact if we look at the GST, the GST in terms of the increased
price at the pumps comprises only 1.5 cents per litre.
1435
Canadians asked us to cut taxes. Last October we introduced the
largest tax cut in Canadian history with $100 billion in income
tax cuts that is going through the economy now. It is about 2%
of GDP. Let us give it a chance to work.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government raised taxes without consulting
the provinces but last week the federal Minister of Finance said
he could not decrease taxes without the provinces.
The Liberal government continues to pass the buck, and we have
heard it today, in order to avoid cutting taxes. Is the Minister
of Finance prepared to do the right thing and cut federal gas
taxes?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last fall the government
introduced the home energy rebate to help Canadians with the
costs of energy that were increasing.
The opposition party asked us to cut the excise tax. We want to
do anything we can for Canadians, but we want to make sure it
benefits Canadians and not oil producers.
A cent and a half in the excise tax at the pump could change in
an afternoon by a similar amount. We have no assurance that
decrease would go to Canadians, which is where we want the
benefit to go.
* * *
[Translation]
CIGARETTE SMUGGLING
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have learned that smuggling has apparently resumed on aboriginal
reserves following the recent hikes in tobacco taxes. This is a
repeat of the 1994 situation.
My question is for the solicitor general. Will the government
guarantee us that it will show leadership this time so that we
do not have to go through the hell we went through in 1994 with
cigarette smuggling?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know there is a direct
correlation between smuggling and the kind of activity being
talked about. We also know we have to put in place and are
putting in place the kind of monitoring that is necessary.
The Minister of Finance met with his counterparts and is doing
precisely that. We will be monitoring it very closely in the
best interests of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the summit of the Americas co-operation between the RCMP,
the SQ, and municipal and aboriginal police forces resulted in
full monitoring of reserve territory and prevented the entry
into the country of undesirable elements.
Will the solicitor general guarantee us the same co-operation
between the RCMP and police forces in Quebec as well as the
same effectiveness in the fight against cigarette smuggling?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I am pleased to see that
opposition members recognize the excellent work done by all
police forces as well as by customs officers during the summit
of the Americas. I wish to congratulate all these
professionals.
Obviously the Minister of Finance has taken recent action in
connection with tobacco smuggling. There will be a careful
follow-up by all police forces, as well as by customs, in order
to ensure that we can eliminate smuggling.
I wish to point out that the spirit of co-operation that
characterized the summit of the Americas still reigns with
respect to the fight against smuggling.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the Prime Minister said
in Atlantic Canada that we would negotiate on softwood lumber
exports. This was news to everyone except the Prime Minister.
Then on Friday the minister took credit for educating U.S. lumber
consumer groups. This was also news.
Two long years before the minister adopted free trade in lumber,
U.S. lumber consumer groups were lobbying for free trade. Why
does the government not have a consistent Canadian position?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a very consistent Canadian
position. We will fight the allegations that the U.S. producers
have put to the commerce department.
We will demonstrate that we might do things differently in
Canada but that our different way of doing things does not equate
to subsidies. It does not equate in Atlantic Canada, British
Columbia, Quebec, Alberta or Ontario. We will fight and
demonstrate that very clearly in Washington.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one month ago the federal government
implemented the monitoring of U.S. bound lumber when the five
year softwood lumber agreement expired.
The U.S. lumber lobby threatened that a wall of wood from Canada
would happen in April.
1440
Market watchers now say that April shipments are depressed. It
is too important for the national interest to keep these export
figures in the dark. When will the minister make these numbers
public?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have monitored these numbers very
closely through the month of April. They do not seem to register
important changes, but at this stage they are preliminary numbers
and we will not at this moment discuss them in public.
As the House knows, it is very important that our industry keeps
its usual trade with the United States. We have been very clear
that it would be detrimental to our industry's position if we had
gone very high in importation.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December of last year the Minister of the
Environment announced the ozone annex to the Canada-United States
air quality agreement. As well in February he announced $120
million in new funding to help meet the commitments in the annex.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment update the House today on the status of this
initiative?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of
the Environment released the Government of Canada's interim plan
for action on particulate matter and ozone, two key elements in
smog. The plan includes the next steps for cleaner vehicles,
engines and fuels, as well as improvement and expansion in both
the monitoring and reporting systems.
The interim plan meets the commitment our government made to
Canadians to share our plans with them. The minister will
continue to explore new solutions to secure a clean and healthy
environment for Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the government took power
back in 1993 the morale of the men and women associated with the
military has sunk to an all time low. With rusting equipment,
minimal pay increases and now increased housing allowances which
are taking away those pay increases, no wonder morale is so
low in our military.
With regard to the Sea King helicopters, it now appears that
there will be further delays in their replacement. My question
for the Minister of National Defence is quite simple. When will
those Sea Kings be replaced? What date?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that NDP members are now
advocating increased spending for the military, but I welcome
their conversion.
In terms of the maritime helicopter project, it is our priority
procurement project. We set the statement of requirement, which
is to get the best helicopter that meets the needs of our
Canadian forces and at the best possible price for Canadians.
We are into the procurement process now. Meanwhile, while that
is ongoing, we are upgrading our existing Sea
Kings. We are putting some $50 million into them because we want
to make absolutely sure that they are safe for our personnel to
fly.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, therein lies the question. The
government cancelled the project in 1993. Now the procurement
process is so politically interfered with by the government that
nobody knows. The minister cannot even answer when those Sea
Kings will be replaced.
The minister stood in the House time and time again and said
that the new helicopters would be replaced and flying in the year
2005. Public works has said one thing and now the minister is
saying something completely different.
For the men and women who fly the Sea Kings, who maintain the
Sea Kings and who do a great job for Canada, I ask him once
again: When will those helicopters be replaced?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is another departure for NDP members. They
are now supporting the Mulroney government, saying we should not
have cancelled the helicopter deal.
Cancelling that helicopter deal is in fact saving taxpayers over
$1 billion because we will now get a helicopter that will better
meet our needs.
We have not changed any of the timeframes. I do not know why he
raises that matter. We are working as quickly as we possibly can
to make sure the forces get the helicopter they need to do their
job.
* * *
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
homelessness is a growing problem in Canada. The mission
statement of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is committed
to housing quality, affordability and choice for Canadians. It
has helped finance One Post Road, Toronto's most exclusive
condominium residence, where individual units range from $1.3
million to $2.6 million.
1445
My question is for the minister of public works. Why is Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation ensuring financing to build
Canada's equivalent to Buckingham Palace when so many Canadians
are still in need of affordable housing?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
assure the member that the government is committed to investing
in housing and to addressing the important problems that the
member has raised.
We indicated in the Speech from the Throne that we were moving
forward with plans to stimulate the creation of more affordable
rental housing. A plan will be announced shortly.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
whatever the government promises its actions take care of the
rich.
How many homeless could be looked after with $2.5 million, the
price of one of those government subsidized units? When will the
government seriously address the housing requirements of
Canadians who are in need of it?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member knows, the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services met with his provincial counterparts last fall. They
agreed on this priority for all Canadians.
In the meantime, officials of public works and government
services and Canada mortgage and housing continue to work with
provincial counterparts to ensure that we have a deliverable
solution.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how could our Canadian forces be considered combat
ready when they are not even peacetime ready?
Some 12 of 41 Sea Kings have crashed. Seven crew members have
been killed. There have been equipment failures. There are 30
hours of maintenance for every hour of air time. Downed crew
were forced to use a personal cellphone to call for help. This
is not only demoralizing our forces but it is an international
embarrassment.
Will it take a further loss of life to move the government to
finally deliver the equipment that our forces desperately need?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the question is not entirely right.
The member is exaggerating substantially many of the situations.
I clearly indicated we intend to provide the kind of equipment
our Canadian forces need and to do it as quickly as we can. We
will make sure that we keep our Sea Kings safe to fly.
I note that what is considered to be the most up to date armed
forces in the world, those in the United States, also fly Sea
Kings of the same vintage as we do.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign of 1993 the Prime
Minister stated zero helicopters for the Canadian Armed Forces.
That was eight years ago. The need to replace the helicopters
was obvious then.
Now they are known as the ancient Sea Kings, the geriatric Sea
Kings, the venerable Sea Kings, but they have also been called
flying coffins. When could the Canadian Armed Forces expect to
receive delivery of its first helicopters? I ask the minister to
give us a date.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think United States forces would be interested to
know that it is flying these kinds of bad machines too. I am
sure it would say the same thing as we do.
We will not allow them to fly unless they are safe to fly. We
are providing for the upgrades that they need so that they are
safe to fly. There is a very rigorous inspection done. Safety
standards are maintained to the ultimate level to make sure that
our people are safe to fly in them.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a UN group responsible for adopting world standards
on food items is meeting this week in Ottawa to discuss the
labelling of food that contains GMOs.
Since the Rio meeting in February, the United States has
reconsidered their position which was pro-labelling at the time,
and delegates in Ottawa are concerned that Canada will follow
suit.
Could the minister inform the House of his government's
intentions?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the House a number of
times, the Canadian General Standards Board, the Canadian Council
of Grocery Distributors, the provinces and Canadian consumers,
over 60 groups, have been meeting and will be coming forward in
the not too distant future with a recommendation to the Canadian
government as far as the labelling of foods affected by genetic
modification.
1450
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we want the minister to provide guarantees to this
House that food containing GMOs will really be labelled
accordingly because it would not be the first time that the
government would make a flip-flop to follow the lead of the
United States.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the government does all the time, we
are consulting with everyone in the industry, all levels of
government and consumers in order to have a system of labelling
that is meaningful, credible and enforceable.
In order to be effective we must be able to ensure all those
things. We look forward to the recommendations of that group as
we have to the recommendations and comments of the royal society
that has already reported and the work being done by the Canadian
Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
* * *
ELECTIONS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today's Ottawa Citizen
informs us that the Prime Minister's decision to call an early
election last year right in the middle of a scheduled team Canada
trip to China cost Canadian taxpayers $4.1 million in
cancellation fees.
In addition to needlessly wasting taxpayer money, a clear
message was sent both to China and to Canada's business community
that a campaign to keep the Liberals in power on a campaign about
nothing was more important than exports to China.
Both of Canada's NAFTA partners have fixed election dates and
avoid these types of problems. Why will the Liberals not
implement the same policy here?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was challenged. The Leader of the Opposition dared me
to call an election. I listened to him but it was a disaster for
them. They cannot complain. If he had shut up, he might be in a
better position today.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, B.C. Liberal
leader Gordon Campbell promised that if he were elected premier
in B.C.'s election, the next election in B.C. would be on May 17,
2005. Knowing when the election will be allows enhanced
accountability and avoids wasting millions of dollars like the
government chose to do.
Why is the idea of fixed election dates so difficult for the
Prime Minister to understand when his B.C. Liberal colleagues get
it perfectly well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are operating under British tradition. British
tradition calls for an election within five years. It is the
call of the prime minister.
The Prime Minister was in his seat and was challenged by the
Leader of the Opposition. I love a fight and could not resist.
* * *
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
of the real challenges of people with disabilities is that the
programs affecting them cross all departments and virtually all
three levels of government.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us what
the Government of Canada is doing to help the four million
Canadians with disabilities access the support and services they
need?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud
to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Human Resources
Development launched a new national website initiative last week.
Disability WebLinks marks the first time that persons with
disabilities across Canada have a dedicated Internet site that
will provide quick access to information on government related
disability programs and services.
This successful federal-provincial-territorial initiative is
important for ensuring that government and other information
providers meet the needs of people with disabilities.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Natural Resources. Recently Atomic Energy of Canada was forced
to lay off workers at its Chalk River site. These are people
with young families. Prospects for local employment are not
great.
When could we expect to hear the announcement that the Canadian
neutron facility will be funded at Chalk River?
1455
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out that while members of the opposition in the
last parliament were critical of all sorts of government
spending, it was a member of the government, Mr. Hec Clouthier,
who fought day in and day out to advance the cause of the CNF in
Chalk River. He continues to do so today.
This is a big science decision. It involves many hundreds of
millions of dollars. The government is giving it very careful
consideration and will announce its decision at the earliest
possible moment.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberal government has
cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada's centre of
scientific excellence, the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. The
CAT scan and the MRI technologies were developed at this world
class facility.
When will the government make good on its election promise and
cut a cheque for the Canadian neutron facility to be built at
Chalk River?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite the hon. member to read the budget proposals of
the Alliance Party or the Reform Party before she arrived here.
She will discover that those proposals would have gutted the
Department of Natural Resources, gutted AECL and destroyed any
possibility of that kind of research for the future.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week we learned that starlink corn had been found in pasta
distributed on the Canadian food market. In addition, last
Friday Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc. issued a recall notice on a
batch of starlink-contaminated seed corn sold on the Quebec and
Ontario markets.
Contrary to what he said on March 16 about the reliability of
his inspection system, will the minister finally admit once and
for all that his food inspection system is not perfect? Could
he also tell us what he intends to do to improve the situation?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be very proud of our food
inspection system. It is one of the best, if not the best, in
the world.
We are constantly looking however at improving that. We work
with the industry. We work with Health Canada and all others
involved in the food inspection system to ensure that it is as
safe as it can possibly be.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges Canada will be facing
in the 21st century will be to ensure the economic development
of all its regions. Our young people are the future of our
regions.
What action does the minister responsible for the Economic
Development Agency of Canada plan to take to stem the exodus
of our young people from the regions?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr.Speaker, this is indeed a very important
question concerning regional development, particularly development
of the resource regions, which are of enormous concern to us.
The issue of retaining our young people in the regions is also of
concern to us in order for them to be there to develop businesses.
Since 1997 moreover we have had a specific program, a youth
fund, in conjunction with the community development societies.
Today we have 1,516 entrepreneurs running a total of 1,244
businesses in the regions.
Over 4,500 jobs have thus been created or maintained. Since
November 1997 in excess of $15 million has been invested in
this fund to maintain and develop all of our regions.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe has the fastest collapsing
economy in the world and human rights abuses are rampant, all
because Robert Mugabe is trying to stay in power.
My question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs is simple. Will
he bring this issue up with the security council? Will he
mobilize an international response to put pressure on the
Zimbabwe government to stop these human rights abuses and let
democracy rule?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada is no longer on the
security council. However the issue with respect to Zimbabwe did
arise at the most recent meeting of the Commonwealth ministers
action group. It was proposed at that time by CMAG that a
delegation of ministers go to Zimbabwe in order to meet with the
government and discuss the situation there.
The hon. member will know that the government of Zimbabwe
rejected the request for the CMAG delegation to attend there. I
am sure this will be a matter of concern to the Commonwealth
heads of government when they meet later this year in Australia.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week representatives of the western and Maritime provinces
appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice to testify
with respect to Bill C-7.
All those wanting changes, according to the minister, have said
the bill is complex, too costly, increases delays, fails to meet
the provinces' expectations and more.
Since her own allies condemn her bill—with support from
Quebec—will the minister listen to reason, withdraw Bill C-7 and,
if her department ever has money it does not know what to do
with, it should give it to the provinces so they can apply the
Young Offenders Act as Quebec has done for 30 years?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the
short answer to his question is no. We have no intention of
withdrawing Bill C-7 because in fact it commands the support of a
great many Canadians who want to see new youth justice legislation
and youth justice legislation premised upon important principles,
such as prevention, accountability and rehabilitation.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister is right when he says that the NDP joined with the
Liberals in 1993 in opposing the EH-101 helicopter contract.
What we did not know was that seven years later we would still be
talking about what helicopters the Canadian Armed Forces will be
getting.
Is the minister not just a tad embarrassed that seven years
after opposing that contract the Canadian Armed Forces is still
waiting for the Liberals to make up their minds on what kind
of helicopters it will get?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have said we are proceeding with this procurement
process as our number one priority in terms of purchase.
We have already purchased new helicopters for search and rescue.
Delivery will begin this year. We have purchased numerous other
pieces of equipment: new LAV III and coyote vehicles for the
army and new submarines for the navy. We have numerous amounts
of new equipment.
We are working just as quickly as we can because we want to make
sure that the Canadian forces have the tools and equipment they
need to do their job and do it safely.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: Order, please. I wish to draw the attention
of members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency
Mr. Rafic Al-Hariri, the Prime Minister of the Republic of
Lebanon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
has once again denied the existence of a business link between
the Grand-Mère golf club and the Auberge Grand-Mère, with the
unanimous consent of the House I wish to table, at the specific
request of the Deputy Prime Minister, the lease that existed
between the Auberge Grand-Mère and the Grand-Mère golf club.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes have
the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
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, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
FEDERAL LAW-CIVIL LAW HARMONIZATION ACT, NO. 1
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill S-4, a first act to harmonize federal law with the civil law
of the province of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to
ensure that each language version takes into account the common
law and the civil law, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the petition I wish to present has 25
pages of signatures from Canadian across Saskatchewan. I note there are
some from Big Beaver and some from Big River, which take in the
far south and the far north.
The petition contains the signatures of farmers and ranchers who
are pleading with the government to come through with a poison
that can be used to kill Richardson ground squirrels or gophers.
These squirrels have cost farmers and ranchers millions of
dollars.
The government has ignored previous petitions. Let us hope it
will finally listen to the requests of these farmers and
ranchers.
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by many of
my constituents and people from neighbouring constituencies who
call upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the
cosmetic use of chemical pesticides.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is from the citizens in and around St. Albert
and Edmonton who call upon Canada to ratify all the environmental
protocol addenda to the international Antarctic treaty.
FALUN GONG
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, is again from people in and around
my riding who call on the government to urge the People's
Republic of China to release all arrested Falun Gong and Falun
Dafa practitioners and to lift the ban on Falun Gong people.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from citizens in the Peterborough area who would
like to see VIA Rail service resume between Toronto and
Peterborough. They point to the environmental advantages of
this.
The petitioners say that VIA Rail would be a sustainable method
of transportation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
They also say that it would reduce the cost to society of
accidents and delays on Ontario's highways. They say that such a
service would strengthen the economy of Peterborough as a
commuter centre, a tourist centre and an educational destination.
They call upon parliament to recommence VIA Rail service between
Peterborough and Toronto.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from citizens of the Peterborough area in
support of research toward a bioartificial kidney, which they
see as ultimately replacing kidney transplants and dialysis as a
means of treating end stage kidney disease.
They call upon parliament to work toward and support
bioartificial kidney research.
The last petition also relates to kidney research. The
petitioners point out that kidney disease is an enormous and
growing problem. They call upon parliament to encourage the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include
kidney research as one of the institutes in its system to be
named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
CANADA POST
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the petition I wish to present calls upon parliament to repeal
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. The
repeal, if it occurred, would enable rural mail couriers to
organize and bargain collectively with the government.
1510
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Richard Frankowski was deported
after living in Canada for more than 36 years. His friends and
supporters feel that there has been an injustice.
They call upon the Government of Canada to live up to the
universal declaration of human rights and the international pact
of civil and political rights and allow Mr. Frankowski to return
to Canada.
HEALTH
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to enter into the
records of the House of Commons a petition from my constituents
concerning the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the
United Kingdom.
The petitioners are asking that Canada restrict travel to the
United Kingdom except for business or diplomatic purposes.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CHARITIES REGISTRATION (SECURITY INFORMATION) ACT
(Bill C-16. On the Order: Government Orders)
March 15, 2001—The Solicitor General of Canada—Second reading
and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights of Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of
charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax
Act.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Solicitor General of Canada):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities
and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act, be
referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to
Bill C-16 which is an act designed to allow the government to
use and protect classified security, criminal intelligence and
information in denying or revoking the charitable status of an
organization with terrorist affiliations.
Bill C-16 balances the government's need to protect classified
information against the basic requirement to ensure fairness and
transparency in assessing the status of registered charities or
applicants for charitable status.
The objective is to prevent the abuse of the charity
registration system now and in the future by those few
organizations that would provide support to terrorism.
I would like to share with members a quick overview of the
pressing challenges we as a government face, and indeed all
Canadians, that makes this bill so essential in contributing to
Canada's effort to combat terrorism and just as important to
preserve the integrity of Canada's registered charities system,
one of the country's greatest social strengths.
I would also like to briefly discuss the process by which Bill
C-16 was developed, how it will work, its importance and benefit
to Canadian society and public safety and how it integrates with
broader efforts devoted to international security.
Bill C-16 responds directly to the 1999 report of the special
Senate committee on security and intelligence which observed that
groups with terrorist affiliations conduct fundraising activities
in Canada often using benevolent or philanthropic organizations
as fronts.
One of the report's key recommendations called for the Income
Tax Act to be amended to allow Revenue Canada, as it was called
then, to deny charitable registration to any group on the basis
of a certificate from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
stating that the group constitutes a threat to the security of
Canada.
We have also been listening to Canadians. We know that they
look to the federal government in many ways, and in this way as
well, to take a leadership role in remaining vigilant and ready
to act to prevent terrorist activities from taking place in
Canada.
We also know that Canadians want us to take any action that is
appropriate and necessary to protect basic and core Canadian
values. The legislation would help us address concerns expressed
over the past few years by various ethnic groups, by the
voluntary sector and by the Canadian public in general. The
integrity and essential contributions of charitable organizations
must be protected and maintained.
Canadians need to be assured that if they are approached to
support a charitable organization, they can be confident that it
is a bona fide organization.
1515
The legislation allows the government to respond to threats to
the public safety and national security of Canada and to other
states stemming from front groups using charitable status to
cloak in the blanket of legitimacy their activities in support of
terrorism. We all know that terrorism is a global problem that
ignores borders. That is why Canada is and must be committed to
working globally to fight it. For this reason, Canada works in a
wide range of international fora to encourage both the collective
condemnation of terrorism and effective, practical action against
it.
Over the last number of years a series of G-8 communiques and
declarations and United Nations conventions and resolutions have
addressed the issue of terrorism and more specifically the
financing of terrorism. These international statements and
agreements depend on action by Canada and other partner countries
to give them life.
Starting in 1995 with the Ottawa ministerial declaration on
countering terrorism, G-8 countries agreed to: share
intelligence and technical knowledge; share information on
terrorist organizations and terrorist incidents; share expertise
on the protection of public buildings; and improve procedures for
tracing and tracking suspected terrorists. At the same time they
agreed to pursue measures aimed at depriving terrorists of their
sources of funding.
In February of last year Canada was one of the first countries,
and we should be proud of this, to sign the international
convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
Canada has been a vigorous advocate in this area.
Terrorism is not new to the modern world. What is new is the
magnitude of the terrorist activities undertaken by groups to
further their goals through indiscriminate violence and
destruction. The tools of terrorism cost money. Many terrorist
organizations have devised unscrupulous methods of finding the
money they need. This bill will put a stop to one of those
methods, that being the use of charitable tax receipts to help
support the use of violence in pursuit of a political objective.
Canadians want a charity system that can be trusted and is not
open to abuse. They want a system and legislation that strikes a
balance between the need for transparency and the need to deal
firmly and effectively with those who would seek to abuse the
system.
The bill therefore carries a dual mandate, closing the back door
through which organizations supporting terrorist groups are
subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, while at the same time ensuring
that the standards of procedural fairness enshrined in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are met.
There is currently a judicial process in place to review
applications for charitable status or to revoke charitable status
for those organizations that do not meet the requirements of the
Income Tax Act. The classified information is not used in the
current process since disclosure of such information would damage
national security. A special legislative regime is needed to
allow this information to be used, and that is precisely what the
bill provides.
The process outlined in this bill is based on the immigration
act and has withstood scrutiny by the courts. A certificate
based on security and criminal intelligence information is issued
by the Minister of National Revenue and the Solicitor General of
Canada. Both ministers review the information separately and
independently. The certificate is then reviewed by a judge of
the Federal Court of Canada who in turn determines if the
certificate issued by the ministers is reasonable or should be
quashed. Sensitive intelligence information is reviewed by the
judge and a summary of that information is provided to the
applicant for charitable status or the registered charity, as the
case may be.
The organization is entitled to legal counsel and to a hearing
at which evidence may be presented. It is only after the
certificate has been confirmed by a judge that the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency would deny or revoke charitable status.
The certificate is valid for a period of three years. However
it can be cancelled within that three year period if the
organization presents new information which supports a conclusion
that its resources are no longer being used to support terrorism.
The Speech From the Throne confirmed the government's intentions
and commitment to further provide the necessary tools to fight
terrorism.
The bill is one of the tools the Government of Canada requires to
wage the battle effectively. Canada is a country built on
diversity. Our strength is based on diversity. In order for
Canada to continue to grow and flourish it is important that our
diverse nature be recognized and accepted.
1520
The bill reinforces a clear message of the government that the
use of violence to perpetuate conflicts is inconsistent with the
values of a tolerant multicultural society which is Canada.
Some will say the bill does not go far enough. They will say we
need to do more to combat terrorist fundraising in Canada. Let
me say on behalf of the government that clearly there we agree.
That is why Canada was one of the first countries to sign the UN
convention last year. Our commitment is clear. We will fulfill
our international obligations and will do so in accordance with
Canadian values.
The bill is an important and necessary step. That is why we are
here to debate it today. This small but necessary step in our
fight against terrorism and the support of terrorism through
fundraising is very important.
I hope we can look forward to the support of all parties on this
very important piece of legislation. After all it is what Canada
is all about.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite virtually wrote a part of my
speech. He pre-empted some of the comments I was going to make.
When talking about funding terrorist organizations, it is very
interesting that the Liberal government says that the bill is a
small but necessary step. As for terrorism in any country, it
should not be dealt with by a small and necessary step.
The bill is supposed to provide a mechanism for denying
registration as charities under the Income Tax Act to
organizations that raise funds for terrorists.
One would think that with the large bureaucracy and with all the
members of parliament in the House of Commons, the government
would come up with a more efficient way to fight terrorism than
merely dealing with a comprehensive approach, through a federal
court judge, of denying registration as a charity.
What will the people in Canada think of that kind of step where
the government says that, yes, we have a severe problem with
terrorists being funded from funds raised in Canada and what we
will do is deny registration as a charity if it goes through a
whole bunch of processes?
Surely Canadians are expecting more than this from a government.
What more could the government do? I did not hear anything about
the Immigration Act. There was casual mention of it. What about
application of the Immigration Act to many people who are
involved in terrorism in this country? If an organization is
suspected of dealing with terrorist activities, then surely the
people within that organization are suspect. What proposal is
being made for deportation of non-citizens, if that is the case,
within the Immigration Act?
What proposal is made under the criminal code for those citizens
within Canada who are involved in terrorism? What proposal is
being made through the criminal code for wire tapping? Right now
it takes about 1,500 pages to fill out the application and
approval for a wire tap when approximately eight years ago it
took about five pages.
1525
What I am saying is that this is a feeble attempt, at the very
best, to deal with terrorism in our country.
The member opposite said that if a group constituted a threat to
the security of Canada, then the government would take a lot of
action. It would file through a federal court judge to make sure
that an association, with which an individual or individuals were
involved, could have its certificate removed as a registered
charity. It is hard to believe that a government could come up
with this kind of approach.
There are things that can be done about terrorism such as
simplifying the procedures for obtaining wiretaps and providing
more resources for the RCMP, CSIS and for organizations involved
in the prevention and apprehension of those involved in terrorism
and organized crime. We should define what a terrorist group
constitutes, just as we were supposed to define what an organized
crime gang in law was and failed to do so.
It is hard to get enthusiastic with the registration of a
charity and the refusal or removal of that when we are dealing
with such a large issue as organized crime or terrorism. Where I
come from it is hard to believe that the triads, who possibly
are involved in terrorism, would be overly concerned about losing
their registration as a charitable organization. Quite frankly
they deal in tax free dollars. It is called revenue from drug
sales, prostitution, embezzlement, money laundering, all illegal
activities. I hardly think they would be concerned with their
charitable organization certification being removed.
I have been involved in looking at the issues in criminal
justice for my entire time in the House of Commons. I asked time
and time again for policies and legislation to be tabled in the
House which were meaningful, which would do something
constructive, which would help reduce the importation and the
traffic of drugs and which would stop the problems with sexual
exploitation of children and others.
What I get back in return are solutions like this. It is hard
to believe that people watching television today and listening to
this discussion will have a lot of confidence in the Government
of Canada when it says that it will fix this terrible problem of
terrorism, that it may remove charitable organization
certification and that it may not allow them to get tax free
status for the money they send to other countries.
Can they honestly believe that members of parliament are
actually debating this bill? Would they not prefer to hear that
in cases of organized crime and terrorism we will deal with it in
a different manner? They just have to listen to the speeches
today and ask themselves if this will deal with the problems
related to terrorism in Canada?
1530
Would the proposal adequately stop or hinder terrorism or in
any way put somebody in jail for being involved in terrorism? No,
it would not. It says people would not get tax free dollars by
way of a tax receipt, a tax receipt for which they did not pay
tax for in the first place.
I not only question the bill but I question the sincerity of the
government. I question the ability of the government to
comprehend the serious nature of the problem that we are dealing
with. If people watching television today think I am wrong, they
should listen to the speeches from the other side. This is the
effective action that the government will take on terrorism.
I ask everybody watching to write letters to the House of
Commons, to the solicitor general, to me as the solicitor general
critic and to state whether or not they believe that the way to
fight terrorism is, in the words of the Liberals, to fight what
constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. Or, is it what I
described? Is it denying the registration of charities under the
Income Tax Act?
I rest my case. This is not only ineffective but it shows a
lack of comprehension of what the real problems are with
organized crime and terrorism in Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill respecting the registration of charities and security
information and to amend the Income Tax Act seeks to counter
activities in support of terrorism as provided under the
convention on the financing of terrorism which was approved by
the United Nations.
Through its bill, the government wants to counter terrorism by
preventing supporters of terrorism from engaging in fundraising
or the transfer of money and materiel abroad.
The bill seeks to deny support to terrorist activities and to
protect the integrity of the charity registration process
through the fair and transparent use, to the extent that it is
possible, of confidential information that could jeopardize
national and human security.
Concretely, this bill seeks to prevent organizations that are
related to terrorist groups from obtaining the status of
charities. This should help reduce the funding of terrorist
activities. The legislation would, among other things,
facilitate the use of confidential information to determine the
eligibility for registration as a charity or to revoke the
registration of a registered charity.
It is interesting to note that the minister does not define what
he means by "terrorism" even though the purpose of the bill is
precisely to counter the funding of organizations that engage in
such activities. Such an omission can of course lead to a broad
or liberal interpretation of the term. This means that in a
highly politicized context there is always a potential risk of
abuse.
In that perspective, we have no guarantee that the criteria used
for interpretation purposes will allow us to distinguish between
the funding of legitimate activities, such as political protest,
and that of violent activities. The word "terrorism" must be
thoroughly defined.
As for the judicial review of the certificate, while the
procedure is relatively simple, it does raise some concerns.
First, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will inform
the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue that
it has come to the conclusion that an organization is
fundraising to finance terrorist activities.
On the basis of that notice the ministers can then start
procedures to prevent that organization from getting the status
of charity or to revoke its registration.
1535
Given that this process is set in motion by an administrative
notice to the political arm, which then issues a certificate, we
feel that this approach is flawed by the absence of any
possibility of judicial control.
As a result, the impossibility of filing an appeal places any
organization faced with such a procedure at the mercy of errors
or political and judicial administrative abuses which might
arise from excessive alarmism. Knowing that CSIS practices are
not above reproach, we are concerned.
In addition, there is the absence of control mentioned earlier.
What reasons could the organization give for purposes of control
or appeal, when it is not entitled to know the information
giving rise to the certificate?
But there is no objection to giving it information which does
not pose a threat to national security. In other words, it will
be given information which is not really relevant because the
denial or revocation of charitable status will be based on
information which could pose a threat to national security.
Finally, the only procedural guarantee the organization is
allowed is the audi alteram partem rule. But one might wonder
just how useful that is since the organization will not have
access to the facts and the reasons for the certificate being
issued.
The section on evidence raises equally important concerns.
First, under a procedure provided for in the bill a judge will
be able to allow evidence regardless of its admissibility.
By disregarding specific rules of evidence the government is
ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. The
bill would institute an inquisitional procedure which is
unacceptable in a free and democratic society.
As we have only ten or so
minutes each, I will skip over a few of my remarks
and go to the heart of the issue.
We wonder how anyone could possibly think an accused would have
the impression that justice had been done. For that to be the
case, there would at least have to be the appearance of justice.
The whole thing is hard to verify, when the evidence is revealed
in camera, in the absence of the principal parties. It can be
said therefore that in the case before us the procedure stands
out because of its almost total lack of transparency.
The organization mentioned in a certificate will be able to
apply for a review by showing that a material change has
occurred in circumstances since the determination. This is an
interesting possibility since the organization is permitted to
mend its ways.
However, if we consider the problems raised previously it seems
to me uncertain that an organization can prove this. In order
to prove reform, a party must know the allegations against it.
Once the ministers have given their decision, the organization
will have all the time in the world to apply to the federal
court to review the decision. Once again this possibility
appears to accord certain procedural guarantees.
Unfortunately, this is not entirely the case. In fact, the
ministers do not seem to have to give reasons for the decision
that is to be reviewed. In addition, the federal court will
review the decision only if it was given under subclause
10(5)(b) of the bill, that is, if the circumstances have
changed but the certificate continues to have effect.
This implies therefore that when the ministers conclude that the
situation has not changed materially, the federal court does not
have real review power. In such a case it can only quash the
decision on the grounds that the circumstances have materially
changed and return the file to the ministers for another
determination.
In this way, there is no real control because the file goes
back to those who made the original determination.
The aim of this bill is most worthy, but the means to achieving
it are dubious. At the moment, as it is written it snags on
too many principles of justice to be passed in its present form.
The committee will have to improve it significantly, otherwise,
it would set a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of
procedural guarantees.
1540
Some will say that charities may be a disguise for terrorist
organizations. Even if they are right, I do not believe the
right thing is being targeted. It is somewhat absurd to think
that the supporters of terrorist organizations want to take
advantage of tax credits.
One may even wonder to what extent this bill is not a roundabout
way of enabling the minister to control taxation. It must be
kept in mind that terrorism is not financed exclusively through
charitable organizations. Although the government is attempting
to show that it is taking concrete actions against terrorism,
with this bill it is opting for facility rather than really
attacking the source of the problem.
In actual fact, all it is doing is making sure that tax receipts
cannot be issued for financing terrorist activities.
I agree is a very real phenomenon and we must help fight it.
On the other hand, do we need to recreate psychoses such as
there were in the era of fear of the communist threat, or worse
still, go back to the era of the Inquisition and its search for
heretics? I think not.
I believe it would be far more effective for the criminal code
to properly address the financing of criminal activities for
this would focus directly on those involved in such acts.
In short, to conclude, Bill C-16 could be summarized as follows:
suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of
control.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to the referral of
Bill C-16 to committee. It is a procedure that is not used all
that often.
Bill C-16 is a bill which is well suited to this kind of
examination in committee before second reading so that no parties
in the House, and particularly the government, find themselves
committed to any particular position on the bill. It leaves the
way open for members on the committee to explore all the various
concerns that a great many people have expressed about the bill.
Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General, it seemed to me that he made a speech that was more
appropriate for a traditional second reading debate in which he
vigorously defended the bill and the government's position on the
bill. That is not what should be happening now. The bill is
going to committee before second reading presumably because the
government has some sense that there are things which need to be
looked at before any final commitment on the part of the
government is made to the passage of the bill.
There would be an opportunity for people to come forward, as
they have been doing through correspondence to various members of
parliament, particularly those associated with this file, and
express their concerns on the record before the committee.
Another bill which may be suited to this kind of process would
be a bill that the government could bring forward having to do
with workplace safety and changes to the criminal code with
respect to the charging of companies or individuals of companies
responsible for the death of workers on the job through corporate
negligence.
I am referring to a bill that existed in the last parliament
that was sometimes called the Westray bill. Our party was pushing
that bill in the last parliament, particularly our leader, the
hon. member for Halifax. We were urging the government to act on
that particular issue.
1545
It would seem to me if the Minister of Justice, as she has said
to me, wants to hear from more Canadians, if she is not prepared
to act on the Westray file at this moment, that bringing forward
a piece of legislation and referring it to committee before
second reading so that more people could be heard on that
particular subject would be a good idea.
I make no apologies for using the opportunity when we are
employing that process with respect to Bill C-16 to say that
there are other issues which are equally important and which I
think the government should act on by using this particular
process. One of them could certainly be acting on the Westray
file, that is to say, changing the criminal code in such a way
that the kind of activity that led to that particular tragedy
would be the kind of activity that could be gone after much more
efficiently than it can be gone after now.
With respect to Bill C-16, there is no need to speak at great
length about the bill. We want to see it go to committee. I
would say that the government should be open, as I think I
already know it is, as to whether or not it finally should go to
the justice and human rights committee because the justice and
human rights committee is a very busy committee. We have Bill
C-7, the youth criminal justice act, Bill C-15, the omnibus
amendments to the criminal code and the organized crime bill,
and there will be more. I would hope the government would
consider whether or not at some point, perhaps in discussion with
House leaders, if we could agree to send this bill for this kind
of an examination to some other committee, a committee that can
do it sooner. It is not because we do not want to do it in the
justice committee, but perhaps we could agree to send it to some
other committee whose calendar of work would permit it to do this
earlier.
Surely all Canadians would agree that if this is a problem that
needs to be addressed then it should be addressed sooner rather
than later. I put it on the record that we should look at
perhaps where we might refer this bill for this kind of study. We
could always change it by unanimous consent.
A number of groups have already expressed concern about the bill,
but I will say briefly that we in the NDP support the principle of
the bill, which is that taxpayers should not be funding,
surreptitiously or innocently by virtue of deception any
particular organization or terrorism activity either here or in any
other country.
If my understanding of the bill is correct, I think what the
government has in mind here is terrorism abroad. When I listened
to the Alliance spokesperson complain that the bill does not
fight terrorism in the many ways that he thinks it should, he may
be right that there are other things the government could be
doing to fight terrorism, but the bill is directed toward
amendments that need to be made to the charities act.
In fairness to the government, we could say that it should be
doing this, that and the other thing, and that all may be true,
but the bill itself, it seems to me, zeros in on a particular
problem and that is, how can we prevent the Canadian taxpayer
from subsidizing terrorism through the charities act? How can we
do that in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate
activities of a great many charities which may in fact be
configured in relationship, not necessarily to another country or
to a cause in another country, but configured culturally or
ethnically in a way that leaves them open to that suspicion or
may in fact, depending on what is actually the case, leave them
open to being used in that particular way?
Many of the groups that would fall into that category have a
legitimate concern, I think, that they not be dragged through a
process in which, even if at the end of that process they are
found to be innocent, they would nevertheless have expended a
great deal of time, energy and perhaps reputation in defending
themselves against that charge. How can we balance that concern
with the very real concern that some organizations may actually
be or may be tempted to be or may in the past have been or may in
the future act in such a way that the moneys which Canadians give
to them, which are tax deductible, are used in some way or
another for terrorism?
1550
I will end by saying that one of the things we need to keep in
mind while trying to find this balance is that we also need to do
a lot more critical thinking about what constitutes terrorism,
particularly when we are talking about terrorism abroad, which is
mostly the kind of terrorism we are talking about. It is
sometimes a very political matter what is defined as terrorism,
which is obviously unacceptable, and what is defined as
resistance or legitimate rebellion or whatever.
One is reminded of a time in the House when one left oneself
open to very severe criticism if one spoke in any sort of
supportive way of the African National Congress and the
anti-apartheid movement. Yet there were acts of violence
associated with the anti-apartheid movement and the African
National Congress within South Africa. Would that have meant in
the context of this bill that anti-apartheid groups in Canada who
were raising money for the cause of anti-apartheid in South
Africa could have been dragged through the process that this bill
lays out?
I ask that question because it is a legitimate concern. The task
of the committee will be to address that concern while at the
same time respecting the principle of the bill that Canadian
taxpayers should not be funding terrorism.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I as well am pleased to have an opportunity to put a
few remarks on the record with respect to Bill C-16, which is a
very important piece of legislation dealing with charitable
organizations and regulations that relate to fundraising
activities in Canada. I could not agree more with my hon.
colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona that the process in which we
are pursuing this matter is a very important part of the debate.
The Westray issue in particular is something of great interest
to me as this tragedy occurred in Plymouth, Nova Scotia in the
constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There was an
unusual coming together of members of parliament on that issue of
workplace safety and the broader implications that exist for
those who can be injured in the workplace. We saw this past
weekend recognition in a day of memorial, a day of remembering
those who died in the workplace. We should be renewing our
efforts in that regard as well.
To speak specifically to this issue, this is a piece of
legislation that puts in place a judicial process by which the
government would be able to deny charitable status to any group
found to be supporting terrorist activity. Much of this, I
suggest, will have to be fleshed out in terms of the
organizational definition and the definition of terrorist
activities, yet it is certainly a step in the right direction. It
is a positive initiative which the Progressive Conservative Party
will support in this initial stage.
This legislation is long overdue. The Conservative Party has
been very consistent in calling upon the government to act in
this direction to curtail terrorist activity in Canada. We
qualify this support, realizing once again that the government
tried to initially deal with this problem through avoidance.
Since that did not work it has been literally shamed into
bringing forward this legislation, which sadly does not go quite
far enough. It is a typical legislative half measure. The
support of our party therefore will hinge on our ability to bring
forward amendments and to delve into greater detail at the
committee level.
It is important that we send a message of deterrence and a
message that rings throughout the country that this type of
terrorist activity funding and enhancing of terrorist causes will
not be perpetrated in Canada and will not be tolerated by
government or by law enforcement communities. Other western
countries have enacted similar legislation so Canada is following
the leader in a sense. It is certainly important that ethnic
Canadians are not coerced unknowingly into becoming charitable
fronts for terrorist fundraising activities.
Canadians are a magnanimous people by nature. I know that in
your part of the world in Kingston, Mr. Speaker, that could not
be more true. Canadians generally want to give. They want to
reach out and help. My colleague from Cumberland—Colchester
raised the issue today of the need to do more to help other
countries and to do more for the African AIDS epidemic where so
many millions of people are suffering from this horrible disease.
1555
Meanwhile we need to have some safeguards to ensure that these
causes are genuine and that these fundraising activities are
those in which the most amount of aid and assistance will
actually be obtained by those groups. We need to ensure that in
our effort to combat terrorism, legislation does not unfairly
target legitimate, peaceful, law abiding fundraising groups,
especially those fundraising groups of different ethnic
backgrounds that engage in very valuable fundraising activities
or initiatives for the betterment of their communities.
I am hopeful that we will be able to produce legislation that
will improve public safety for the country and meet this balance
that is required while not trampling on the rights of those who
are in some instances very vulnerable citizens in this country
and are making very legitimate efforts to try to assist those
from their originating countries in their plight.
Bill C-16 sets up a process by which organizations supporting
terrorist activities could be denied or lose their charitable
status. If the solicitor general and the minister of revenue,
after reviewing security and criminal intelligence reports, have
reasonable grounds to believe that an organization makes or will
make resources available to terrorism, they both would be
required to sign a certificate. The organization would then be
given notice of this certificate and the matter would be referred
automatically to the federal court for a judicial review. The
applicant would have the opportunity to apply to the federal
court to have its identity protected and a judicial process would
then occur.
The federal court could and would provide the applicant with an
opportunity to introduce evidence, call witnesses and
cross-examine in a public forum. This is a very important
process in getting to the root of the allegation if the group is
suspected of being involved in terrorist activity and
fundraising.
This process would allow for the review and the classification
in camera, and the judge would then provide the organization with
a summary of the classified information produced. The summary
would contain sufficient information to allow the organization to
respond but would also exclude information that the judge has
determined would be injurious to national security and the safety
of persons. There is a fairly indepth and comprehensive process
there to protect the rights of those involved. Confidentiality
is often very critical in the integrity of the process, but to be
very blunt, it is often a matter of life and death. These
terrorist groups are very ruthless in their activities, and the
repercussions and the revenge factor are certainly real.
If confirmed, the certificate would then be valid for three
years and the judge's decision would be final and not available
for or subject to appeal. However there is a provision for
review if there is a change in the material circumstances of the
organization.
All of this is to say that Bill C-16 provides a very good
starting point. However some of this process is going to have
to be worked through and more detail put in place.
Terrorists often look outside their borders. That is clear.
Canada, because of the financial and material resources that
exist here, is very much a target of terrorist organizations.
Over the past number of years the approach to terrorism, I would
strongly suggest, has been inadequate and has allowed, to a large
extent, terrorist fundraising activities to thrive and to
flourish in Canada. The regrettable result is that terrorist
organizations have been able to exert their influence over and
even infiltrate some very legitimate operating Canadian
organizations that already have charitable status.
Recently we have seen concern raised over the charitable
organization known as the Federation of Associations of Canadian
Tamils, FACT, which has been identified by federal lawyers as a
front for the known terrorist organization, the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam. Justice department lawyers have said that the
Tamil Tigers engaged in torture, mistreatment of prisoners,
summary executions, ethnic cleansing of Muslims and kidnapping
and forcible conscription of children, all absolutely abhorrent
activities. I am sure that some who may have contributed to this
organization would be appalled to think that their money went to
that organization for those purposes.
We have seen similar fundraising activities that play upon the
emotions and the passions of Irish Canadians. For many years in
this country we have seen Irish Republican Army activists who
have tried to raise money for what turned out to be explosives or
weaponry that was used to perpetrate their cause.
That cause is thankfully now through due to the peace process and to
negotiations in Northern Ireland and is moving in a very positive
direction.
1600
It needs to be stated that Canadian Tamils have made valuable
contributions to the country. The fact that the particular
organization is one of several political and benevolent front
organizations that support a terrorist organization has resulted
in a great deal of controversy in the House of Commons. It
demonstrated the reach of such terrorist organizations into what
seemed to be a well intentioned charitable group. It is also a
reminder to Canadians of the care that must be taken and the
background checks that must be made before any well intentioned
person decides to aid in an effort of a charitable group.
Donations to a charity qualify for tax credits which reduce
federal taxes by 17% for the first $200 of eligible donations and
29% of the balance to a limit of 75% of income. Such donations
also reduce provincial taxes.
The legislation is positive in its direction. The difficulty is
that police often have trouble making the connection between a
charitable organization and the terrorist front that is being
used for that purpose. Fundraising fronts usually take care to
commit no crime in this country and police can currently only lay
charges of conspiracy if a direct connection can be established.
There is much work to be done in this area. The United Nations
General Assembly adopted the international convention for the
suppression of the financing of terrorism, but Bill C-16 falls
somewhat short of Canada's obligations under that convention.
Other countries such as the United States and Great Britain make
it completely illegal to provide material support or resources
for any group that the government has found to be a terrorist
organization.
Canada can learn from the example of other countries. We have
an opportunity to improve the legislation and we hope that we
would have the opportunity to do that in the justice committee.
There may be some need to refer the bill to another committee,
but wherever it goes we would be looking to improve it.
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address
Bill C-16, which I am introducing jointly with my colleague the
solicitor general.
Charities play a critical role in the achievement of goals, both
here and abroad, that Canadians deem important. Charities
provide humanitarian assistance in times of crisis. They promote
the building of civil society in developing countries.
They provide help to the needy and they work to respond to
social concerns and problems.
[English]
To recognize this and to encourage Canadians to support
charitable activities, the Income Tax Act grants significant tax
privileges to charities. Charities are accountable for how they
use donations. They hold the public trust and they depend on
public confidence.
The bill provides the legal means to deal with any suspected
abuse of charitable status by terrorist supporters who try to
use charities to disguise their activities.
[Translation]
This bill will also guarantee that tax privileges granted to
registered charities are provided only to organizations that
engage in charitable activities under the Income Tax Act. Above
all, it will guarantee to Canadians that their donations to
registered charities in Canada will be used for legitimate
purposes.
As members know, the tax incentive related to gifts to charities
is administered under the charities registration process.
These legislative provisions and the registration process
administered by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are
evidence of the clear intention of parliament to support,
through the tax system, activities conducted for charitable
purposes under Canadian legislation.
1605
[English]
In Canada, as in other common law jurisdictions, the courts have
been very clear that the pursuit of political objectives falls
outside the legal bounds of charity. Any organization that
operates in whole or in part to support political aims and
objectives would not be eligible to receive charitable status
for income tax purposes.
The use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve a
political aim, regardless of the cause concerned, cannot be
reconciled with the legal concept of charity. The bill before us
today addresses very serious international concerns about
terrorist activities.
[Translation]
Canada as a nation and Canadians individually do not and cannot
tolerate terrorist activities. In order to maintain public trust
in the treatment of charitable organizations, the government
must ensure that the tax privileges available to such
organizations do not benefit any organizations using violence to
attain their goals.
Certain organizations which condone acts of terrorism are also
involved in humanitarian assistance and community development
programs.
They may therefore attempt to make a distinction between that
part of the organization which engages in terrorism and that
part which provides humanitarian services.
This bill makes it impossible to sanitize a terrorist
organization merely by keeping humanitarian activities separate
from terrorist activities on the organization chart. It is
naive to think that the purpose of these groups' assistance
activities can be kept separate from their use of violence to
attain their political goals, unless the intention is to
deceive.
This bill makes it clear that Canada will not tolerate the abuse
of our democratic system and institutions to promote and fund
terrorism.
We will not allow terrorists to obtain charity status by
concealing their terrorist operations behind charitable
activities.
Canada is not the only country to take steps to prevent
terrorist organizations from passing themselves off as
legitimate charities. In July 1996 all of the G-8 countries
made a commitment “to take steps to prevent or counteract,
through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of
terrorists and terrorist organizations, whether such financing
is direct or indirect through organizations which also have or
claim to have charitable, social or cultural goals”.
[English]
The legislation is part of Canada's response to this
international concern. It is not the total solution. It
addresses only the issue of tax incentives that are being
provided to organizations whose activities are not consistent
with the concept of charity.
[Translation]
Such provisions do however indicate a step in the right
direction. As confirmed by the report presented in 1999 by the
special senate committee on security and intelligence, taxation
measures applicable to charitable organizations are exposed to
the possibility of abuse.
The committee pointed out that a variety of groups with
terrorist affiliations are carrying out fundraising activities
in Canada and that benevolent or philanthropic organizations
often serve as fronts for fundraising.
The report specifically points out that such groups use the
status of registered charity under the Income Tax Act to enhance
their credibility.
It also suggests that Canadian taxpayers may be unwittingly
supporting violent political actions by these groups through
donations they believed were going to provide humanitarian aid.
1610
[English]
This is unacceptable. Canadians have every right to expect that
registered charities are charitable as the term is understood by
the law. We have a clear onus to ensure the integrity of the
system and to take whatever steps are necessary to see that the
legislative framework for the system guards against abuse.
[Translation]
This is what the bill does. It protects the registration of
charities by providing recourse to secret information, to
security information, relevant to the determination of a
charity's right to receive donations providing tax relief.
To this end, it in fact creates a parallel appeal process.
The automatic judicial review process will be used only when the
solicitor general and the national revenue minister take steps to
revoke or refuse a registration on the grounds that donations are
being used to support acts of terrorism.
The proposed process will make it possible to consider all
information relevant to national security in determining the
status of the charity, while protecting from inappropriate
disclosure delicate information on national security.
The rules currently in effect requiring full public disclosure
will continue to apply in all other appeals.
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to building
Canadians' trust in the voluntary sector and in the integrity of
our tax administration. This is a step that should be welcomed by
all concerned about our charity registration system.
To close, we cannot and will not neglect our responsibility to
all Canadians to ensure tax measures relating to charitable
organizations are respected and may be controlled.
This is the very foundation of public trust in tax measures
applying to charities. This trust is fragile and must be
protected. The bill realizes this objective.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf
of the constituents of Surrey Central to send Bill C-16 to
committee before second reading.
The legislation is the Liberal government's feeble attempt to
prevent terrorist groups from obtaining charitable tax status.
The solicitor general has tabled a grandiose scheme to try to
prevent undesirables from setting up shop in Canada to raise
money to overthrow a foreign government or for oppressive violent
activities.
Money is often raised by force, with the threat of personal
injury or death. We know that approximately 26 groups have
charitable tax free status in our country thanks to the weak
Liberal government that lacks vision and backbone. It is trying
to pass some kind of multi-step program to slowly revoke the
bogus charitable status of terrorist groups operating in Canada.
I will briefly describe the multi-step process set out in the
bill that would lead to the denial of charitable status. First,
the RCMP and CSIS would inform the Solicitor General of Canada
and the Minister of National Revenue of an organization's
suspected provision of resources to a terrorist group. If the
ministers conclude that the organization makes or would make
resources available for terrorism, these ministers would then
sign a certificate to that effect.
Once the certificate is signed, the organization would be
notified and the certificate would be referred to a federal court
judge. The judge would review the intelligence reports in
private and would provide a summary to the organization. If the
judge upholds the certificate the organization would lose its
charitable status for three years, subject to a review if there
has been a change in material circumstances to the organization.
Finally there would be no appeal of the judge's decision. That
is the good news.
1615
The impact of the bill is unlikely to be major. The process is
sufficiently complicated that the first designation will probably
not be made until years have lapsed. Provisions for in camera
hearings are necessary to protect intelligence sources and
methods. There are no such provisions in the bill.
Canada is obligated, pursuant to a United Nations convention, to
make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. However
the government is not serious about fighting crime or preventing
terrorists from using bogus charitable status to raise taxpayer
dollars to finance their schemes.
Recently I met with representatives from the Canadian
Association for a United Sri Lanka. We discussed the United
Nations international convention for the suppression of the
financing of terrorism. The individuals I met pointed out that
while many countries are expected to support the convention, at
least 22 countries must ratify it before it can come into effect.
So far only two countries have ratified it and I hope more will
do so.
In the bill the government is doing nothing to stop criminals or
terrorists from raising funds in Canada for terrorist activities.
About a year ago two cabinet ministers attended a fundraiser in
support of the Tamil Tigers in contravention of warnings from the
U.S. state department, the high commission in Sri Lanka, CSIS and
the RCMP. This demonstrated the Canadian government's lack of
seriousness about fighting terrorism. It is only interested in
doing what is politically expedient.
Canadian taxpayers are assisting the funding of terrorist
activities because the money raised by these bogus charitable
status organizations is subsidized by the taxpayer. Even if the
tax status were removed, however, would the government stop these
organizations from raising funds in Canada? I do not think so.
There is nothing about that in the bill. It is a violation of
the UN convention.
Let us look at the activities of the finance minister and the
international development minister. They attended a questionable
fundraising event. Article 2, section 5 of the United Nations
international convention for the suppression of the financing of
terrorism says:
(a) Participates in an offence...
(b) Organizes or directs others to commit an offence...
(c) Contributes to the commission of one or more offences...
The two cabinet ministers could be charged under this section of
the UN convention.
The shameful case of Ahmed Ressam should set off alarm bells and
signify to the government how weak and ineffective it is at
fighting terrorism. This was a textbook case of a terrorist who
was arrested crossing the border from Canada to the United States
on December 14, 1999. Ressam had plans, the ability and the
material to commit a bombing in the United States.
The details of this man's life for the previous five years have
come out at his trial in the U.S. where he was convicted on all
nine indictments against him. The case reads like an indictment
of the Liberal government. Canada has no laws against terrorism
thanks to a weak Liberal government which lacks vision, a
backbone and the political will to combat terrorism.
Ressam, like other terrorists, took advantage of our lax refugee
and immigration system. He arrived in Montreal in 1994 and
claimed refugee status at the airport, describing himself as a
suspected Islamic terrorist. He was fingerprinted, and guess
what? He was set free.
1620
He collected welfare for most of the five years. He was not
deported after he was arrested for theft. Later he was arrested
for pickpocketing elderly women and set free again. He was
arrested for stealing luggage and set free again.
He failed to show up at his refugee hearing in 1995 and the
refugee board concluded that he had abandoned his claim. Rather
than deporting him at that stage, the board allowed him to appeal
that decision in 1996 and he was set free again.
He then changed his identity and got a Canadian passport. Let us
imagine a terrorist getting a Canadian passport. Then he got a
social insurance card and a Quebec driver's licence and began to
travel the world, pursuing terrorist training outside Canada that
included an association with Bin Laden.
In 1999 French government representatives tried to get into
Canada to interview Ressam but was not allowed in until October.
After October they immediately got the goods on the guy by
searching his apartment in Montreal, although Ressam was nowhere
to be found.
Finally he showed up. He showed up trying to get into the U.S.
in December and was arrested. The world is disappointed in
Canada. What would have happened if Ressam had been arrested in
Canada? He would have received a maximum of ten years, of which
only two would be spent in jail. Having been convicted in the
U.S. he will now spend one hundred years in jail.
In conclusion, after years of the Reform Party and now the
Canadian Alliance fighting for tougher laws to combat gangs,
criminal activities and terrorist organizations, the Liberal
government has finally introduced some of the legislation we have
been calling for. However the weak Liberal government that lacks
the political will to get tough on crime, particularly organized
crime and terrorism, has only done so under pressure from the
opposition, the United Nations, the public, the RCMP and CSIS.
Combating organized crime and terrorism was part of the Alliance
justice platform. However the bill is a feeble attempt by the
government to address the issue. It will be ineffective and
lengthy and will lead nowhere. It is not enough. It is not the
giant step that is needed. We will therefore be opposing the
legislation.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is proud to be a multicultural nation of peace and
tolerance. Canadians value and respect diversity. Our charter
of rights and freedoms is a model for the world which reflects
Canada's commitment to human rights. The bill reflects core
Canadian values and is fully consistent with our fundamental
charter principle of fairness and due process under the law.
The bill focuses very narrowly on terrorism and on organizations
that may improperly use charitable status in Canada to raise
funds to support terrorism. The bill includes many safeguards,
including provisions that allow organizations to regain
charitable status by demonstrating that they no longer support
terrorism and that their activities are fully consistent with
charitable status.
The bill recognizes that Canadians have the right to engage in
political activity. They have the right to make their views
known in ways that are accepted in a free and democratic society,
through advocacy, protest and dissent. They have a right to
finance groups and support political causes.
Nothing in the bill interferes with those rights for any
Canadian. What the bill does is set a clear standard for public
policy. It draws a line between the exercise of rights and the
abuse of charitable status to cover support for terrorism.
1625
No civilized society can condone terrorism. By taking steps to
prevent the abuse of charitable tax status Canada is supporting
the international campaign to stop support for terrorism.
The bill would also help eliminate the suspicions and innuendo
that produce tension based on racial, ethnic, religious or
national differences. Allegations and suspicions would be dealt
with based on facts. We want to be able to assure Canadians that
an organization that has charitable status uses the funds it
raises for charitable purposes.
Some have argued that legislation should focus on individuals
rather than on organizations. They argue that organizations may
be unaware of the true agenda of individuals who are using them
to support terrorism. However it is organizations, not
individuals, that are registered as charities. Charitable
organizations have an obligation under the Income Tax Act to
maintain direction and control over how their resources are used.
Others have suggested that the proposed process may be unfairly
influenced by unreliable and politically motivated information
from foreign governments that do not share Canada's commitment to
human rights.
I have confidence in our system of parliamentary democracy and
judicial independence. Canadians can be assured our laws would
be administered fairly and, when required, interpreted in a fair
and just manner by our courts. The process would be open and
transparent so that all Canadians could judge for themselves.
In addition, every stage of the proposed process would be driven
by hard facts. Risk factors used to identify suspicious cases
would be based on facts documented in security and intelligence
reports. When a concern is identified, Canadian security
agencies would be asked to determine if there is a strong and
credible case. Only then would the facts be presented to the
Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue
for separate, independent reviews.
The case would not proceed further unless each minister agreed
there were reasonable grounds to believe the organization was
providing support for terrorism. The ministerial review
requirement would impose a significant level of political
accountability before any case was presented to the courts or any
public comments were made.
The next step would be to subject the facts to an independent
and rigorous judicial review. Before that took place however
the organization would be allowed to seek an order from the court
directing that its identity be protected during the proceedings
to avoid undue harm to its reputation.
A federal court judge would prepare a summary of the facts
contained in national security documents. The summary would
protect sensitive information but would enable the organization
to be reasonably informed of the circumstances causing the
government to consider refusing or revoking charitable status.
An open hearing would then be held at which the organization
would have the opportunity to call witnesses and introduce
evidence in its defence. Only after all the information had been
considered would the court determine whether the government was
entitled to refuse or revoke charitable status.
We shall not lose sight of the fact that the whole process would
take place against a backdrop of other independent checks and
balances designed to protect the rights and freedoms of all
Canadians.
1630
Canadian security services are subject to stringent controls and
accountability mechanisms. For example, the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, and the Inspector General of
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, have
complementary roles in overseeing CSIS operations. They ensure
that Canada's security and intelligence service functions
responsibly and that its actions are appropriate and in
conformity with the law.
SIRC is a non-partisan committee of five privy councillors. It
is independent of the government in its operations but reports to
parliament. It has access to any information under the control
of the service and is entitled to look at everything the service
does. It has the power of independent inquiry and authority to
investigate complaints about any act or thing done by CSIS even
where the complainant is not personally affected by that action.
The inspector general serves as the solicitor general's internal
auditor for CSIS providing another independent means of assurance
that CSIS is complying with the law, ministerial direction and
operational policy. Together these underlying accountability
mechanisms offer Canadians unparalleled protection against
discriminatory practices and abuses of power.
The legislation targets violent activities no Canadian could
condone. It would provide a fair and just mechanism for dealing
with persons or groups who would abuse the trust of Canadians. It
is legislation that meets the needs of all Canadians and is
legislation that we can all be proud of.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to
Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and
security information and the Income Tax Act.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism to strip
organizations of their charitable status if they are caught
fundraising for terrorist groups.
We believe that the bill would have minimal impact on stemming
terrorism in Canada. Effectively, the legislation says that it
is all right to sponsor terrorism, it is all right to financially
raise support for terrorists, but a person cannot get a tax
deduction for doing so.
Effective legislation, legislation Canadian Alliance could
wholeheartedly support, would make it a criminal offence to raise
and provide funds to support a terrorist organization. This type
of legislation already exists in the United States and the United
Kingdom.
If curbing the operation of terrorist front groups truly was the
goal, we could emulate Great Britain's terrorism act 2000, which
empowers cabinet to ban from its country any organization that it
believes is involved in terrorist activities. The law proscribes
any group if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism: if
it prepares for terrorism; if it promotes or encourages
terrorism; or if it is otherwise concerned in terrorism either in
the United Kingdom or abroad.
The British government publicly identified 21 groups that were
associated with terrorism. Among the groups were the likes of
Babbar Khalsa, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Abu Nidal
Organization and the Kurdistan Workers Party.
The United States tried to get at terrorist fundraising through
the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996.
Section 302 of the act authorizes the secretary of state to
designate as foreign terrorist organizations any group that meets
specific criteria. The act makes it an offence to knowingly
provide or conspire to provide material support or resources to a
foreign terrorist organization. In 1999 there were 28 foreign
terrorist organizations that were listed.
1635
A 1998 CSIS report said that there were as many as 50
international terrorist organizations active in Canada, often
using the country as a banking centre. The report said that
liberal immigration laws, relatively open borders, freedom of
movement, advanced communication systems and the proximity to the
United States made Canada inviting for terrorists.
In January 1999 an influential Senate committee, headed by
Senator William Kelly, spent months hearing closed door
testimonies from almost 100 members of the security and
intelligence community. The reports of the special Senate
committee on security and intelligence stated very clearly that
Canada remained a venue of opportunity for terrorist groups. It
remained a place where they could raise funds, purchase arms and
conduct other activities to support their organizations and their
terrorist activities elsewhere. Most of the major international
terrorist organizations already have a presence in Canada
The report made 33 recommendations which unfortunately the
Liberal government failed to embrace. The most important
recommendation was for a new criminal penalty to combat cyber
attacks on vital computer systems by hackers and other electronic
saboteurs. It also called for powers to battle terrorist
fundraising, more money for intelligence agencies and measures to
better track possible extremists who made their way or who came
into Canada.
The senators determined that technological advances available to
terrorists and spies, from cash debit cards to sophisticated
satellites, posed the most serious challenge to Canadian
authorities. The committee confirmed that several groups with
terrorist affiliations raised money in Canada, often through
philanthropic organizations registered as charities under the
Federal Income Tax Act. The Senate committee said:
Such status enhances the credibility of such groups and,
ironically, creates the situation where Canadian taxpayers end up
subsidizing their activities.
The Senate committee also found that the operating funds for
federal agencies with a security or intelligence role fell to
$333 million in 1997-98, down from $467 million in 1989-90, a
trend that it suggests and that it would argue must be reversed
to keep Canada from falling behind.
The year 2000 budget for the United States security and
intelligence sector was increased by approximately $2 billion.
The amount of the United States increase alone was more than four
times the total amount budgeted for Canada's security and
intelligence community.
One of the committee's recommendations pertained to a legal
migration into Canada, primarily through our refugee
determination system.
First, it is a means by which terrorists may circumvent our
vetting process abroad and enter Canada in search for a temporary
or for a permanent haven. Once here they may conduct fundraising
activities or other activities. In a very few cases they also
organize acts of violence.
Second, large volumes of illegal migrants may ultimately provide
the stream in which a few terrorists gain entry into the United
States by circumventing Canadian and United States border
controls, since Canada has no exit controls. No exit controls
mean that it is impossible to calculate how many people remain in
Canada illegally, how many slip into the United States, how many
return to their country of origin or how many go elsewhere.
As of October 23, 1998 there were 6,110 warrants for removal
issued against persons deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn
their refugee claims. Of these, 640 warrants were executed and
the persons removed from Canada; 240 warrants were cancelled; and
there was no action on the remaining 5,272 warrants. It is quite
obvious that this is a very serious problem.
1640
On Friday last week a news article in the National Post
reported that RCMP officers testified at an immigration hearing
that as many as 8,000 Tamil guerrillas with military weapon
training were now living in the Toronto area after fleeing a
civil war in Sri Lanka.
In reference to the Tamil guerrillas, I would like to conclude
today by quoting the April 27 National Post article which
said:
Sergeant Fred Bowen said most were “in the retired category”
but a few remain active and all had undergone some form of
military training provided either by India's military
intelligence agency or the Tamil Tigers rebel army.
Sergeant Bowen's estimate of the number of guerrillas who have
slipped into Canada during this influx matches a Toronto police
figure and may explain how the small rebel force manages to
raise, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
$2 million a year in Canada to finance its war effort.
Sergeant Bowen testified that aside from the former guerrilla
fighters there are 12 to 15 active members of the Tigers who are
on call to commit crimes for the insurgent force in Toronto, as
well as 1,000 Tamil gang members, about a third of them
supporters of the rebels.
He said there had been 65 shootings in the Toronto Tamil
community since September, 2000...“The vast majority of the
community is not involved. They are being victimized, they are
being extorted.
The gangs are doing anything for money: home invasions and
passport theft; drug dealing; crimes of opportunity; frauds;
counterfeiting; credit card frauds; attempted murder;
kidnappings; extortions.”
I cannot support this ineffective legislation in its present
form, therefore I call upon the government to introduce and
enact legislation that would make it hard for terrorists and
their supporters to get here, stay here and that would make it
impossible for them to raise money while they here. If they were
caught in any way, shape or form supporting terrorist activities
here or abroad, criminal charges with a very severe penalty would
be handed down.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to order made
on Thursday, April 26, the division stands deferred until
Tuesday, May 1, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to others acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, once again I am honoured to rise in the House to debate
issues that are specific to the agriculture sector.
As a farmer and member representing a predominantly rural riding
where the agriculture industry is a major economic engine of our
communities, anything related to farm and to finances is
extremely important to me, as it is to my constituents.
Bill C-25 is an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. It
proposes to modify the role of the Farm Credit Corporation. What
does Bill C-25 do?
First, Bill C-25 will change the name from Farm Credit
Corporation to Farm Credit Canada.
1645
Second, it expands the role of the Farm Credit Corporation to
allow the corporation to lend to businesses that are not
necessarily directly involved in primary agriculture production
or do not have farmers as the majority shareholders.
Third, it expands the lending role to let Farm Credit
Corporation provide equity financing by allowing it to hold
non-fixed assets such as cattle as collateral.
Fourth, it formalizes Farm Credit Corporation's leasing ability
which, although not specific, could include farmland.
Today is the last day of April. We are back on a Monday. After
I spent the weekend in my constituency back in Crowfoot
travelling throughout the constituency I can tell members that it
is very apparent that farmers are in the field.
We were promised and guaranteed by the federal agriculture
minister that Canadians would see financial help before the seed
was put in the ground. That has not been the case. As we
travelled throughout the constituencies people continuously
asked where the money was that was promised by the federal
Liberal government.
We were home this week. Springtime is usually the time where
spirits are high as farmers look forward, with great expectation,
to preparing the soil, seeding, planting, putting in their crops.
Spirits are not high on the family farm and throughout western
Canada and rural Canada. As we travel throughout the
constituencies we see that it is a cloudy horizon, a troublesome
horizon.
I do not know how I could explain to the House some of the
things that we saw as we travelled throughout Crowfoot this past
weekend. In the distance we saw on the horizon clouds that
looked like they were fires. They were not fires. They were
dust clouds. They were dust storms. The wind was blowing hard;
it was hot and dry and the dust was blowing. Farmers were
turning off the tractors and shutting them down because they
realized that the more they cultivated the more the moisture
disappeared. They were already laying the seed into a dry bed,
so to speak.
Spirits are not high. As farmers go to the fields, they
realize that this spring input costs have soared and are going
through the roof. Fertilizer costs have nearly doubled from last
year. Commodity prices are in the pit. Barley is around $2,
wheat is $3 and canola is under $6. Commodity prices farmers
are getting have not kept up with the input costs. Hope is
diminishing.
Through the winter our farmers were writing and calling and
stopping at the office asking what we could do about the heating
bills. Working in the shop was almost ruled out because they
were trying to save on their heating bills. The troubles just
seem to go on.
However, have no fear, because the Liberal government has come
forward with a proposal that will change the name of the Farm
Credit Corporation, a proposal that will expand the lending
abilities of the Farm Credit Corporation to allow it to now lend
to businesses, not just farmers, not just the family farm, but
remotely related agriculture businesses. That just does not sell
down on the farm. That just does not sell where the rubber meets
the road.
With regard to the name change, the federal government believes
that this name change is absolutely necessary to affirm its
federal identity to the program and to the corporation. I was
born and raised on the family farm and have been farming actively
for over 20 years. I think it is a very well known fact that the
Farm Credit Corporation is an agency of the Government of Canada.
I therefore do not necessarily agree that the name should be
changed, particularly if it will result in the needless
expenditures of scarce federal dollars for agriculture and
agriculture related programs.
Currently 94% of the corporation's financial services are
directed to farmers and businesses that are directly related to
primary production.
Recognizing that expanding the lending capability of FCC may
strain the corporation's ability to service farmers' demands for
credit, I must oppose this amendment to the FCC act.
1650
The Canadian Alliance, as stated by my colleagues earlier today,
does not agree with extending Farm Credit Corporation's
involvement beyond family farm operations. The extension of that
lending ability beyond primary production may bring Farm Credit
Corporation into direct competition with private lending
institutions and may overlap the government's institutions such
as the federal Business Development Bank.
We should think of what the Liberal government is trying to
accomplish. It says we need money. It says we need to provide
financing for farmers and for agriculture related businesses, but
now it would open up the floodgates to other businesses that are
not necessarily primary producers or tied to producers.
I believe the government has perhaps changed the wrong name.
Maybe it is not the word corporation that it should get rid of,
but the word farm, because the legislation would take money off
the farm tables and undoubtedly put it onto many business tables,
and it may also effectively end up remaining on cabinet tables.
The problem we are seeing in rural western Canada is that there
are not enough funds being put onto the kitchen tables on the
majority of farms.
Why not change the name to Canada Credit Corporation, CCC? It is
easy to remember. Then the word farm will be taken right out of
the equation. We could change it to CCCP, like the hockey team's
sweaters that read CCCP, Canada Credit Corporation Policy. Maybe
that is what the government should be looking at. It might be as
effective.
With regard to formalizing the leasing ability of FCC, the
government has stated that the intent is not to include land.
Rather, it claims the leasing provisions are for equipment.
However, this is not made clear in the legislation. This will
definitely be one of the amendments which I hope will come
forward through our very good agriculture critics in the Canadian
Alliance, or all parties could bring that amendment forward.
The Canadian Alliance does not think it is appropriate for the
government to be holders of farmland. We believe that if Farm
Credit Corporation is allowed to permanently hold and lease land,
it could result in the Canadian government's holdings influencing
the market value of farmland. While we accept that it is
impossible for Farm Credit Corporation to avoid holding land for
short periods of time, the act should explicitly state that Farm
Credit Corporation should divest itself of any holdings as
quickly as possible.
A number of years ago I looked for packages of farmland on a map
of Saskatchewan. As I looked at the central Saskatchewan area,
close to Central Butte and Riverhurst and some of those areas, I
was appalled to see how much farmland was actually held by Farm
Credit Corporation. It held quarters and quarters of land.
That will happen. It is evident, especially with what farming
and agriculture have gone through. However, the responsibility
of the government and the responsibility of Farm Credit
Corporation must be to hold that land for a very short period of
time to allow the market to set the value, to disperse it and to
give hope to young people who want, for some reason, to get into
farming.
We support extending FCC's lending ability to include equity
financing. We applaud it. It is a great idea, but as stated
before, we want that given only to primary producers. That
portion of the bill must be related only to those who are farming
and involved in primary production, those who are making their
living by putting the seed in the ground or raising cattle or any
of the other things primary producers are doing. Allowing
non-fixed assets such as livestock to be collateral for loans
would greatly assist farmers who are currently not eligible for
financial assistance.
1655
The Canadian Alliance certainly encourages increased financial
assistance for cash-strapped farmers toiling endless hours a day
producing the high quality food products that Canadians have come
to appreciate, enjoy and expect. Unfortunately the federal
Liberal government's failure to provide farmers with a much
needed cash injection will result in more farmers depending on
loans to get their crops in the ground this spring.
As raised in the House on many occasions in the brief three
months of this session of parliament, farmers have continually
come here, lobbied and asked the government for a minimum of $900
million. I have heard some groups explain to the government why
they needed a minimum of $1.6 billion, others why they needed
$1.2 billion, but it was generally accepted that the lowest
figure was the minimum of $900 million. The government however
saw fit to come forward and provide only $500 million.
We therefore proposed on March 20 in a supply motion that the
government authorize the expenditure of an additional $400
million. En masse Liberal members of parliament voted
against our motion and again the federal government denied
farmers the much needed financial assistance. My colleagues have
repeatedly stood in the House expressing our sentiments and those
of our constituents regarding this financial holdout.
Today I would like to share with all members of the House the
opinion of Mr. J. J. Huber of Midale, Saskatchewan, as written in
a recent edition of the Western Producer. I ask members to
listen carefully. He stated:
It makes me sick to my stomach to have to listen to the senseless
dribble coming from our rural Liberal MPs. They talk the talk,
but when their job is on the line, they cannot abandon the
Canadian farmers quick enough. I tell you, if we lose 45 percent
of our farmers in the near future, agriculture will become a
non-issue in Canada. Maybe we should just seed all arable land
to grass and we can import all of our ag products from the U.S.
or U.K. because they are the only people left in this world who
care about their agriculture industry.
And when our consumers in Canada give their urban MPs grief
because the price of food has quadrupled, who will the MPs run to
then?...The farm gate is just the starting point.
He continues:
To hear the MPs say that farmers or other common folk don't
understand politics, what's not to understand? It's really
simple: you lie to the people and tell them how you will speak
for them, and once the waters get a little rough in Ottawa, you
ditch the people who you represent because you might lose your
job if you actually do what your constituents want you to do.
You then do a 180-degree turn and tell your constituents that
they do not know much about politics and that your abandoning
them is just part of the political game. I don't know of any
other job in the world where you can continue to lie to the
people who pay your wages, and turn your back on them when they
want you to actually do your job, and still continue to get paid.
Politics, it makes me sick to my stomach.
Agriculture, politics, I think it tends to make all of us a
little sick to our stomachs.
However, I say to Mr. Huber that he should take great strength
because the government has come up with a bill that would give a
name change to Farm Credit Corporation. Does that make Mr. Huber
feel better?
If that does not quite do it, he can understand this. The
legislation will allow not just farmers to receive the help from
a lending institution of this Canadian government, Farm Credit
Corporation, but it will also allow help to other businesses so
that the government can stand and say x amount of dollars
is available to farmers and to agriculture when actually in
effect it is going to businesses that are not even related as
primary producers. Does that make Mr. Huber feel better?
What about expanding the lending role to let FCC provide
financial equity by allowing it to hold non-fixed assets as
collateral? There is a little grab-all in every legislation.
Maybe that is the one little bit that we need to grab hold of and
put our hope and our trust in for better help. What about the
pill to formalize FCC's leasing ability, which could include
farmland? How does that make Mr. Huber feel? Mr. Huber and
young people across Canada would have the ability to lease back
land.
1700
There was a hope that we could own our farmland, make payments
and pay off debts. Now we have the ability to lease it back from
our federal government. Despite the financial hardships that our
farmers must endure as a result of increased costs of production,
the legislation needs to be changed. We can change it and make
it truly effective. The legislation is a bitter pill to swallow,
as I study it further and see it coming down the pike described
as some type of agricultural help.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the
hon. member across the way. His passion and concern for his
constituents in the agricultural community certainly came
forward.
I have some concerns, though, because part of his approach is
too limited in its scope. He is right. We do have to deal with
the issues and the concerns of our primary producers. However
there is more than one way to do that.
One of the things that is critical is that our primary producers
have a greater opportunity to paint a long term vision for
agriculture. The hon. member has spoken about a long term vision
for agriculture. Part of that should be developing down the
chain from producer to consumer. There is a fairly long chain
between when we produce the goods until we eventually sell them.
The more of that chain and that value adding of our agriculture
production that can actually occur in rural Canada in our farming
communities, the better off our rural communities would be and
the better off would be their long term sustainability.
If we are to create a value added entity within a rural
community, access to capital must be one of those issues. If the
FCC's mandate is expanded, not so that it can fund just any old
business because that is not what is being done but to fund
businesses that are part of that chain, we would be working
toward the sustainability of rural communities.
Could the member explain why he would not see that as a positive
way of helping our primary producers and a way of sustaining our
rural communities, which I know is critical to him and to all
rural members who sit in the House?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question coming from an individual who has studied rural
development a great deal and understands the things that need to
happen in agriculture. I am thrilled that he mentioned value
added and the important role that value added products give to
Canadian agriculture.
One of my concerns is that we do not see the Farm Credit
Corporation as the agriculture credit corporation. We need to
have a body such as the FCC that can provide capital to young
farmers, farmers who want to buy more land, enlarge their
facility and to do some of the things that the FCC is very good
at doing.
We have a number of FCC branches in our constituency. Very
close friends of mine have used the FCC and have gained financing
from it. However, I do not wish to see the FCC becoming only an
agriculture credit corporation. It is imperative to have
directives toward the farm that will encourage farming.
To give the government some credit, we have the Federal Business
Development Bank. Would it now get out of anything that may be
deemed agriculture? Would it abandon anything that might be
remotely close to being agriculture? I think not. Good sound
business such as value added products, fertilizer, equipment and
any of those things would still be covered by the Federal
Business Development Bank.
1705
Everything should not be thrown into the Farm Credit
Corporation. It should be pointed singularly toward farming,
farmers, the family farm and the people who are trying to get
started. Right now 94% of the moneys available through the FCC
are given directly to family farm operations. It can
deteriorate. It can be chipped away at. Pretty soon a very
small percentage could be dedicated to the family farm.
As far as value added, let me also say that many other things
would encourage value added products or businesses being promoted
in the west.
One of the hindrances toward that could be the Canadian Wheat
Board. The Canadian Wheat Board says that if we were to begin to
make a value added product in the west we would not be able to
buy our wheat locally. We would have to pay the transportation
of that wheat to a port, pay the transportation of it back, even
if it were next door to where the wheat was produced. We would
have to buy it off the Canadian Wheat Board, pay the elevation
charges and all those things.
We could do a number of things to help promote value added. The
member has hit the nail on the head. We should start with the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25,
an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. As a mother
living on a family farm and who has lost two sons from that farm,
I speak passionately about the Farm Credit Corporation and the
institution that it is in western Canada and for farmers.
It provides services that are not available through other more
traditional financial institutions. Farmers have come to rely
upon the Farm Credit Corporation. The bill would expand the
focus of the Farm Credit Corporation past its original purpose of
providing financial services only to family farms and the
businesses that are directly related to primary production.
The lending role of the Farm Credit Corporation would be
expanded to allow the corporation to lend to other businesses
that are not necessarily directed or involved in primary
agriculture production and do not necessarily have farmers as
major shareholders. It raises some serious issues with respect
to government getting involved in areas where the private sector
already operates.
By extending the lending abilities of the Farm Credit
Corporation beyond primary production, the bill would bring the
Farm Credit Corporation into direct competition with private
lending institutions and would overlap with other government
institutions such as the Business Development Bank of Canada.
The problem with the proposal is that it lacks clear definition.
It is not stated clearly. It raises more questions than it
answers. For example, if the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool needed an
infusion of cash, would the provision allow the Farm Credit
Corporation to become a major lender to the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool? That is of great concern to a lot of people. The Canadian
Alliance has always opposed government expansion into areas
already competently served by the private sector.
Bill C-25 would formalize the ability of the Farm Credit
Corporation to own and lease land. The Farm Credit Corporation
has stated that it is not the intent of the amendment. It claims
the leasing provisions would be for equipment. However it is not
made clear in the legislation.
It is not appropriate for the federal government to be the owner
of farmland. Canadian farmers are supposed to own farmland.
Allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to permanently hold and
lease land could result in the government holding and influencing
the market value of farmland. We have seen that lately in our
own district.
Allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to permanently hold and
lease land may also provide the corporation with an incentive not
to pursue every possible means to allow farmers to stay on the
land if they are experiencing financial difficulty.
In short, the bill could provide Farm Credit Corporation with an
incentive to prematurely foreclose on farmers.
1710
Even under the current legislation the Farm Credit Corporation
has become a significant landowner. In 2000 the Farm Credit
Corporation owned over 360,000 acres in Canada. Ninety-five per
cent of that land is held in Saskatchewan, the province that has
been the hardest hit by the farm income crisis. That is scary.
The last thing Saskatchewan needs is for the federal government,
through the Farm Credit Corporation, to start distorting the
market value of farmland.
While it is impossible for the Farm Credit Corporation to avoid
holding land for short periods of time, the act should explicitly
state that the Farm Credit Corporation should divest itself of
any holdings as quickly as possible. My party hopes to convince
the government to bring forward amendments to the bill to clarify
this situation.
Bill C-25 would extend the lending ability of the Farm Credit
Corporation into the area of equity financing. It would be done
by allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to hold non-fixed assets
such as cattle as collateral for loans. This change would allow
the Farm Credit Corporation to provide farm financing to primary
producers who are not eligible under the current legislation. In
many cases it would provide financing that would not be available
from private lenders. It is a positive change to legislation of
which my colleagues and I are supportive, provided financing is
limited to operations involving primary producers.
A point not directly addressed by the legislation is the issue
of fairness. In many cases the Farm Credit Corporation treats
supply managed sectors differently than it does sectors not
governed by supply management. This is something that my party
is opposed to. It would be far better for the Farm Credit
Corporation to treat equally all producers, regardless of which
sector they may be a part.
Once again we have a situation where the Liberals have
introduced provisions that we object to for sound reasons coupled
with reasons we support. Extending the equity financing
capability of the Farm Credit Corporation to non-fixed assets
like livestock is certainly a positive move and one which we
support. However, if we put that up against extending the
ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to lease and hold land and
to lend beyond primary producers we have a stalemate.
As a result, the Canadian Alliance has decided to oppose the
legislation unless significant amendments are made to clarify the
problems I have identified.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a short
question for my colleague who is a very valued member of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The member is
from Saskatchewan and I respect her knowledge of the situation in
her province.
The member talked about her party not being in favour of
extending the Farm Credit Corporation moneys beyond the producer.
I encourage her to ask her neighbours and colleagues if they feel
the same way. When we offer money to the agri-food companies and
expand markets, we are able to move the grain beyond the farm
gate. They have done a great job of diversifying, but there are
many crops grown today in Saskatchewan which we could market
better.
I would ask the member to support the legislation. I look
forward to her amendments if she is making any. Would she ask
some of her neighbours at home how they feel? I have heard from
people in Saskatchewan who are in favour of the legislation.
1715
Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, as a producer of lentils,
chick peas, hay, wheat, oats, barley, elk and bison, I know a lot
about marketing in Saskatchewan. I also know a certain segment
of our economy looks to the Farm Credit Corporation. My problem
is that the Farm Credit Corporation is not clearly defined in
these changes. A large multinational corporation can come in and
get a huge amount of money from the government.
I do not think the government sees the agriculture producers in
Saskatchewan as being able to market their own grain. I would
like to tell the hon. member that we have tremendous marketing
people in our industries.
A previous member spoke about the Canadian Wheat Board. I want
to mention to the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board is
not a Canadian wheat board. It is a western Canadian wheat board
because it is not the same in Ontario or in Nova Scotia. When
the Canadian government expands the wheat board and makes it
equal across Canada for everyone, not just the western provinces,
then maybe we will have fairness in the system. Maybe then
producers in western Canada would look at this more favourably.
The neighbours I have spoken to are not in favour of this.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I value the privilege of speaking to the bill because it
addresses the wider issue of agriculture, a very important aspect
of what happens here.
I was not originally scheduled to speak on this but after
listening to the debate throughout the day, and especially to my
hon. colleague from Crowfoot, it got me fired up. I felt I had
to get to the House and deliver some words that would castigate
the Liberal government for its total mismanagement of the
agricultural sector.
We are here talking about the Farm Credit Corporation, a
corporation that should have been designed to help farmers but
which, too often, has been just the opposite. What the country
needs is a government policy that would permit farmers to
actually produce and market their product at a price they
can afford to pay for production and provide themselves and their
families with a reasonable living. That is what is really needed
and that is the part that is missing.
Therefore in the few minutes I have I will talk a little bit
about not only the Farm Credit Corporation and financing for
farmers and agricultural producers, but I also want to address
briefly and tie it in with the whole idea of marketing by the
wheat board and the way it applies and misapplies.
The reason I became fired up is that I remembered not long ago
speaking with a farmer from Saskatchewan. I have said a number
of times in the House that I was born in Saskatchewan. I used to
say that I was actually born at home because it was a long time
ago when a lot of people were born at home. I used to say that
as soon as my mother saw me they had to rush her to the hospital.
That was not really true. It was just a little bit of humour.
However I was born and raised on a farm in Saskatchewan in the
last year of the thirties. Out west we know the term dirty
thirties. I do not think that term is as well known in Ontario
and points east. In those years we had a tremendous drought. We
had jokes about how poor we were and all sorts of different
things.
However I do not want to get into that. What I want to say is
that when my mom and dad got married and started farming it was
a difficult uphill climb. It meant long hours of work, being
subjected to extreme variables and, once in a while, getting a
good crop.
1720
In those years a really good crop meant maybe 20 to 25 bushels
to the acre. Ten to fifteen bushels was considered average and
anything less than that was mediocre or a crop failure.
The incredible thing is that right now farmers are producing
crops that average 40 to 50 bushels per acre on the same land.
Production has gone up because of the advanced use of modern
technology. Efficiency has also gone up.
My dad and his two boys farmed 10 quarters, which was considered
a pretty big farm back in the forties when I was a young boy. A
typical farm today that can make its own way is at least 10 times
as large. We are talking about 40 quarters to make a good viable
farming operation.
Instead of summer fallowing every other year and having only
half the land in production, with the use of chemicals and modern
farming methods they are able to do much better than that, in
many instances not engaging in summer fallow for the rest of the
land at all.
It is really true that my brother and his boys today can produce
four times as much crop per acre as my dad did some 40 years ago.
What is so absolutely distressing is that in this modern day,
when production has never been as good, farmers are suffering
more than ever. We need to ask ourselves why that is.
My dad, who is in his 90th year and has seen many crops come off
the land, cannot be kept off the land at harvest time. There is
something magnetic about the grain coming out of the combine or,
back in the old days, out of the threshing machine. We are
producing food to feed people who would otherwise starve to
death. That is a very noble profession.
My dad told me last year how sad it was that when we have one of
the best crops ever farmers are not making it. That is
really sad because farmers still work hard and long hours, as
we do. Nothing has changed. For farmers to be successful they
must work long hours, especially during seeding and harvest. It
involves a great deal of hard work, massive investment and a lot
of risk taking, studying and reading to be competent in all the
different aspects of farming.
What do we have? We have a government that stands in the way.
I want to talk about a farmer to whom I spoke. When I go to
Saskatchewan to visit my relatives, I go with my brother to the
elevator to look at the prices, to deliver a load of grain or to
do different things and I end up talking with different people.
When they find out that their neighbour's little brother is an MP
they like to talk to me. I talked with a farmer who was very
frustrated. This is very relevant to today's discussion. He
told me that he was frustrated because he was going to be out of
business with the way things were going. He said that his
payments were due and that the Farm Credit Corporation was
telling him to pay up or it would foreclose on his farm.
The same farmer told me that he could pay the bill. He said
that he had a market for his bins full of grain if only he could
be permitted to get a trucker to haul it. He said that he could
sell his Durham wheat for approximately 50% more than he would
get from the wheat board. He said that he could get the cash
right away, make his payment and then everyone would be happy.
However the wheat board said no. It said that he had to sell it
to the wheat board at a loss. The government agency, the wheat
board, which presumably is there to help farmers, in this
instance specifically prevented the farmer from even surviving.
Do members of the House see why I am fired up and had to rush
down here to say this? This is so wrong. Liberals ought to
wake up and realize that if they cannot give a proper price to
farmers for their product so they can pay their bills, make a
living and not go deeper into debt until they face bankruptcy
and lose farms that have been in the family for 100 years, then
maybe they should consider that their policies might be wrong.
Maybe they should think about that.
1725
The Farm Credit Corporation was supposed to be designed to help
farmers. The only way one can help people by lending them money
is if those people have the ability to repay, otherwise it
becomes a massive, socialistic way of confiscating farmers' land.
Under the bill, the Farm Credit Corporation, under its new name,
which will cost thousands of dollars to change all the stationery
and everything, would have the right to own property and
lease it out. In other words, this is a very thinly disguised
plan to simply take over all the farmland on behalf of the
government. I am not one to say that this is the government's
overt plan, but I predict it will be the result of it.
The Farm Credit Corporation has the ability to lend money to
farmers when those farmers at the same time do not have the
capacity to pay that loan back as well as pay for their other
operating costs because of the restrictions of the wheat board
and other government policies, such as high taxes and a whole
bunch of other things. In the end farmers will face
foreclosure and the Farm Credit Corporation will end up owning
the land, which by the way, in the short term I think it is
inevitable that some farmers will not make it.
However in this particular bill the Farm Credit Corporation
would now be given the freedom to continue to keep that land,
farm it or rent it out to other people. It is a straight form of
confiscating the very essence of what farming is all about, and
that is the private family farm.
I am very concerned that the government, in tinkering with
stuff like changing the name of the Farm Credit Corporation, is
missing entirely the whole impact that agriculture has and the
impact that this lazy, Liberal federal government has on the farm
scene in Saskatchewan, Alberta and in Manitoba particularly.
I do not know what members think about this, but I believe in
the equality of people. It does not seem right to me that a
farmer in one of the prairie provinces can be coerced, under the
threat of going to jail, to sell his grain to the wheat board,
whereas farmers in other parts of the country are not so
required. Other farmers can get an export permit if they want
and can export to the United States if they find a market for
their product.
I am at a loss for proper vocabulary here. I know I must be
respectful in the House, but why, in the name of everything
going, can the government justify that? If there are farmers in
Saskatchewan who want to build a co-operative pasta plant
together, what is it in the government's motivation that says
that they cannot do it, that they must first sell all their wheat
to the wheat board at a loss and then the wheat board will sell
it to the pasta plant? Farmers look at the bottom line and
say that if they need the wheat board as the middle agent here,
they cannot make it and therefore the deal is off.
What is it in the government's interest and in the people of
Canada's interest to say to farmers that they might have an idea
that will help them but that they had better not do it because it
is against government policy? It is self-evident that the policy
is totally wrong. If a person actually comes up with a solution
to the problem, why would the government not allow them to
expedite that solution?
Other businesses have no such restriction. A good friend of
mine is a car dealer who has a lot of inventory. I asked him one
day how he managed to keep so much inventory. He said that it
was a good business decision. He said that when his lot is full
of new cars, people come by and say that he is really successful
because of all the new cars he expected to sell. They pop in and
buy a new car. His volume goes up simply because of his business
decision. There is no government rule that says he cannot do
that.
1730
There is another car dealer nearby who has a very small
inventory. He claims he has lower costs because he does not
maintain a big inventory. Therefore people can go to him and get
a lower price.
It is competitive. Both of them are doing fine. They do not
need a government agency to tell them how to run their
businesses.
It is high time that the federal government butts out of most of
its very restrictive rules and regulations and gives farmers the
freedom to market the products they produce in the way they
choose. After all, one could properly ask who owns the product?
Who is making the payments on the land? Who is paying for the
fuel and paying all the taxes on it? Who is buying and repairing
the machinery? Who is getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning to
work on the land? Who works all day until sundown? Who is
taking all the financial risks? It is the farmer.
What does the government do? It says the last thing it wants
is a successful farmer in Canada. That is really the message it
is giving. I cannot understand it.
In essence what I am saying is that the bill is totally
misdirected. The government should be focusing much more on
getting its act together with respect to marketing and
international agreements. It should do what it should have been
doing for the last seven years, and frankly it was the same for
the Conservatives before. The government should have been
working on making sure the world market had a level playing
field, something the government totally failed to do. That is
what it should be concentrating on. That is what we should be
discussing.
Instead what we are discussing is changing the name of the Farm
Credit Corporation so that it can in the name of government
confiscate all the property in the country that belongs to
farmers, meanwhile making it impossible for farmers to make a
living because they cannot sell their product for what it costs
to produce it. How shameful. I think the government is totally
misdirected.
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. I think members
of the House should ask this question, as should anyone who
happens to be watching on television.
By the way, I doubt there are very many farmers watching
CPAC right now. This is not the time of year to be sitting in
the house. In Saskatchewan and Alberta right now it is 3.30 in
the afternoon. Farmers are out there working. They are not
watching television, but I hope the word gets to them.
The questions that they should be asking are: Why should they be
supporting a government which uses the very agencies that should
be helping them and why should they be supporting a government
which makes it virtually impossible for them to succeed? The
government's policies do that.
Another example just came to mind. I talked to a farmer in
Saskatchewan. My roots are there and I know a lot of people,
although I represent a riding in Alberta. I speak to a lot of
farmers there as well. This farmer in Saskatchewan said that
what he did best was raise durum wheat, that his soil was best
suited for that. He said he could not make a living with that
and had to diversify. He has. He now does other things. He has
entered into contracts with international companies.
This individual is a successful farmer. I think it is totally
ironic that to be successful he had to divest himself totally
of wheat board crops so that he has the freedom to make a living.
Is that not ironic? The government should smarten up. That is
my final answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
1735
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The division on the
motion is deferred.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in spite of the comments from some of my colleagues in the
Conservative Party, I intend to speak to this issue as long as I
am entitled to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member is
allowed 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and answers.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, it seems that information needs to be
shared with other members of the House. When I watched some of
the early debate on this bill, I was taken a bit by surprise in
that the debate by the government was led off by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, followed by the Minister of the Environment. I
was taken aback because in my review of the proposed bill the
debate should have been led off by the Minister for International
Trade, because the bill is not about the preservation of our
water system in Canada and the protection of the export of our
freshwater resources but just the opposite.
It is supposed to be about protecting the ecosystem that our
freshwater feeds into. It should be about protecting our
freshwater from the travails we will have with it as climate
warming moves ahead. It certainly should be about having
available to all Canadians a safe freshwater system. That is not
what it is about.
I would like to go back in history for a minute or two and draw
to the attention of the House the resolution that was passed on
February 9, 1999. That was a resolution introduced to the House
by the NDP member for Winnipeg—Transcona. It was a motion that
received support from all members of the House, including members
of the Liberal government, and ultimately it passed unanimously.
I will read the motion to the House. It read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and interbasin transfers and should not be a party to any
international agreement that compels us to export freshwater
against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations.
That resolution passed unanimously. I would like to make an
additional note about that motion because an important part of
it was an amendment which included the phrase I have already
read:
1740
That motion recognized, first of all, the need to pass
legislation that would ensure bulk water could not be exported
from any source in Canada. Second, it specifically and
explicitly recognized that water needed to be exempted from any
future trade deals because there is of course a serious issue
under the existing trade deals as to whether we have that
protection.
It is interesting to note that no one spoke against the motion.
No one voted against it, as I already indicated. It passed
unanimously. No one stood up and said he or she believed we were
wrong and that we should export water. No one said that. No one
said our freshwater supply should be included in the next trade
deal. None of that was said at that time. Everyone was
unanimously of the opinion that we needed to take action on the
issue. I think it was obvious to every member of the House at
that time that action would be forthcoming from the government
and that our freshwater would be protected.
Here we are a little over two years later. What is the
situation we are confronted with today? We are debating a bill
that any objective observer would say does not realistically
address the issue of exporting bulk water. It just does not do
it. In fact, it opens the door to the export of water by
providing for the licensing in certain circumstances, the
licensing that would eventually lead to the export of bulk water.
We are also faced two years down the road, under the FTAA, with
another trade deal. Of course we still have not seen the text of
the deal. We do not really know what it contains and the
government has been less than clear as to what its position is on
the trade deal. We do know that the government has refused to
make an absolute or unequivocal commitment that the FTAA will
prohibit the export of bulk water. It has been adamant about
refusing to make that commitment.
I found it interesting last week when the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was speaking on the bill. I would like to quote him. He
said:
We have heard that from other members of the government. It
makes sense and we all agree with that. I think all Canadians
agree with that. The problem I have when I look at the bill is
that the government is in fact not committed to that principle.
It in fact does not recognize that water is a natural resource
unto itself, unlike any other.
In his remarks, the Minister of Foreign Affairs went on to say
this:
Canadians look to all levels of government to take action now to
protect Canada's water. We must ensure that our children and
grandchildren inherit a Canada in which our freshwater resources
are secure.
Again I ask: does he really understand what he is saying? Why
will the government not give us that commitment, which was
certainly contained in the motion passed over two years ago that
was brought forward by my colleague from the NDP? It did not at
that time place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk
freshwater and the legislation that has now been introduced in
the form of Bill C-6 does not in fact prohibit bulk freshwater
exports.
1745
Let me draw the House's attention to proposed section 11 of the
bill on licensing. To be fair, there is a separate provision
which talks about prohibiting the export of water, never using
the term of course. The government knows that if it uses that
term it may invoke the trade deals. Again that is something it
will not admit in public.
The first part of proposed section 11 states “except in
accordance with a licence”. A licence in fact would permit
this. The proposed section continues, and this is the important
part “no person shall use obstruct or divert boundary waters”.
In reverse that says, and I guess I am wearing my lawyer's hat
for a minute, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is
responsible for this, and that it is interesting too that it is
not the Minister of the Environment, could issue a licence that
would allow “for the use, either temporarily or permanently” of
boundary waters. It is permitted.
The history up to this point of this legislation and the treaty
it flows into with the United States, is that nobody has done
this. Canada and the United States have not done it. What we
hear is the implicit understanding that we will not do it.
Given the more recent history in the last decade with the free
trade agreement, NAFTA and now the proposed FTAA, it is obvious
that we are very concerned that the water would be treated as a
commodity and would be exposed under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that if we pass the bill,
it becomes law and is incorporated into the treaty then all
problems would be solved. Anybody reading the proposed section 11
would say that that is not what the bill does. It does just the
opposite. It allows some subsequent minister of foreign affairs
to licence the export of bulk water.
The other point about the bill is that it is primarily designed
to deal with the water in the Great Lakes Basin and the St.
Lawrence. It deals with boundary waters across the whole of the
country. What it clearly does not do though is prohibit the
export of water. It does not deal with the proposal we heard
floated from the province of Newfoundland and the export of bulk
freshwater from Gisborne Lake. That proposal has not been dealt
with at all.
We fall back as we so often do and say that that is the
provincial responsibility. That is not good enough for
Canadians. If we have what is called a Monroe government, which
is prepared to expose the rest of Canada to chapter 11 under
NAFTA by going along with the bulk export water scheme, we as a
Canadian government have to tell it that it cannot do that, that
water is a natural resource which is also a national resource. We
have a responsibility to protect all Canadians.
If Gisborne Lake or some other type of hare-brained scheme like
that was to go ahead, there would be no protection for the export
of bulk water any place in Canada, none whatsoever.
We have a number of legal opinions in the country that accept
the proposition I just made as the reality under the NAFTA. If
Gisborne Lake or some other scheme like that goes ahead, water
becomes a commodity in the whole of the country. We then lose
our ability to protect that freshwater resource.
1750
The Minister of Foreign Affairs in his address to the House last
week made this comment:
To pretend that one government can solve the issue with a wave of
a legislative wand, or that the issue may be simply reduced to
one aspect, such as `water export', in the words of some critics,
is unrealistic, ineffective and undermines the goal we have.
That is the government's attitude. Obviously what it is trying
to do is pass the buck and say that it is not its fault, that it
is what the provinces did or did not do and that it did nothing
about it.
Reality is that two years ago the government should have
implemented a moratorium on the export of bulk water. It should
have introduced meaningful legislation to the House that would
have prohibited absolutely and unequivocally the bulk export of
freshwater right across the country. It would have made a clear
and unequivocal commitment that the FTAA would not include any
provision that would expose our water to a claim under that
treaty, if we ever did do it.
The government could have taken a leadership role but it did
not. It needed to follow both the wording and the spirit of the
motion that was passed two years ago in the House. What did we
hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs? He said that kind of
export ban would undermine the goals we had. One has to question
what the government goals are with regard to freshwater and the
bulk export of it?
It was interesting to note in the minister's closing comments
last week on Bill C-6 when he said that the bill was “consistent
with Canada's international trade obligations”. That is so
meaningful. Like just about everything else the government does,
it is driven by those obligations, not driven by what is in the
best interests of the country or its citizens but by these trade
deals that the government has entered into.
Would it not have made more sense to have had the Minister for
International Trade front this bill because that is really what
it is about?
The Minister of the Environment when he spoke to the bill made
this comment “the safest and most effective way of protecting
Canada's water resources is through an environmental approach,
through an approach based on trade”. I agree with that
statement. That is the way the government should be conducting
its business but it is not in fact the reality.
We still do not have the commitment that the FTAA will not
compel us to bulk export. If water is not on the table under the
FTAA, then we should be given a commitment. The government is
not prepared to give a commitment.
The Minister of the Environment went on to quote from the
international joint commission's final report on the issue of
water in the Great Lakes Basin, specifically and more generally
in transboundary water, which said “that international trade law
does not prevent Canada and the United States from taking
measures to protect their water resources”.
The Minister of the Environment is conceding that we in fact
cannot pass legislation that protects our water resources. Again
the question is obvious. Why do we not do that? Simple
legislation is required to ban the export of bulk fresh water.
I would like to finish off by talking about the legal position
we are in vis-à-vis the trade deals. I will quote from a legal
opinion that was commissioned by the Council of Canadians in 1999
referring to the trade conflicts involving export controls on
water.
1755
The opinion stated:
That was two years ago and we still do not have it.
I was going to quote again from the concern expressed in that
legal opinion about the things that have happened under NAFTA and
some of the WTO cases, but I see I am almost out of time.
We had promises from the government in the cultural area and in
research and development programs that were not covered under
NAFTA. In fact we found to our chagrin just the opposite. That
is the position we are in today.
The bill is not going to resolve that problem. It does not go
far enough. It does not deal with it adequately. It allows for
licensing and does not deal with the export of water elsewhere in
Canada.
Our position on this legislation will be to oppose it and to
continue to press the government for more realistic and adequate
legislation that will protect the interests of Canada.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while I appreciate very much the intent and objectives expressed
by the member for Windsor—St. Clair, I do not share his view as
to the sinister motivation of the Government of Canada with
respect to the legislation.
Is the member aware of the council of environmental ministers
agreement in November 1999 when they agreed to honour the need to
prohibit bulk water removal? If he is aware of that agreement,
how would he propose that we build on that particular agreement
to make absolutely certain that bulk water removal will never
take place?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that
conference and the agreement. Before I fully answer the
question, let me make this point.
The real problem with that agreement is that it is an
understanding between three sovereign governments, but it does
not control the conduct of some company that might come in say
that since we have treated it as a commodity they will challenge
that sovereign government. It does not prohibit that company
from taking that action.
The answer to the question and the resolution of the issue is
for a ban to be passed in Canada and in the United States, and I
suppose in Mexico as well, so we have national legislation. We
need an amendment to the NAFTA agreement, and in the FTAA if we
ever go ahead with it, that specifically exempts water from those
types of challenges. It would recognize that it is not a
commodity, that it is a fundamental right of those individual
countries and cannot be challenged in any way by any private
corporation.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not
sufficiently clear in posing my question and I will rephrase it.
In November 1999 the council of environmental ministers of
Canada met, concluded and agreed, that is my understanding at
least, on the need to prohibit bulk water removal.
1800
If the member concurs with the decision of the Canadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment, how would he propose that we
build on the agreement to ensure bulk water is not removed from
Canada? That is the question.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon.
member for Davenport. My answer remains the same. We need
legislation. We need specific provisions in the treaties to
prohibit the export of water and prevent challenges under chapter
11. I do not know if I can be more explicit than that. That is
the manner that I see for dealing with it and it is consistent
with legal opinions we have heard on the topic.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I fully endorse the comments of the NDP member. However
in 1993 we thought that NAFTA was one of the greenest agreements
that could be negotiated and one on which we could agree
regarding trade. Now, the fact is that there have been many legal
challenges under chapter 11 on relations between companies and
the government.
I am thinking in particular of the legal challenges issued by
companies, which I will not name, when they wanted to get a
permit from a province such as British Columbia. This is a fact.
Therefore would it not be fair and appropriate to include in
the future agreement on the free trade area of the Americas
which, if I am not mistaken, is scheduled to be signed in April
2005, provisions that cannot be legally challenged, to ensure
that water is not defined as a good but rather as a resource
and an investment?
As parliamentarians should we not immediately show leadership
in the negotiations to ensure that water is not a good, but a
resource to be protected?
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree in any
way with my friend from the Bloc. The point he has made is well
taken. We must not only prohibit companies from doing that. We
must define what water is. It is not a commodity; it is a
natural resource. We should move it to a higher level where it
is a basic human right, and we should define it that way in the
treaties. In all respects, no matter how broadly we looked at
it, that would prevent water from ever being treated as a
commodity.
It brings to mind the Sun Belt challenge we are facing in
British Columbia. If water is classed as a basic human right no
corporation in the world would even think of mounting such a
challenge. My friend from the Bloc is correct. The wording must
be strong and clear so that we never again face such a challenge.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in
the member's comment about stopping corporations from suing. I
am quite surprised. I know the hon. member across the floor was
a barrister in his previous career. I also practised law for 18
years before entering the public sector.
It perplexes me that the member is now proposing that we bring
in legislation to forever prevent corporations or governments
from suing.
As the member knows, legislation and lawsuits are based on
interpretations of legislation every day. How do we prevent a
corporation from issuing a $75 or a $125 statement of claim and
suing? We can never prevent that. There are frivolous and
vexatious lawsuits. As the hon. member knows, lawsuits are
undertaken for many reasons and not necessarily because they are
right.
1805
In light of the hon. member's expertise as a barrister in this
area, can he tell the House how we or any government can prevent
a corporation, individual or country from pursuing a claim
against a government or individual? I would be happy to hear how
he addresses the issue.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the list is fairly long
and the answer must be short. The easiest answer, as I said in
my response to the member from the Bloc, is that we make the
wording of the legislation and the treaty so clear that they
would not even think of starting a lawsuit. That is the first
answer.
There are a number of other ways. The introduction of a cost
disincentive is one method we have used traditionally in the
court system.
The most important is who gets to make the decisions. The
decisions must not be made by faceless, non-elected,
non-responsible panel members. The composition of the panel
would make a big difference as to whether such litigation
attempts are made.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise on this very important subject. The
aspect of the debate that peaks my interest is how fast the water
issue has changed. For hundreds of years we have taken our water
supply for granted. We have always just turned on the tap and
had good, clean, clear water, although lately we are finding some
of our water to be contaminated.
We have heard of Walkerton and the issues there. In my own
riding there are two or three areas where, for the first time,
water is contaminated and no longer drinkable. We are becoming
greatly inconvenienced and facing real problems because of
contaminated water.
A little community called Nappan in my area has water that is
totally contaminated, perhaps by certain practices in the farming
community. This will happen more and more.
The water issue is important and deserves far more attention
than the government is giving it. As my colleague from St.
John's West said in the last few minutes, we need to stop
pussyfooting around and enact legislation with teeth. He is
absolutely right.
This legislation is kind of interesting. It broaches the
subject and starts to deal with it but does not go nearly far
enough. In a very few years water will become the most priceless
asset and important resource a country can have. We should be
addressing the issue now that we know what is happening. We need
legislation far stronger than the bill before us today.
The legislation is somewhat similar to Bill C-156 that the
Conservative government tabled in 1988. However that was a
different time and the bill was a prelude to other legislation.
This legislation is final and we have an opportunity to do much
more than we are doing with it.
I hope the government takes our comments seriously. We want
better legislation that is more comprehensive and has teeth. We
want the government to take a stand on all freshwater in Canada
and not just border water supplies.
The hon. member for St. John's West recently raised the issue
of the proposed exportation of Newfoundland water. He was told
in the House of Commons by the minister that there was nothing to
worry about because the government would deal with it in Bill
C-6. Here is Bill C-6, and it does not even come close to
addressing that important issue.
The last speaker mentioned rogue governments, which was rather
interesting. I think he was referring to the Liberal government
of Newfoundland which is proposing to export water.
We have no protection against that. The government has no way to
stop it, control it or deal with it. This could be the bill to
do so but it is not. It deals only with boundary water systems
and allows for the export of even those waters. It is not at all
appropriate or what we need.
1810
The government is sending mixed messages about its position on
water exports, which is confusing. It says one thing in question
period, another thing in the media and another thing
provincially. Now it has this bill which dances around the issue
but does not really address it.
The government is talking about setting up a committee next fall
to study issues, such as the selling and exporting of freshwater.
Why is that not part of the bill? Why are we not dealing with it
now? Why are we passing a half-baked bill with no teeth, as the
hon. member for St. John's West has said, that pussyfoots around
the issue but does not really deal with it?
The bill will not even come close to dealing with the
Newfoundland issue. After the Prime Minister's negotiations with
the American president he suddenly changed his position. At one
point he was adamant about water exports and then he shifted
ground. He is now sending a message that we will change our
position, and that is scary.
The government is sending another mixed message regarding the
NDP's call for a moratorium on water exports. Everyone supported
the motion, including all the Liberals. Where is the motion now
in the bill? It is not there. It is completely invisible.
Then again, maybe we should be used to that because the
government seems to always say one thing and do another. Need I
mention the promises to cancel the GST, change the free trade
deal and bring in an ethics commissioner answerable to
parliament? Those things have never happened and no commitment on
freshwater is being honoured here.
The PC Party has been very clear on this. We support the total
prohibition of the selling of bulk freshwater. That is very
clearly the way to go for the future, to guarantee protection for
our water supply which we see changing very quickly.
I listened to a program on CBC Prince Edward Island the other
day about how the province must revamp its agricultural
processes. It must cut back on agricultural production and
completely change the way it does business because of the
poisoning of rivers and lakes. Obviously the agriculture
industry does not want to be part of that.
Prince Edward Island has a serious problem. We also have
problems in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Newfoundland is talking
about selling water. This is going on and on. There is no
excuse for not dealing with the issue now but we still do not
know the real position of the federal government.
Apart from the prohibition we would like to see, the amendments
in the bill allow for a licensing regime for boundary projects
such as dams and obstructions. Here we are talking about a
licensing regime for exceptions. We are talking about passing a
bill but are already including exceptions that would contravene
the rules, go around the system and ruin whatever strength and
teeth the bill has.
Of all the countries in the world we are the most vulnerable,
although we have the biggest supply of freshwater. We have 300
lakes and rivers that share boundaries with the United States.
Dividing them up in the future will be extremely controversial,
yet the bill does not deal with the issue.
As I mentioned earlier, Canada has 40% of the freshwater in the
world and we should be protecting it. Eventually it will be the
most priceless commodity and valuable asset any country can have.
At present, one billion people do not have access to safe water.
We have it now and should do everything we can to protect it.
As far back as 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party was
concerned about the issue of exporting water. We formed a
committee to study the issue and ensure the right steps were
taken.
1815
Unfortunately when the Liberal government came to power it
dropped all interest in preserving freshwater. It made deals,
such as the free trade agreement which, prior to being in power,
it opposed vehemently. It was entirely against the free trade
agreement and then all of a sudden switched positions, became in
favour of it and supported the enhancement of the delivery of
water, which is what we are talking about here today.
In the late eighties and early nineties, the Progressive
Conservative Party repeated that Canada's water was not for sale
and that it would not be affected under the free trade agreement.
Now we hear talk about loosening it up, being a little more
flexible, bringing it to committee and finding out what is
appropriate and what is not.
We are saying that there should be no sale of bulk water. We do
not need to bring it to committee to discuss it. The sale of
bulk water is prohibited and it should stay that way.
Again I bring up the changing environment with which we are all
dealing. We have all taken freshwater for granted for years and
years and all of a sudden it is no longer applicable. We cannot
take our water for granted anymore. We have to take steps to
protect it or we will no longer have it.
Our world population is expected to grow to eight billion people
by the year 2025. By then it is estimated that half of the
world's population will not have access to clean water. I hope
that the changes we make in parliament will not mean that Canada
will be part of the population that does not have access to clean
water.
One statistic recently estimated that water consumption would
increase by 40% and that 17% more water would be needed to grow
food for our growing population. Water could become our most
valuable asset.
Section 21 of the bill details areas that the governor in
council, basically cabinet, could regulate. This is scary
because cabinet, this cabinet or the next one, could change
regulations without bringing them to parliament or to the public
for discussion or debate. Regulations affecting our water could
be changed with no consultation with parliament. No regulations
referring to exports of water should be made without full
consultation with parliament, and the opportunity to debate it
and hear from the public.
I hope the legislation opens up the freshwater debate in a way
that would allow everyone in Canada to speak. If Canadians are
given that opportunity, the vast majority would say that we
should not export our water. A few people who want to make big
profits and take advantage of an opportunity would say that we
should export water but I believe the vast majority of Canadians
would oppose any move to make our water available to others.
I hope the government eventually states its position on the sale
of Canada's freshwater and that it clarifies it in all respects.
I hope the Liberal position supports the Progressive Conservative
position that Canada's freshwater is simply not for sale.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester for his
intervention. I want to make sure that I understood him
correctly. Could we take it as a firm commitment on the part of
the member and his party that they are opposed to any form of
bulk water exports, including a proposed export by the province
of Newfoundland that may occur one day?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as
concerned and interested in this subject as are we. We are
totally and absolutely against the export of bulk water from
Newfoundland. Our Newfoundland members support that position, as
does our entire party. We are against the export of bulk water
from Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, although this bill is relatively clear but rather broad
in scope, we are once again going to look at the issue of
exporting water while the Minister for International Trade is
here in the House. He has of course played a very active role at
the summit of the Americas.
1820
I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks that the
Minister for International Trade should do everything in his
power to ensure that water is not considered a commodity,
something that is negotiable and can, to a certain degree be
exported, thus depleting our natural resources.
With the Minister for International Trade here in the House, I
ask the Progressive Conservative member to tell us his position
with respect to the upcoming negotiations which, in December
2005, will result in an FTAA agreement which, to a certain
degree, is very desirable.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be unclear
at all. I am very clear that we are against bulk exports.
I have seen the whole subject of freshwater change dramatically.
In Atlantic Canada we are considered a pristine part of the
world. We have a lot of freshwater resources, but even there we
have places where our freshwater is now at risk and our water is
contaminated. Over the last 12 months, for the first time in
history, I have had three areas of my riding which have reported
back with contaminated water.
We have to take steps now to address the issue because it will
get worse. I mentioned earlier that I listened to a long program
on CBC Prince Edward Island the other day. Agriculture in Prince
Edward Island would have to change its practices and cut food
production dramatically because the result of the increased food
production would be contaminated water and less water.
It is a very serious issue. We cannot take any chances. In
many of these trade agreements, if we start to deliver a resource
and it becomes a commodity we are locked into that delivery. If
in the future our resources decline we cannot cut back on those
exports and we cannot cut back on supplying foreign countries
this product.
Once we establish a pattern we have to maintain it. We cannot
get into this subject at all, especially on P.E.I., where the
water has been contaminated and the farmers there are cutting
back. They are required to do so. I wanted to point that out to
the member from Prince Edward Island who is making interventions
and trying to help me make my point.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
could make the same argument that we would make in the province
of Newfoundland when we talk about bulk exports. We have many
requirements for the funding of health and education. Where do
our new dollars come from? They would come from the development
of our resources including the proper development of our water
supply.
The government seemed to be on our side when it responded to
questions I asked earlier. The Prime Minister then came back
after his chat with the president of the United States and was
very wishy-washy about it.
We cannot afford to export bulk anything unless we maximize
every job possible in that resource. Does the member not believe
that it is time that we salt down a deal to stop the export of
freshwater in the legislation?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, my riding has the highest
tides in the world and the Prime Minister's position was similar
to the tides. It came in and then it went out. The tide came in
when he was establishing his own position. He was totally
against the export of water. Then when he had a little visit
with the president of the United States, the tide went out. He
changed his position and said maybe we could negotiate this,
maybe we could bring it to committee and talk about it.
I believe that we should have legislation with teeth in it. We
should not pussyfoot around, to use the hon. member's own terms.
We should be very clear on our position and not have an ambiguous
proposal for legislation such as we have here.
1825
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another question of the member for Cumberland—Colchester. In
November 1999 the Canadian council of environmental ministers
agreed on the need to introduce a ban on the export of bulk
water. Given that commitment, does the hon. member think that a
voluntary commitment by the provinces on banning bulk water
exports would work?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's
question, I do not think it is enough because governments change
too fast. We are about to see some provincial governments
change and hopefully the federal government as well. However I
think in the very bear future we will see provincial governments
change. There is no guarantee or assurance that a commitment by
a government today will be honoured by the next government.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Or even by the same one.
Mr. Bill Casey: Or even by the same one because we have
seen local governments change position on subjects right away.
No, that is not enough. It has to be embedded in ironclad
legislation by the federal Government of Canada.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to
speak on the act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, Bill C-6. I welcome this opportunity because it
gives me a chance to also address some of the concerns that have
been raised and also perhaps address some myths that have been
raised in the debate.
There is a very strong consensus in Canada that governments
should act to ensure Canada's waters are protected from bulk
water removal. Therefore, the issue before us then is not
whether to protect the water but how best to accomplish that
common goal.
In February of 1999 Canada announced a three part approach to
prohibit the bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian
drainage basins. The environmental approach would protect and
regulate water in its natural state in the water basins and was
comprehensive, environmentally sound, respectful of
constitutional responsibilities and consistent with Canada's
international trade obligations. Bill C-6 embodies all aspects
of this approach.
Some people and groups advocated that the federal government
should take unilateral action by bringing in an export ban on
water. I would respectfully submit that such a trade based
approach is wrong. It is unrealistic especially in a
federal-provincial context. It would be ineffective, but worse
it would actually undermine the goal we all share.
I will outline why Canada has pursued an environmental approach
and why that approach is better than an export ban.
The International Joint Commission also known as IJC delivered a
landmark report in February 2000 entitled “The Protection of the
Waters of the Great Lakes”. I will reflect briefly on the IJC's
conclusions and recommendations. They are consistent with and
supportive of the broad environmental approach adopted by Canada
on the issue of bulk water removal.
The IJC concluded that water was a non-renewable resource. The
vast volume of the Great Lakes was deceiving. Less than 1% of
the water was renewed every year through the hydrological cycle.
The other 99% was a gift of the glacial age. Furthermore, unlike
a forest that could be replanted, taking water out of the water
basin was like mining. When it was gone, it would never return.
The IJC report stated “If all the interest in the Great Lakes
Basin were considered, there was never a surplus of water. Every
drop of water had several potential uses”.
Forty million Canadians and Americans depend on the waters of
the Great Lakes for every aspect of their lives: day to day
living, industry, recreation, transportation and trade. On top
of this, the ecosystem of the Great Lakes has its own equally
important demands on the water. As we are dependent on the
future health of the Great Lakes, the future health of the
ecosystem is dependent on our action.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that time is up. Perhaps
when we continue the debate, I will be allowed to continue at
that time?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Absolutely, and I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member. She will have 17 minutes
left in her speech when debate resumes on Bill C-6.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)